See bottom of post for important links

========================================





It's an Urban Myth that the Twin Towers Collapsed.





The Twin Towers Did Not Collapse,

They Were Pulverized Into Dust.





Look at the following two photos:



Where's the hundreds of tons of steel beams? Each tower was a 1/4 mile tall!



On top of that, where's the thousands of desks, chairs, bookcases,

computers, xerox machines, water coolers, filing cabinets, doors, sinks, toilets, etc?



source: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html





BEFORE:





AFTER:







========================================





On the afternoon of 9/11/01 the "rubble pile" left from WTC1 is essentially non-existent.



WTC7 can be seen in the distance, revealing the photo was taken before 5:20 PM that day.









========================================







These documentary excerpts reveal only one filing cabinet to have been found.

No doors, no phones, no computers, and no doorknobs:





http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm



http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/doorknob.htm







========================================





Examine the following three pictures.



Notice any similar characteristics?





Mount Saint Helens - Erupting Volcano - Massive Energy Release:









Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast - Massive Energy Release:









WTC - Massive Energy Release:









========================================







The disintegration of the steel core caught on film:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ







========================================





WTC 3: Huge gash. Building material "missing"









========================================







WTC 4: Clean vertical cut on the north wing.

Building material on other side of cut "missing"









========================================







WTC 5 / WTC 6: Round Cylindrical Holes. Building material "missing".

Mid-section of WTC 6 "missing"









========================================





What Toasted These Cars?



See here for much more: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html







Cars along FDR drive were randomly toasted. These cars are at least 1/2 mile away from the WTC.

Note the waviness of the tire tracks. What happened?











Did one car run under the other during the event or were they stacked after the event?

The marks in the pavement suggest they were pushed to the side of the road.











What was this thing across the street? Was it a car? Was it a van?

What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground on the right?

In the left foreground, the remains of a vehicle sit atop a white sedan.

Are we looking at the front or the back end?

It looks like the front end and if it is, its engine is missing.

We can see daylight through the wheel well.











Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?











The front half of car 2723 is toasted, but check out the new wax job on the back.

Notice the missing front door handle and the untouched back door handle.











========================================







Does This Look Like a "Collapse"?









========================================

========================================

========================================



Dr Judy Wood, former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University,

files official Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

citing fraud and deception in the 9/11 NIST Report.



Dr Wood is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.



See her website for her paper co-written with Dr Morgan Reynolds entitled

"Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)":

http://www.drjudywood.com



They show clear evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed by a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW).



Download Dr Wood's latest radio interview (May 2, 2007) where she details her latest research

"DEW Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors":

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/#news



Read through the RFC information in the "news" section and learn that NIST contracted with

Applied Research Associates (ARA) for the 9/11 NIST report.



Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology,

but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).



DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11.

An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:



"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers

on and over the battlefield - we're at the

beginning of an evolutionary new wave of

weaponry."





Videos:



Judy Wood at Cooper Union, NYC

September 10, 2006

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7643791621546831344



Judy Wood speaking at the forum 9/11 Search for Truth in Seattle

October 28, 2006

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868





For the Best in Uncensored 9/11 Research:

http://www.911researchers.com

Wow - that's some first post there, CBBrooklyn - welcome to CoRe

You've presented the evidence for the towerss' demolition very succinctly, nice job. I'm curious to know more about the pictures of the vehicles - such as the police car, for example:
. The front is clearly a burnt-out shell, but the rear looks completely untouched. What could cause this to happen, indeed?

I've seen this photo before, but not in a sequence of pictures where you other vehicles have suffered similar effects. This certainly has me asking more questions about the anomalies surrounding the demolition of the twin towers, as it would appear that there could well be more to it than the buildings simply being rigged for controlled demolition.

Now I'm wondering how this all fits in with "Last Man Out" William Rodriguez's escape from the towers, where he ran from the building and hid under a vehicle immediately before the second tower came down. With evidence of such extreme heat (damage to the vehicles) in the vicinity, it seems a miracle that he wasn't scorched as well.

Many thanks for all the links & videos - I'm looking forward to going through these. This weekend, I'll also get around to creating custom BB tags, so that members can embed Goo-Tube videos in their posts as well - I've been meaning to get around to this for a while.

Thank you again - great post.

Mairi

Thanks Mairi. I did put a bit of time into this post (posted in a bunch of forums). Im going to update it, actually, to address a few issues raised in other forums.

The toasted cars sure don't fit in with standard CD, all right. Dr Wood has explained that only directed energy could explain it. She says the heat would have had to be very high, and only for a short time. Not something a building "collapse" would do.

Check out her toasted cars page for much more:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

She also added a link to the bottom of that page which reveals even more!

Aye, I can see the time it would take to create your post. It certainly does have impact, & thank you for posting it on CoRe.

The link you gave - very interesting page indeed - but I noticed that some of the images (towards the end of the first page especially) are no longer available. I see that they are simply linked into the pages from Photobucket (rather than being hosted on the website itself).

Do you know whether these images have they been pulled by Photobucket, or whether this is this simply a linking problem, or else due to the site still being under construction?

I'm very curious about what might cause this sort of damage - especially seeing the photos with masses of unburned paper surrounding fiercely burning vehicles. I also remember the scene from "In Plane Site" where computer monitors, desks, & books were visible on the periphery of the hole in the Pentagon (when the fire was meant to have been so fierce that it vapourised the aircraft!).

For anyone who's not managed to have a look yet, here's an intriguing clip from Dr. Wood's pages:


I'd love to know what others make of this - it's one of the weirdest things I've seen about 9/11 so far.
Mairi

The images might have been down temporarily (increased traffic??) but looks okay now.

I agree! And "weird" things must come from "weird" weapons

In this new paper (still under construction) Dr Wood exposes the information Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins want kept hidden:


"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html


Let Dr Wood walk you through the paper in these recent interviews:

23 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (second half of mp3)
on "The Dynamic Duo"
(image numbers have been updated since this program)
http://tinyurl.com/2zhjjn

25 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Ambrose Lane
on "www.weourselves.org"
Listen: One 25 min segment (mp3)
http://www.frankferg.com/a-lane-5-25-07-jwc.mp3

One must understand what's going on here; it's not that difficult to.

I made numerous posts in the ae911truth forum, the most recent ones including the following links:

911 Octopus 8: Media Perps Unmasked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs

CNN Cartoon - 19 Rector Street building should NOT be there:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/389

The Frozen Fireball


http://www.911researchers.com/node/483

Half in, half out. No break in building between engines and fuselage.



Technology Review Magazine Discusses the military and TV Networks ability to use TV-Fakery to alter world politics:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/174

These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 9/11 TV-Fakery Very Clearly
http://www.911researchers.com/node/98


I also posted links to Dr Judy Wood's new work:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html


Less than 24 hours later, Gage disabled the forums. This did not come as a surprise actually, since Gage is promoting Steven Jones and is therefore a 9/11 Coverup Perp distracting people from the REAL provable inside job evidence of Exotic Weaponry and TV-Fakery at the WTC.

Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.

Another Cover Up Perp, Greg Jenkins, did an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. It has recently been discovered that Jenkins' has ties to the NSA. Only after a close analysis of this interview:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html did Dr Wood realize what Jenkins wanted kept secret.

Judy's new paper is based on the data that Jones/Jenkins want kept hidden:

Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html


Jones and his group have been doing everything possible to discourage people from looking at Judy Wood's directed energy weapon work and the obvious TV-Fakery evidence. (Yes, obvious, as demonstrated in the links at the top.) Why is Jones doing this?


Wood filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with NIST, and this RFC is archived on a US Government website:
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...y/PROD01_002619

Where is Jones' RFC? I don't see it there. Where is it? Where is the proof that he even sent one? No, a press release is not proof. Dr Wood sent her RFC registered mail, return receipt requested. Did Jones do this? I doubt it.

Jones is a cold fusion and 9/11 fraud. People need to wake up and look at the bigger picture to what's happening.

9/11 wasn't about the "Neocon political agenda", it was about energy. It was about population reduction. Read the info here and learn that Jones was a plant in 1989 to discredit free-energy research:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/125

Are you aware that, in 2004, Dr Eugene Mallove wrote an open letter to the world asking for research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point energy? A few months later, Eugene was murdered.

A very similar situation is of Michael Zebuhr, a 9/11 research student of Judy Wood's, who did experiments to prove Jones' research faulty. A few weeks later, he was murdered.

And then there's the Virginia Tech "inside job". Why didn't the police close off the area following that massacre? Perhaps it's because they knew who the perpetrators were. It just so happens that Judy Wood graduated from V-Tech and it was some of her instructors who were killed.

All Judy wants people to do is look at the data, the same data that Jones and his group discourage people from looking at. There is mass internet censorship of Dr Wood's work. Yet, it's her work that stands up to the facts.

People say that a directed energy weapon cannot "dustify" steel. But it can! Watch the film "Race To Zero Point" on google and you will learn. Zero Point... the same technology that Dr Mallove wanted research funds for. And then he was murdered.

People need to start thinking for themselves and looking at evidence. Where is the proof that Jones found evidence of thermate? For all we know his baggie could be contents from his vacuum bag.

Jones/Jenkins have ties to Los Alamos directed energy weapon research. This is the same technology that Judy Wood's censored work is about.

For everyone's sake, I hope the bigger picture is becoming clearer to everyone!

The new OGCT will soon become "conventional controlled demolition" of the towers and WTC 7 after "the airplanes hit". No mention of the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5, no mention of toasted cars, no mention of TV-Fakery. What will happen then? A new investigation based on the work of a former Los Alamos researcher? What will happen then? Impeach Bush? What will that do? We must remove the 9/11 perpetrators from power. This includes people associated with directed energy weapons, as well as the corporate media.

For the future of humanity, this is what must be done.

Are we now getting the bigger picture?

With this new research by Nico Haupt, I am now 100% convinced about Rodriguez. His claims of explosions in the subbasements are nothing but lies. This confirms Judy Wood's claim that explosions in the subbasements would have damaged the bathtub. Rodriguez is obviously just another plant.

Was 9/11 "Keymaster" Willie Rodriguez part of ABM Media Fakery Crew?
http://www.911researchers.com/node/555

Having had the great pleasure of meeting William Rodriguez and hearing him speak, I would sincerely doubt that he is in any way connected with any attempt to deliberately mislead - although this is not to say that he might not be subject to manipulation.

Reading through the "research" on the link you gave, I immediately noticed some glaring errors (deliberate distortions?) which left me with a rather nasty taste in my mouth. The first link I checked was this:Rather than back up the claim, the link given is for an empty Wikipedia article about William Rodriguez - with no past history of deletion. The intentions of the author can only be regarded most cynically in view of this.

Next item:Since the true goal of the "hijackers" was to be as visible as possible prior to 9/11, it seems entirely possible that Willie may well have seen one of them, although in the absence of any evidence, it's impossible to substantiate either way. I should also point out that none of William Rodriguez's testimony reached the 9/11 Omission Report - doesn't the author of this hitpiece consider it most likely that his testimony would have been used if he was some sort of NWO puppet, as is claimed?

Next:This is quite sickening. By the above reasoning, the deliberate link to the Wiki article is concrete and damning evidence of the author's intent to mislead and discredit. Since ignorance is no excuse, any subsequent claims by the author that they "linked to the wrong thing" or whatever are obviously completely bogus and intentionally so. There you have it - absolute proof!

Next:By now, I'm utterly disgusted. This is William Rodriguez's website: http://www.911keymaster.com/ Anyone with the nous to right-click / view source can see that the site has been created using "Web Page Maker v2" software. Web Page Maker is a FREE download - hardly the creation of an "exclusive" web design group, is it?!
Further, the site hasn't been updated at all this month. Instead of being updated "24/7", the most recent change to the site was back in May....

Next quote:Good for him!! That's exactly what we need - high-profile people who will stand up and help bring the evidence that something was very, very badly amiss to the attention of people all over the world.

Although someone purporting to be Rodriguez (Roudy) commented on the article, it sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard him say: I'm sure that anyone else who has heard William Rodriguez speak will confirm that he does not become involved in the theoretical or unsubtantiated, but instead sticks entirely to what he witnessed - what he knows and can confirm, which quite honestly is all anyone can do.

The overall tone of the article - and a great many comments in answer to it - give, I believe, a valuable insight into the motivations of at least a number of people on the site. If there is substantiative evidence that beam weapons / other exotica and camera trickery were used on 9/11, then that evidence should be able to stand on its own.

Instead, the article resorts to cheap tactics of character assasination in producing this largely unsubstantiated hitpiece. There may well be *some* links of value in amongst that pile of dung, but the stink is too unbearable for me to wish to spend any more time trying to find them.

Practically every single person who has done anything of real value to bring 9/11 to people's attention was systematically assassinated - from Alex Jones to Dave von Kleist, & David Ray Griffin, and others. No sane person would seriously suggest that they will win over huge numbers of 9/11 uninitiates by preaching the gospel of bluebeam, no planes, and/or directed beam weapons. It is simply too outlandish for your average Joe to contemplate - let alone afford any serious consideration.

Those with more "conventional" views countering the "official" conspiracy theory are the ones most likely to get people to listen. "No planers" throwing tantrums because people don't give them enough attention / kudos / benefit of the doubt only have themselves to blame - if they are correct & their theory is so darned obvious, they need to systematically prove it to people using solid research - instead of ad hominem attacks. I summary, what I witnessed over there was almost sinister in its similarity to a cult - simply a belief system that the more circumspect rightly view with deep suspicion.

I think it might be more manipulation, rather than "in on it", but the information in that link is very interesting.

TV-Fakery has already been conclusively proven many times, to those who look at the information. Why not head on over to http://911researchers.com and see?

Nico's "tone" is part of his writing style... it exists in all his works. He made a typo in the wikipedia link.. after clicking it you need to remove the last three characters.

I'm afraid to say that it will be a while before I go back to that site if this sort of shoddy hitpiece journalism is the best that they have to offer

The other thing that I find worth mentioning at this point is that, the more someone is ridiculed, demeaned and belittled, the more likely it generally is that certain people would rather that the truth of what they are saying was hushed up and left unheard. This, I believe, is almost always true of ad hominem personal attacks.

I think that the disgraceful hatchet job that Greg Jenkins executed on poor Judy Wood a few weeks ago is pretty representative of this sort of vitriolic attack, apparently because Dr. Wood has evidently got too close to the truth for Jenkins' comfort.

A link to a wiki article certainly doesn't stand as evidence that it's Willie's "own bio" - a wiki is public property, for heaven's sake - hardly any sort of personal statement by Willie. I think that the fact that he has travelled so much and worked so hard to bring the events of 911 under public scrutiny is to be applauded. No-one has all the facts or all the evidence yet, and until we do, my own feeling is that anyone who reaches people and engenders interest in researching things for themselves is to be commended.

There are plenty of people who have no qualms about using despicable lies and underhand tactics to silence people whose words they fear - Greg Jenkins attack on Dr Judy Wood being just one of many examples.

For anyone unfamiliar with the ambush interview hatchet job he performed, it can be viewed here on Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 (I don't particularly recommend this clip, except to say that I believe it demonstrates fairly substantial evidence in Judy's favour.

From Andrew Johnson's website:
Continue to read....

I have every sympathy with both Willie & Judy, as I truly believe that a large part of the reason for them being humiliated, victimised, and subjected to public abuse is because someone, somewhere, would rather they were silent and didn't state their account of what they believe to be the truth quite so clearly and persistently.

Whether deseved or not, the nature of mud is such that it sticks. I would rather CoRe stayed clear of any such mudslinging, which reminds me of the following pithy quote:
"Those who throw dirt are sure to lose ground"

Another excellent post and yet more intriguing evidence - thank you very much for this, CBBrooklyn.

Although I am personally leaning towards the compelling evidence that that it could not have been demolitions, but is instead looking more likely to have been directed energy weapons that could have felled the twin towers, I certainly don't yet think there is enough evidence to conclusively say that this is the case.

However, I definitely also have grave reservations concerning Stephen E. Jones's part in this. For anyone wanting to know more, I posted a couple of documentaries, plus over 100 PDFs of Tesla's patents a couple of weeks ago. The torrent can be viewed on the tracker here, downloaded directly from here: Azureus Magnet: Tesla & Cold Fusion Suppressed Information or here: Click to view attachment

Although I originally posted these torrents because of my current investigations into manmade UFO technology, there's a wonderful synchronicity about how much of that info fits in with the evidence you're presenting here.

Regarding the Jenkins' ambush interview of Dr Wood, see here too:



Reading between the lines reveals more evidence behind the use of DEW on 9/11 and advances scientific understanding of what happened


This began as "Dr. Greg Jenkins' Surprise 'Interview' of Prof. Judy Wood: a Transcript Analysis," with a transcription by Andrew Lowe Watson, and with added pictures & comments. Many thanks to Andrew for taking the time to see what was actually in this video and for sharing the text of the transcript with us. Also, we wish to thank Greg Jenkins for the valuable clues he gave us in advancing our understanding of the effects of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons).



continued...
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html

Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11.

See September Clues in the following five 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)


http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4DE41...lues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F00F...lues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928...lues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A85...lues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68FD7C73F...lues-part5.aspx

==========================

My opinion on these videos:

If you don't have time to watch all of them, I'd recommend parts 1 and 5. Those two parts offer NEW ANALYSIS and clear evidence of TV-Fakery.

From a plastic nosecone going in one side of the steel/concrete building and coming out the other, to the mysterious 17 second time difference between the seismic events and official "strike" times, these videos irrefutably prove TV-Fakery.

These videos have become very popular on the internet, have been linked to from rense.com (before they took it down), and also on indymedia. With TV-Fakery being the **obvious common sense reaction** from these videos, the full truth exposure of 9/11 may be closer than we think! But this will only happen if each of us do our part in exposing it.

There's no doubt that William Rodriguez has a huge stake in his 911 stories from a personal point of view in that he has become the most famous janitor in the whole wide world, but I'm not keen to throw him out just yet. Perhaps I will once I've looked at your links, but for now, please could you (CBBrooklyn) explain this. You said:



OK, so where do reports that talk about the 18 inch (or is it 3ft) lateral movement of the basement foundations adjacent to the river fit in? Are they lies too, or is there another explanation? I only ask because I've not seen that de-bunked before. Sorry if I'm being lazy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Excellent. Best summary of that aspect I've seen. Thanks

I think it definitely warrants a deeper look into these matters.

Anyone wishing to check out unprocessed footage - apart from its transferrance from VHS to DVD format - might be interested in this torrent:
Azureus Magnet: 9/11, the First Five Hours
Click to view attachment
Some interesting stuff there.

the surprises keep getting more surprising, whats next, none of this is real? just a bad dream? hope so. but the thing is, where are the passengers of those flights?? their families have reason to hope. So where are they, were they executed, jailed or what? Someone in high places needs to answer that question quick.

Discussion took place at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth


With Prof Steve Jones and Dr William Deagle - 24th June 2007


Transcript by Andrew Johnson

Footnotes mainly by Andrew Johnson, with additional comments by Prof Judy Wood.


This is quite an extraordinary discussion in many ways - and in my view, clearly demonstrates that neither Jones or Deagle are being completely honest in their discussion.


You will hear them:


· Claiming to be discussing the evidence, but in reality they don't discuss any evidence.
· Deagle claim Seattle has been pre-wired with mini-nukes.
· Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust samples and send them to Deagle or Jones.
· Deagle claiming he has evidence of mini-nukes from "contacts" but he hasn't completed testing his samples - even though he is very concerned to find out what they will use for the next attack.
· Deagle claims he is 100% sure thermate or superthermate was used to destroy the towers
· Deagle describes the effects on toasted cars as being potentially from an EMP pulse, but he dismisses the evidence for DEW.
· Jones gets Deagle to agree that the evidence of no planes hitting the WTC towers is "ridiculous"
· Deagle claims micronukes were used in the Oaklahoma bombing
· Deagle doesn't know whether they are fusion or fission nukes
· Jones mentions WTC Iron quite a few times.
· Both Jones and Deagle talk about an Isotope of Iodine 110 - but this is extremely obscure (the stable Isotope of Iodine is 127)


Even though Deagle suggests there is going to be a multiple nuke attack in the USA, Homeland Secuirty don't seem to have expressed an interest in this.


Listen to the audio or read the transcript.


Transcript with footnotes, audio, and video links:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Jones-...hermate-etc.htm


Backup link:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/641


==============================================

CB's opinion:

Steven Jones continues to out himself... first as a Cold Fusion fraud in 1989 who discredited free energy research to keep the world addicted to oil http://www.911researchers.com/node/125 , and now as a 9/11 fraud who distracts us from the real evidence of directed energy weapons at TV-Fakery at the World Trade Center. Is it coincidence that Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapon research is conducted?


Jones/Deagle agreed that the "discussion should be evidence-based". So why did Jones say, just a few seconds later, "I don't think this is the place to go through all the evidence"?

Why didn't they discuss the clean surgical cut on the north wing of WTC 4, in which all the building material on the other side of this cut is missing? Why didn't they discuss the fact that the cut was in the same path as the South Tower's north wall? The South Tower was pulverized, and so was all WTC 4 material on the other side of that cut. Sounds like evidence of a directed energy weapon to me!




Yellow/red box below locates north wing of WTC 4.
As can be seen, the wing was "cut" in the path of the north face of WTC 2:





Nor did they discuss the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5/6, further evidence of directed energy beams!




They conclude that no planes at the towers is "ridiculous". That's some scientific analysis, huh? One must wonder why they didn't discuss the actual evidence for no planes instead of jumping to conclusions.

For instance, they didn't discuss an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone being swallowed up by a steel/concrete building:












Notice how Deagle talks about nukes in Seattle. This is a scare tactic, directed toward the Truth movement. Does the movement really need to lean on his shoulder? Perhaps we should look at information for ourselves instead of trusting "mild mannered sounding" people.....

Hi CB,

Once again, very interesting stuff - thank you for this.
I have a couple of questions, please, about what you wrote below - hope you can help?
Being relatively new to this theory, I think I'm missing something from the photos below, so I'm hoping you might know of some other photos / diagrams that would show more clearly what's going on, as I'm sure this would be very useful for others, too.


Do you know if the same photo exists, except with arrows overlaid, to show the cut, and orientation of the picture? I think most people would assume that North is straight upwards in the photo, but it's worth being sure of.




OK, I can see that North does seem to be straight upwards, but I'm not certain that I understand how the face was "cut", although I presume you mean from right to left in this picture, just catching the top right corner of WTC2? Again, do you have something with an arrow in the diagram, to clarify?

When were these photos taken? I can see that the South wing of WTC4 is absent in the photo; I would imagine that it's been demolished at this stage? If so, is there any equivalent photo to the top one, existing from before the demolition? I think, from these photos, that someone might be able to ake a case for saying that the South side of the North wing of WTC4 is damaged only because of the demolition of the South wing, so I htink we need to be able to make a watertight case, and show evidence of damage prior to the South wing being taken down?



I'm afraid I'm not seeing these at all. Can you please circle these in the photo, to demonstrate where the cylindrical sections have disappeared? I think other people might have trouble with this too, so I think that circling the areas could be useful here. I'm assuming that the cylindrical section might originate from WTC7 - or am I looking at this the wrong way? Everyone else probably sees this just fine!

Mairi

New Segment Available for September Clues:

Part 6

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E733A247...lues-part6.aspx

9/11 Proof on Video: CNN/FOXNEWS-Involvement!!! Fake airplane impacts turn to be missiles at WTC

September Clues, Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE...ted&search=

September Clues, Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3hg4MMyqQ...ted&search=

September Clues, Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5EXXyN_Us...ted&search=

September Clues, Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9607IVOiY...ted&search=

September Clues, Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqvJyj5zEzg...ted&search=

September Clues, Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3lPxadzNI...ted&search=

The Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico says Dr Judy Wood's 9/11 directed energy weapon evidence is "interesting and worthy of further consideration".


Read on...


March 16, 2007: Former Clemson University Professor of Mechanical Engineering Dr Judy Wood files a Request for Correction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the 9/11 NIST Report. Dr Wood cites fraud and deception, and shows clear evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weaponry.

Dr Judy Wood is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.

Dr Wood's Request for Correction (RFC) is archived on the US Government's Department of Commerce website in PDF format:

RFC (March 16, 2007):
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...K/PROD01_002667

Supplement#1 (March 29, 2007):
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...K/PROD01_002722

Supplement#2 (April 20, 2007):
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...K/PROD01_002899



April 7, 2007: Dr Wood sends letter to

* The Head of U.S. Air Force Directed Energy Directorate
* The Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management
* The Board of Directors of Directed Energy Professional Society

The main question of this letter: "Are the effects set forth in RFC filed with NIST consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of directed energy weapons?"

See here for full letter with additional comments by Jerry Leaphart:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html



April 27, 2007: Wood and Leaphart are contacted and have telephone conversation with

The Director of Public Affairs
Directed Energy Directorate
Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA
Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico



May 3 2007: Leaphart sends letter to the Director of Public Affairs:
http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070503_letterGarcia.pdf



May 4, 2007: Leaphart receives the following FAX from the Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base (emphasis added):

===================================
MESSAGE: I received your fax yesterday and your FedEx package today, and had a chance to review the materials you sent. During our telephone conversation I outlined a variety of directed energies that might have future weapons applications but I'm not aware of any that are mature enough to cause the damage at the World Trade Center. Lasers are the most likely candidates for nearer-term weapons use and, to that enc, we have conducted laboratory tests to evaluate the effects of laser energy on different materials. For the most part, those materials have been metals, not concrete structures. Effects on metals are from the heat generated by an intense beam of coherent light, which cause the metals to weaken and split. Given sufficient heat, metals would melt (become liquids) and, given significantly more heat, could turn to gases. Since we haven't tested concrete I don't know if the effect would be dust. You report phenomena that we cannot explain here, either because we don't have enough data or because the phenomena are not within our area of expertise. While on a personal level I may find Dr Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration, on a professional level we are unable to devote our limited resources to activities outside of our charter, I wish you success in your endeavor and am available to answer whatever directed energy questions may arise.
===================================

See here for a scan of the original FAX document:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Garcia_letter.html


Dr Wood's 9/11 directed energy weapon evidence is "interesting and worthy of further consideration"!


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


June 29, 2007: The Chief of the Management and Organization division at NIST replies to Dr Wood, and states they need more time to respond to her RFC:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html

NIST needs **more time** ??


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


See Dr Judy Wood's 9/11 directed energy weapon research here:
http://drjudywood.com

Some Evidence for Weapons using Energy that is Directed on 9/11




Round cylindrical holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6:




Clean vertical cut on north wing of WTC 4, where all material on other side of cut is missing:




WTC 4 cut in direct path of South Tower's north wall:




Cars with missing engine blocks and unexploded gas tanks:




Front of police car toasted while rear in pristine condition. Plastic red light on top survived:




Front of fire truck wilted. Where did its engine go?




Tower's steel core turned to dust: [Video 1], [Video 2], [Video 3]

I have to say, I don't find this terribly convincing CBB, so I'm hoping you can support your case a bit better.

To take the 6 pics above:

1. Well yes: they're kind of circular, but they're also kind of square too - consistent with partial floor collapse from falling debris it seems to me, as a layman.

2. Again, the joints are the weakest point. I see exactly what I'd expect to see. Perhaps the "pancake" theory actually DOES work for this example - and you can see some of the exterior structure of WTC 2 in the footprint of 4. That's the one that toppled over a bit as it fell isn't it?

3. Erm, can't think of anything to say on that one because of the above!

4. Cars with missing engine blocks and unexploded fuel tanks? This seems speculative to me. Where's the report that confirms this for each car in the pic? Looks like an uncontrolled burn out in a parking lot to me. If the firefighters hadn't been otherwise occupied I suspect this would have been limited to a few cars at most.

5. I've spent some time around auto scrap yards and I used to live near to one of the biggest in Europe. This half-burned, half-untouched phenomenon is not as rare as you might think. Certainly I've seen it before. Besides the seats, there's really not that much to burn in the middle of a car - and there's nothing to prove that this car wasn't tackled by firefighters at some stage anyway.

6. Judging by the tidy positioning of this firetruck it could well have been put there later. Perhaps the front end was crushed with falling debris when it was closer to the towers? Following the collapses I suspect that many roads were blocked by destroyed emergency vehicles. One of the first tasks would have been to get them out of the way - in which case we are not looking at the damage in the right context.

Another point which comes to mind is the apparently upward trajectory of some of the debris that was visible during the collapse of WTC1 and 2. I have no idea how the effects of a destructive beam would look, but at the moment I'm guessing that it would look rather like the pressure wave of a nuclear explosion, ie everything pretty much moves off in the same direction, so if it came from the sky there would be no upward trajectory - and if it came from another building, such as WTC7 I would have expected WTC1 and 2 to have moved sideways accordingly. Can you explain this to me please?

I'm not dismissing your angle, not by any means, as I feel that all hypotheses should be discussed publicly. But for me, for now, directed energy beams are not terribly convincing - and as for the dust, I can't help thinking there might be more to come out regarding the concrete core idea (a la Christopher A Brown) - although there's also the testimony of the IT guy (Scott Forbes was it? Not sure). You know, the guy who reported drilling noises and lots of dust in the run up to the 911 roll-out and especially the weekend prior.

On a speculative note of my own - given the testimony of the people who heard explosions in WTC7 in the morning, and the testimony of William Rodriguez about bombs in the basement of WTC1 or 2 BEFORE the planes struck, it seems reasonable to suggest that there MIGHT have been explosives in some or all of the others too. Has anyone ever heard eye witness testimony from anyone in WTC3, 4, 5 or 6? I'm not sure I have.

Hi Entropiate,

Thanks for your info on the 1/2 burned 1/2 untouched phenomenon - I hadn't realised that this was a fairly common occurrance, it's interesting to hear this.

Regarding the dust from the pulverised concrete, my own observation is that this would certainly happen if e.g. the steel supports were somehow melted / pulled - with nothing to support the concrete, it would consequently turn to dust as everything gave way. I haven't had time to look into this very much yet, but I think this theory might have some milage in it, as it fits with the evidence of the ultra-hot melted steel still evident at ground-zero weeks after 9/11.

I have no idea what could cause steel to melt like that - maybe it could be some type of DEW. However, I do wonder if somehow melting the steel was somewhat to blame for how the towers came down, since this would fit with the pulverised concrete and melted steel found, and I don't currently know of any other valid explanation for this.

You have made some very interesting observations & asked some interesting questions regarding Dr Judy Wood's theories, & I hope that CBB can give some further info and evidence in clarification, as the resident expert on Dr. Wood's theories. I find it very interesting, although very speculative & not enough proof (as yet?) to sway me, but I'd like to know a lot more about this.

Well, let me say right here I'm not an expert on these matters, but in my experience, concrete, reinforced or otherwise does not voluntarily crumble to dust as a rule. I can only imagine the explosive power it would require to do that. Others have formulae; but either way, it's not what happens in a fire. Reinforced concrete breaks into big chunks far easier than it is blown to dust. Why so few chunks? Why so much dust? Where's all the rebar? Melted? Fire? Never. Imagine the heat and time required to melt that, (oh I don't know, say 15mm diameter) steel rebar, right along the length of all the concrete, throughout the whole building virtually simultaneously. It just can't happen. In any case, we've seen at least one video of the actual collapse from inside the building (is that in the Naudet Brothers film? Could be). They survived and the steel melted, inside the concrete?

In Chris's "version" of events, the towers did have a steel frame. Note that he only claims a concrete core above a certain level (80ft IIRC). Below that level we have pictures of construction showing a heavy steel frame. After the collapse that's gone too - and for my money that's where Prof Jones and his thermite comes in. There's room for both of them in my view. In fact, the "final solution" to the whole 911 story will necessarily involve piecing together a huge body research from a wide variety of sources these past few years.

As I understand it, CB and SJ are currently somewhat dismissive of each other at the moment, but I have a feeling that might change. I know others regard SJ a plant, but I'm not ready to write him off yet.

Once that video turns up, (and for some reason I'm absolutely certain that it will), everything will change.

WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

Analysis of the Evidence



If 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators obviously have total control of the media. In this case, would it not make sense for them to plant propaganda in the media to distract those who are already suspicious of the attacks? As Dr Judy Wood has asked, "If 9/11 was well planned, wouldn't the cover-up be even more well planned?" The perpetrators are experts at propaganda. Those who know 9/11 was an inside job also know the official story told by the media to be nothing but propaganda. Interestingly, the Washington Post says the military is targeting the "U.S. Home Audience" with a "propaganda campaign".


Americans have a bad habit of believing those who they consider trustworthy instead of examining evidence for themselves. As former Assistant Secretary to the US Treasury, Dr Paul Craig Roberts said, "Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don't know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts."



Many still trust George W Bush simply because of the media.

People don't check facts.

People don't analyze evidence.

People don't think.



How do we really know there was molten metal at Ground Zero? Just because a "mild mannered" scientist says so?

Let's take a look at the molten metal evidence piece by piece. The reader is encouraged to look at the information for themselves and to think for themselves.



*Eyewitnesses / Statements*

Leslie Robertson - Structural Engineer / Designer of WTC: On the Structural Engineers Association of Utah's website, James Williams (SEAU President) described what Robertson said at an October 2001 conference: "as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running".

Robertson received millions of taxpayer dollars and could be considered a member of the Global Elite. Who do the Global Elite represent, us or themselves?



William Langewiesche - Only Journalist to Have Unrestricted Access to Ground Zero During Cleanup:

In his book "American Ground", Langewiesche said: "in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."

Did Langewiesche see this molten metal himself, or is he repeating statements from others? Do the 9/11 perpetrators control the information the media puts out?



Ron Burger - Public Health Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

The National Environmental Health Association's paper "Messages in the Dust" quotes Burger: "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster."

Burger is on a government payroll. Is he trustworthy? Burger's statement was published in a government document. Is it trustworthy?



Ken Holden - Involved in Organizing Ground Zero Cleanup:

The 9/11 Commission Report quotes Holden: "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6."

Holden is on a government payroll and helped organize the cleanup of an inside job terrorist attack. Is he trustworthy? Is the 9/11 Commission Report trustworthy, or is it propaganda?



Guy Lounsbury - Member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing:

National Guard Magazine article written by Lounsbury (excerpt): "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." If the temperature was hot enough to melt the firefighters' boots,

their feet would have been incinerated.



When water comes in contact with molten metal,

the result is a steam explosion:

Wikipedia quote (emphasis added): "A dangerous steam explosion can be created when liquid water encounters hot, molten metal. As the water explodes into steam, it splashes the burning hot liquid metal along with it, causing an extreme risk of severe burns to anyone located nearby and creating a fire hazard."



A Google search reveals numerous government documents with warnings and safety information on this topic.

Rest assured, the Fire Department of New York knows not to spray water anywhere near molten metal!



Steam explosions are highly dangerous,

as we learned in NYC in July 2007:

Associated Press excerpt: "McCullough was driving a tow truck that was thrown into the air by the powerful geyser of steam. He landed in the crater gouged out by the blast and suffered third-degree burns over 80 percent of his body."



Source and more information on Dr Wood's site


Look at the Ground Zero photo below.

Note the fumes surrounding the workers. Is this really a steam explosion? Are the workers boiled?





Source



But what about the firefighters who claim to have actually seen molten metal? Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators performed a PSYOP suggesting it was molten metal, and this idea got repeated around Ground Zero. After such a tragedy as 9/11 people don't wish to reflect back and relive the event, so they latch on to the first answer they get.. See Dr Wood's site for more information.



(References for the witnesses above, as well as other quotes, can be found here and here.)



*Official Government Thermal Map Image*



Source



The official government thermal map from 9/16/01 above shows Zone F to be the largest hot spot. But the following photo shows no large hot spots just seven days later, 9/23/01:



Source

Assuming the official government thermal maps to be authentic, we know most of the molten metal disappeared less than two weeks after 9/11.



However, the US government thermal map images are likely doctored. As Dr Wood shows here and here, Zone F is the same area as this empty, damp hole in a FEMA picture filed 9/18/01. Where's the molten metal?





Source



*Solid Orange Slag*



This picture appears in Steven Jones' current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 "Why Indeed" paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer's aid. But is the picture authentic?

We notice the slag being lifted by a metal crane. Note the close proximity between the slag and the exposed hydraulics.

According to Jones' paper (and confirmed by the charts he references), the color of the solid metal slag indicates a temperature over 845° C.

Yet, mechanical engineering handbooks reveal hydraulics to fail at a fraction of the temperature of Jones' slag:

Machinery Lubrication – "Hydraulic Equipment Reliability: Beyond Contamination Control"

Quote (emphasis added): "Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging."

Machinery Lubrication – " Symptoms of Common Hydraulic Problems and Their Root Causes" Quote (emphasis added): "Fluid temperatures above 180°F (82°C) can damage seals and accelerate degradation of the fluid. This means that the operation of any hydraulic system at temperatures above 180°F is detrimental and should be avoided. Fluid temperature is too high when viscosity falls below the optimum value for the system's components. The temperature at which this occurs is dependent on the viscosity grade of the fluid in the system and can be well below 180°F."





Machine Design – "Predicting the life of hydraulic hose"

Quote (emphasis added): "Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set.

Temperatures below recommended will also shorten service life. This problem is evident when the inner tube shows signs of stiffness and cracks. Specials are available for either extreme: Low-temperature hoses for service to –67°F and high-temperature versions for applications exceeding 300°F. [300° F = 149° C]"



Jones' slag is over 845° C, yet hydraulic fluid systems fail above 82° C.



The recommended highest temperature for standard hydraulic rubber hoses is 100° C, with special heavy duty hoses available for temperatures above 149° C.



Given the vast temperature differences between the slag and the maximum operating temperatures for hydraulics, is it plausible for Jones' photo to be real? The temperature of the slag is over 10 times greater than the maximum allowable temperature for hydraulic fluid systems.



If there was molten metal in the ruins below,

the hydraulic systems in those orange grapplers would be destroyed.





Source



See Dr Wood's site for more information:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html#cheetos

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html#hydraulics





*NIST / Camera Planet Photo*





Source (Page 86 of the pdf file, page 382 of the printed NIST document)



Jones cites NIST as the source of the photo above. But he fails to mention that NIST admitted doctoring the image. In addition, Jones cropped the photo and removed NIST's caption that read "The intensity levels have been adjusted". The following is the photo as it appeared in Jones' paper:





Source (currently searching for copy of Jones' paper with this image)





Jones used the colors in the photo for scientific analysis, yet NIST admitted adjusting the intensity levels. Is this good science? On top of that, why did Jones hide the fact that it was doctored?



NOTE: Following Drs Morgan Reynolds / Judy Wood's debunk, Jones removed the photo from his paper without notice or explanation!





Jones now uses the photo below, a still from the CameraPlanet Archive video:









Although the video starts several minutes after NIST's photo was taken, it is peculiar that the molten flow switches windows.



The following is analysis by Drs Wood/Reynolds from their paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research":



====================================

NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because

• No heat source is specified

• The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow

• The flow changes windows

• The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C

• The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.

We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.

====================================



Is CameraPlanet a reputable source? CameraPlanet released the amateur 9/11 video footage showing an aluminum airplane gliding into a steel/concrete building:







Another item of interest... the owner of CameraPlanet is a magician. Is he a visual trickery expert too?



*Workers Peering Into Hole*



This image was included in Jones' September 2006 paper with the caption "Workers evidently peering into the hot "core" under the WTC rubble.".

The image in Jones' PDF (linked above) has "GEOEPOCHE 85" in the lower right corner, indicating it came from page 85 of a copy of the German magazine Geo Epoche.



Jones fails to properly source the photo. Geo Epoche is not mentioned anywhere in his paper's references, so we don't know what edition it came from.

However, the picture has been doctored. If the orange color was real the workers' skin would have melted off their faces. As Dr Jim Fetzer said in comparison (paraphrased): "would you put your face over a boiling tea kettle?" That's just a mere 212° F compared to Jones' 1500°+ F orange image.

Here is the original photo, as archived on hereisnewyork.org. As can be seen, the workers are using search lights. They are not "peering into a hot core":



Source



NOTE: Jones removed the photo from his paper without notice or explanation!

It should be noted that there are NO pictures whatsoever of molten metal in the ruins at Ground Zero.Anyone having an interest in learning of Steven Jones' research should go here.

Purpose of Fabricating Molten Metal Stories



Why would the 9/11 perpetrators fabricate a molten metal story? Perhaps it's a cover for what really happened.

Notice the orange colored fumes in the photo below.



Source

If that were a steam explosion, the driver of the grappler would be severely burned. But who ever heard of orange steam anyway? Take a look at the Solid Orange Slag picture and notice similar orange fumes.

As Dr Judy Wood shows in her paper, the orange fumes are the result of molecular dissociation.

Why would the 9/11 perpetrators fabricate such a story when they know people will eventually catch on? The perpetrators are planning a police state, following the next false flag terror attack. When the police state is in full force, the public will be powerless. No new 9/11 investigation. I encourage everyone to read Andrew Johnson's article "A Touch of "The Hidden Hand"? - Is the Next False Flag Attack on US Soil Near?" and to spread the information as far and as wide as possible. People need to work together to prevent this from happening.

Hopefully, this "wtc molten metal: fact of fiction" article helped to expose what's happening.

Super post CBB! Thanks for sharing it. I looking forward to reading this again in more detail later; when I'll probably have a few questions if that's OK.

Those are some interesting photos. I like the one of the police car, and it seems to be of the most significant. Someone in the new york police should know the story of car 2723. We need to find out who was the officers driving that car on 911.

US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 'Inside Job' Case



Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, and Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor. Both Wood and Reynolds are represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.

Those following developments in 9/11 "inside job" legal proceedings are aware that the US District Court in Southern New York unsealed a complaint filed by Dr Morgan Reynolds against private contractors hired by the government. This lawsuit alleges that the contractors supplied bogus analyses for the NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel and concrete building . Information pertaining to this lawsuit, including a PDF of the unsealed complaint, can be found on Reynolds website:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case

More recently however, September 12, 2007 to be exact, the Southern New York District Court unsealed a second "inside job" case. This second complaint was filed by Dr Judy Wood against the same private contractors, alleging the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), and not airplane strikes, jet fuel fires, or gravity. Wood's unsealed complaint is available here (in the Qui Tam section): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html Dr James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, interviewed Dr Wood and Mr Leaphart on his October 11th Dynamic Duo radio show to discuss the new unsealed complaint. An MP3 of this broadcast is downloadable at this link: http://tinyurl.com/3dmpqo


Dr Fetzer also submitted a press release for this wonderful news. Read it and learn that NIST admitted to Dr Wood (in writing) that they did not analyze the "collapse" of the towers!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ji...r_files__22.htm



One of the Defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), is a manufacturer of directed energy weapons :

http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html

ARA is also a Silver Level Founding Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Founded in 1999, DEPS put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11, containing the following excerpt:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefront2.pdf

Dr Wood has also discovered that the "Capabilities - National Defense and Aerospace" section of ARA's website contains an image depicting a simulation with the following characteristics:



1. A building (in the foreground) having damage similar to that of WTC 6 and the Murrah Building in OK City.

2. A building (behind the red building) with the same cosmetic design as WTC 3.

3. A building (in the background) turning to dust similar to the Twin Towers.



Here's the image:






See pages 3 and 4 of Dr Wood's Appeal to NIST for information regarding that photo:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html



Here are pages 3 and 4:







Those skeptical of the directed energy weapon theory often ask how such a weapon could eject steel beams horizontally from the towers, as seem in some of the videos and photographs. Dr Wood says the DEW didn't destroy the towers itself, but instead activated chemical clouds that were released from within the buildings; much like how light activates photographic film. Dr Wood has discovered photographic evidence of these chemical clouds coming from the towers, as well as WTC 7:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt5.html

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html



The Evidence for Directed Energy Weapons is Very Strong!



**Let's take this Vertical Cut on WTC 4 as an example.

The building material on the other side of the cut is "missing".

Where'd it go?




**Has anyone noticed... the WTC 4 cut is in the same path as the South Tower's north wall?

The South Tower is also "missing".




**How about these Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6?

What, if not a beam weapon, could make these?




**How about this video of the Steel Core Turning to Dust and trickling down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ



**What type of weapon could destroy car engine blocks, yet leave unexploded gas tanks?






**This police car looks too weird.




**These cleanup workers certainly look puzzled.
What happened here?




**About 20 minutes before the South Tower is destroyed, the FAA orders all aircraft to land.
Two minutes after the North Tower is destroyed, the FAA allows military craft back up.
Why?



One must wonder... where did the towers go?

Look at these two comparisons. What happened?







Drs Wood and Reynolds have filed legal challenges, which provides an excellent opportunity for a new investigation.
They deserve our full support.

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

By CB_Brooklyn


Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."


There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:


1. OGCT. This is known as the "Official Government Conspiracy Theory". This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA's entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.

2. APCT. I call this the "Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory". This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the "wacko conspiracy theory" that the "truth movement" believes.

3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.



Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.

Is it possible the "truth movement" has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?

Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the "truth movement" away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?

Is it even possible that some of these plants are "in on it" while others got suckered in? You be the judge.



***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers' destruction.

Mineta steered the "truth movement" toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the "Cheney stand down order" hoax.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2003-05-23.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871



***Former BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, has done research at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic...ic/jones_cv.htm

Jones steered the "truth movement" toward thermite/conventional explosives/molten metal theories. Jones' molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60

Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as "These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers."
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm



***Physicist Greg Jenkins' has connections to the NSA and DEW:

"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/ybco_prl.pdf

Jenkins' papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell).
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publication...nnualreport.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/system...at-overview.htm

Jenkins steered the "truth movement" away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/...transcript.html



***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Romero participated in events at DEPS before and after 9/11.
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEMSconf03.html
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/EduWksp00.html

Romero steered the "truth movement" toward standard controlled demolition by stating "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a "relatively small amount of explosives"?



***Former Director of the Star Wars program, Robert Bowman, is about as close to directed energy weapons as one can get.

Bowman steered the "truth movement" toward hijackings, and NORAD standing down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5gio_iR2WE

Although he is in Jim Fetzer's Scholars group, I have not heard him speaking about Dr Wood's DEW evidence. I do remember, however, an interview where Bowman states that he "doesn't fall for conspiracy theories" with regard to controlled demolition.

Bowman has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. How can he possibly call this a conspiracy theory?





Also of note is the following:

The government contracted with several sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST (NCSTAR 1) Report:

Boeing - Gold Level Current/Founding Sponsor
Applied Research Associates (ARA) - Silver Level Founding Sponsor
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) - Silver Level Current Sponsor
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/sponsors.html

Dr Judy Wood has discovered that ARA and SAIC are manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons and have expertise in Psychological Operations (PSYOPS).
http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html

Dr Wood also discovered two images on ARA's website that are similar to the World Trade Center. She details this in her Appeal to NIST's denial of her Request for Correction.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/apics/Appeal_03.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/apics/Appeal_04.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html



The New York Times is a mainstream media source. Do they tell the truth of 9/11 or do they hide it? Why on earth would they help the "truth movement" by publishing evidence of explosives?

The New York Times steered the "truth movement" towards explosives demolitions by publishing the WTC Task Force Interviews.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html...es_full_01.html

However, they redacted evidence for Directed Energy Weapons.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-r...inside-wtc.html



Who's Popular On Corporate Media? Who's Not?

*William Rodriguez - publicly speaks up against DEW / TV-Fakery
http://www.911researchers.com/node/555#comment-4089

*David Ray Griffin - pro Global Government (aka New World Order)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

*Steven Jones - pro explosives-demolition, pro thermite, pro molten metal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs

*Kevin Barrett - supports Steven Jones
http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/KB/Barrett_Kevin.html

*Robert Bowman - expert on NORAD's jet-scrambling procedures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5gio_iR2WE


*Judy Wood - never invited to discuss the DEW evidence, despite her filing of an actual court case
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

*Morgan Reynolds - never invited back after discussing TV-Fakery on FOX News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8

Reynolds also filed a court case
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case

*Jerry Leaphart - mainstream attorney never invited to discuss his clients' (Wood/Reynolds) 9/11 legal actions


In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:

"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."

MP3 Clip: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_JerryLeaphartRFC_Adm.mp3
Full Show: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_JerryLeaphartRFCs.mp3

============================================
============================================
============================================


The following is a timeline relating to promotion of the Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory by government plants and the media, and suppression of the REAL version by government plants and media. Also included is suppression of free energy research.


Continued here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect

by

Judy Wood and John Hutchison

http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/


Excerpt:

=======================
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as “The Hutchison Effect”. The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with “field effects” for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.

The table below lists effects and events seen at or in the vicinity of World Trade Center and compares those with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect. Clearly, the posting of this material is quite controversial, but even in the various documentaries that have featured John Hutchison, he has suggested that the techniques he has discovered and developed have been further refined by places like Lockheed Skunkworks, S.A.I.C. (Science Applications International Corp.), and also by perhaps other defense companies.
=======================


My comments: Although still under construction, the new paper gives many clues to the technology that was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Take a look at the many pictures and see for yourself! People can no longer claim that this technology does not exist. It definitely DOES exist!

Also note the two companies mentioned in the excerpt above (Lockheed Martin and SAIC). Both are sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society! The government even contracted with SAIC for the NIST Report.

See the "News" section of Dr Wood's website for upcoming interviews with Andrew Johnson where he will discuss the new paper. Also in the "news" section is a downloadable MP3 of an interview with John Hutchison.
http://drjudywood.com/#news


For proof that the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were all orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media, see my new article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60


Also note the two Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York, with attorney Jerry Leaphart:

Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case


Bottom line... there were NO hijackings on 9/11 and the entire War On Terror is BOGUS!

Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the clip back in slow motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._planer_resigns


What about the eyewitnesses who say they saw planes hit the towers, you ask? See the following analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews, which were published in the New York Times. You'll learn that only a very small percentage of the First Responders reported seeing airplanes hit the towers. Even fewer reported hearing them. But... they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on! Whatever they saw "hit" the towers was a projection:

Going in Search of Planes in NYC
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...4&Itemid=60


What about the airplane wreckage, you ask? Well, first of all, there are NO verified airplane parts. (The government refuses to release any.) And second, when an airplane crashes into a building, the engines are not going to wind up underneath scaffolding:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan..._230806wtc7.jpg

See here for more:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._with_jones#NBB


What about the cell phone calls, you ask? Faked using advanced voice synthesizer technology as reported in the Washington Post two and a half years before 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...arkin020199.htm



There were NO hijackings on 9/11.

There were NO plane crashes on 9/11.

The entire War On Terror is BOGUS.

I actually feel more than a little offended at your implication that anyone who doesn't buy entirely into this theory of directed energy weapons / video fakery is suppressing it, and therefore part of some controlled opposition "truth movement".

I'm afraid that the cold hard fact is that I have simply not seen unough VERIFIABLE evidence to support the DEW theory, and no amount of bold text / shouting will help that, I'm afraid.

Having checked out many of the allegations of "September Clues" for myself, I've found many of them to be entirely bogus or at best misleading - such as claims of two sets of footage being shot from precisely the same angle. This is patently foolish - I'm quite sure that no-one would suggest that two news helicopters can share the same airspace at the same time?

Your repetition of the same photos as "evidence", circular arguments and overuse / abuse of bold highlights starts to look and feel like a sustained propaganda campaign, IMHO. I don't doubt your personal integrity and belief in the subject, but I have to wonder if the controlled opposition you are so fond of decrying might be a little closer to home than you imagine.

Sorry to rain on your picnic, CB, but I really feel that this needs to be said. Much of the evidence you present is genuinely interesting and useful, but I really think that the no-planes stuff is so off-base that it's harmful to the truth movement as a whole. I've looked at the your evidence, have asked questions & gone looking for answers, but still I find the evidence circumstantial, at best, and the logic fuzzy.

Suggesting there is looks completely absurd to any thinking person. It also twists and misrepresents the fact that Reynolds was using a similie - a rhetorical construct used as an illustration - not a statement of fact. Perhaps you already understand that, though - or why else didn't you allege that Reynolds is suing because a hot knife hit the tower on 9/11? That's the last part of the very same sentence, after all.

Please keep to the facts, CB. I've lost the inclination to spend any more time on this subject, and I'd appreciate you sticking to the facts so I don't have to wade through any more verifiably false "evidence" in order to correct it.

Thanks,
Mairi