FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

disinfo accusations

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
riddles
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:54 pm    Post subject: disinfo accusations Reply with quote

i have long been of the opinion that the truth lies in a sea of bs. in particular relation to 9/11 the truth is in the media, its just not highlighted and sits quietly amongst all the other distractions.

its only recently that i have been confronted with the notion that all 9/11 truth sites and the main players and activists are only there to serve the objectives of the coverup by being the rallying flag to ally ourselves.

my question to anyone with a view is......is it possible that the truth movement itself, from before 9/11, was instigated by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, specifically so that they would be able to both control and discredit at will, to keep the coverup effective?

in the early days of my interest, 2005, i looked at some of dr judy woods research and presentations. i thought that it was a bit of a leap of imagination to consider exotic beam weapons....so i dismissed dr judy wood as right minded but a bit too many drugs in the 60's.

and for a year or so i have been seeing things on check the evidence dot com, a site who's favourite scientist seems to be dr judy wood. and when both dr judy wood and check the evidence dot com criticised and even ridiculed dr steven jones and thermite theory, i had to act. i am extremely partial to a bit of thermite theory.

so i wrote to her. and she responded at length, which is extremely supprising bearing in mind how many other nut job looney truthers have written to her over the years. she makes some very bold assertions. that the truth movement was created before 9/11. that its major players are acting in ways that support the coverups continuation. that even david ray 'the guru' griffin is not genuine. she claims she is the only real truther and forwarded copies of legal proceedings she is forwarding in the courts. and asserts that others only make a good show of trying to get accountability but deliberately fail to achieve it.

please someone help me guage what the hell is going on. is thermite all faked? is the truth movement part of the coverup? is dr judy wood letting me into the dark secret or spinning me away from it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:47 pm    Post subject: Re: disinfo accusations Reply with quote

riddles wrote:
i have long been of the opinion that the truth lies in a sea of bs. in particular relation to 9/11 the truth is in the media, its just not highlighted and sits quietly amongst all the other distractions.

its only recently that i have been confronted with the notion that all 9/11 truth sites and the main players and activists are only there to serve the objectives of the coverup by being the rallying flag to ally ourselves.

my question to anyone with a view is......is it possible that the truth movement itself, from before 9/11, was instigated by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, specifically so that they would be able to both control and discredit at will, to keep the coverup effective?

in the early days of my interest, 2005, i looked at some of dr judy woods research and presentations. i thought that it was a bit of a leap of imagination to consider exotic beam weapons....so i dismissed dr judy wood as right minded but a bit too many drugs in the 60's.

and for a year or so i have been seeing things on check the evidence dot com, a site who's favourite scientist seems to be dr judy wood. and when both dr judy wood and check the evidence dot com criticised and even ridiculed dr steven jones and thermite theory, i had to act. i am extremely partial to a bit of thermite theory.

so i wrote to her. and she responded at length, which is extremely supprising bearing in mind how many other nut job looney truthers have written to her over the years. she makes some very bold assertions. that the truth movement was created before 9/11. that its major players are acting in ways that support the coverups continuation. that even david ray 'the guru' griffin is not genuine. she claims she is the only real truther and forwarded copies of legal proceedings she is forwarding in the courts. and asserts that others only make a good show of trying to get accountability but deliberately fail to achieve it.

please someone help me guage what the hell is going on. is thermite all faked? is the truth movement part of the coverup? is dr judy wood letting me into the dark secret or spinning me away from it?


Here's an interview of Judy Woods with Dr. Greg Jenkins - make up your own mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

At the end of the day, it should be the strength of the arguments rather than anything else and not personal attacks on er... "everybody else". One presentation Woods gave was on a nuclear-type explosive at the WTC - this is clearly bonkers since the site (the whole of NY) would still be radioactive...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer the thread-creator's question, I do indeed believe that Dr. Judy Wood has hit a bullseye, and also that the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is corrupt. I believe Dr. Judy Wood has hit a bullseye, because she is the only researcher to explain all the easily verifiable physical evidence from 9/11, and she is the only researcher to file the evidence she has gathered in a federal court. As for my opinions about the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, the following detailed article explains many of the reasons why I believe it has been corrupt from the start:

Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust
September 14th, 2010
By Cathy Garger
article: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61147.shtml

This is a must-read article describing the true nature of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, and how it is becoming more and more obvious that it is organized by the same people who planned 9/11, to mislead angry Americans and make sure they are asking the wrong questions and looking in the wrong direction.


In response to the poster above, who failed to answer the thread-creator's question and instead just posted a link, here is my opinion of Dr. Greg Jenkins and the unscientific interview he conducted:

I am very grateful to Dr. Greg Jenkins for conducting his ambush interview of Dr. Judy Wood, because his agenda actually highlighted the importance of Dr. Wood's work. The amount of effort being put forth to attempt to discredit Dr. Wood and convince people to not look at the overwhelming sum of evidence she has gathered is truly remarkable. I find it very interesting that Dr. Jenkins, who works/worked for NSA, showed up with full lighting and camera crews after a talk given by Dr. Fetzer, who had insisted Dr. Wood attend his talk. No one else knew Dr. Wood would be there. Just as she was leaving, around 12am, Jenkins spontaneously confronted Dr. Wood and asked her to do an interview on the spot. Why didn't Dr. Jenkins contact Dr. Wood ahead of time to get advanced permission for the interview? Why didn't Dr. Jenkins attend the conference, but only showed up at the very end of it for the specific purpose of asking Dr. Wood to do this spontaneous interview? Why did Dr. Jenkins show up with full lighting and camera crews, yet he only brought one black and white photo of the thousands of full color photos, videos, documents, and graphs Dr. Wood has gathered, only to later insert the full-color copy of the image into the edited video recording of the interview?

I find it admirable that Dr. Wood was right all along about the fact that the majority of the WTC buildings were transformed to fine dust, especially considering that she has been trying to wake the public up to that fact for over 4 years now. Others are still catching up, as today it is a commonly known fact that the WTC buildings were primarily turned to dust on 9/11. I wonder if Dr. Jenkins has corrected his false claims that the buildings were not turned to dust, or if he still believes the nonsense he was trying to promote throughout the interview... As Dr. Wood often says, you first need to determine WHAT happened, before you determine HOW it happened. If you skip the first part and assume you know what happened, further discussion tends to be rather meaningless and unscientific. Dr. Wood identified that the buildings were transformed to dust, and for some strange reason, Dr. Jenkins really wanted to avoid discussing that topic.

Dr. Judy Wood held strong in her scientific position all these years, and thank goodness she has. Her observations were correct, right from the start. It was this fortitude of hers which has forced Richard Gage (and others) into finally acknowledging the fact that the majority of the WTC buildings turned to dust in mid air. However, that puts Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones in a very difficult position, because thermite does not turn buildings into powder in mid air, nor do explosives of any kind... Smile

Here is the transcript from the interview, which allows for a more detailed analysis of the dialogue: http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html


I hope this information helps clarify my opinion, since that is what the thread-creator asked for.

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi riddles. in my early seeking of truth and evidence etc etc I gave Dr Wood and those who supported her, what i believe a fair assessment. Having just had my worldview changed because of the 911 lies i was prepared to consider anything.
After reviewing a lot of the photographic evidnce and stuff that Dr Wood put forward I found a lot of her conclusions too dogmatic given the picture i was looking at. A couple of examples would be a photo of a fire truck burnt out at the front and dr woods claim that it was evidence of "an energy beam" targetting the engine which was no longer there. It was pointed out to me that that type of firetruck didnt have its engine at the front where Dr wood said it used to be.
Another later photo several years after 911 when Dr wood was photographing at ground zero showed construction workers spraying water on the road and site. This she said was because the site was still affected from the energy weapons. Having worked in the construction industry the picture showed dust from drilling rigs being dampened down --which is a health and safety requirement on construction sites.
These and other items led me towards the Architects and Engineers website which for me gives a clearer factual presentation without trying to stretch the truth.
My advice if its worth anything is look at everything including No Planes stuff, ask yourself questions, put yourself in the perps shoes, follow your conscience as to what seems right. Truth does have a ring to it-- learn to look at error and falsities as it helps to tune yourself to rubbish and to be able to better discern truth. You dont need to jump on any band wagon. As scienceplease said let it be the strength of truth rather than namecalling.
There seems to be this thing in us that always wants to be correct- i think it is a pride thing concerning knowledge. for me the bottom line is that 3 towers on 911 didnt collapse because of planes and fire and that means the US govt are at least duped or most probably lying and covering up or worse that elements in the Govt were involved in the destruction. Theres an awful lot more technology and opportunity from within the US to cause the collpase of those towers than there was from a bearded man with a laptop living in a cave.

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
riddles
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:23 pm    Post subject: my thanks to contributors so far Reply with quote

I have read the articles and references mentioned in response to my initial posting of this thread......and thanks to all, i think that has helped.
I read that part of the supporting evidence for exotic weapons is the lack of the twin towers rubble pile compred to the kingdome or more importantly building 7. That there is a tall rubble pile, where 'dustification' clearly did not reduce the majority of the building to dust, does not give any support at all to beam weapons having dustificated the twin towers. Building 7 still fell. If it wasnt a beam weapon to bring that down, what was it? Thermite theory explains all the collapses (if the evidence is real), whereas exotic beam weapon theory claims the absence of its use for building 7 as somehow supporting its having been used for the twin towers? that is speculation piled upon speculation.

I am afraid, as the filter of reality is applied to beam weapon theory and thermite theory, only one stands up to crutiny and passes to continue to be scrutinised.....thermite theory is robust unless the evidence for it has been created by the coverup and steven jones and richard gage and david ray ....i am just pausing for a quick bow...'the guru' griffin are complicit in covering up the crime of the century, then its thermite theory for me!!!

Dr Judy wood offers some genuinely felt instincts that scientifically, all options should be considered, and they should be when/if a real investigation begins. She offers logical reasons to suspect a degree of interference in and guidance of the truth movement by the perpetrators of 9/11. But if you wished to divide the truth movement by sewing the seed of suspicion so eveyone thinks everyone else is part of the coverup.....the best way would be to spread that veryt concept through a truth activist who has theories which are well minded but wrong. I think Dr Judy wood should be applauded for showing the concrete must have been pulverized to dust. But 'dustification' is as rediculous as 'thermal expansion' and does not stand up to scrutiny.

I think Dr wood has been used to spread the vile contagon that is the attempt to divide the truth movement.

Focus on the goals of the movement.....the official version is a lie, a new, real investigation needs to occur.....let us not be distracted from that by sectarian infighting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish5133 wrote:
A couple of examples would be a photo of a fire truck burnt out at the front and dr woods claim that it was evidence of "an energy beam" targetting the engine which was no longer there. It was pointed out to me that that type of firetruck didnt have its engine at the front where Dr wood said it used to be.





-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Riddles,

It appears from your post that you are not at all familiar with the work of Dr. Wood. At a glance, it appears that nearly every one of your sentences is a misrepresentation of her research and conclusions. Instead of misrepresenting Dr. Wood's work and criticizing her for things she hasn't said, perhaps it would be more helpful and productive if you focused on your own analysis of all the physical evidence instead of conducting a political smear campaign against Dr. Wood?

For example, you said, "Thermite theory explains all the collapses (if the evidence is real), whereas exotic beam weapon theory claims the absence of its use for WTC Building 7 as somehow supporting its having been used for the twin towers? That is speculation piled upon speculation. "

Dr. Wood does not have a "beam weapon theory" and has never "claimed" an absense of a technology on building 7 supports the use of it on another. You have made a lot of false statements about Dr. Wood that appear to be your own creations. Why are you putting forth such unscientific, inacurate claims based on your misunderstanding / lack of understanding of Dr. Wood's scientific conclusions? It is quite bewildering to see how thoroughly you have misrepresented the conclusions of Dr. Wood.

Dr. Wood discusses easily verifiable physical evidence and what that evidence leads to. You have claimed that "Thermite theory explains all of the collapses." Let us review your claims. First, the buildings did not collapse. So that destroys your theory/speculataion right from the start. Next, I would like you to explain how a "Thermite theory" explains "all of" the following easily verifiable physical evidence (feel free to ignore my personal experiences towards the bottom of the list):

• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it did a ~150° turn away from its straight-line trajectory later that day and headed back out to sea.
• Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred?
• Why do official seismograph readings around ground zero show smaller ground vibrations in comparison to the controlled demolition of the King Dome, which is a smaller building? Shouldn’t the smaller building have generated a smaller seismographic reading than the WTC buildings? Or perhaps the smaller reading of the WTC buildings came about because they were turned to fine particles of dust, as the evidence shows?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?
• Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?
• How did countless pieces of paper money survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless intact paper bills survived?
• How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?
• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?
• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.
• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?



Lastly, you wrote, "Focus on the goals of the movement.....the official version is a lie, a new, real investigation needs to occur.....let us not be distracted from that by sectarian infighting." Certainly you genuinely mean what you wrote, so your many dishonest statements in your post must not have been for the sake of "divide and conquer," but were the focus of "the movement." That is, you have essentially told us that misrepresenting Dr. Wood is the focus for the goals of the movement. Did I understand you correctly? If not, perhaps you can explain.

Thanks Mr. Riddles,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:


• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?

What evidence is there that most of the Twin Towers' steel was turned to dust? That is speculation masquerading as fact because Wood's DEW theory wants it to be true. Tons of high-explosives would not have destroyed EVERYTHING, so your problem is bogus.
PookztA wrote:

• Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11?

But it wasn't. It was headed north along the coast. The media did not report it because it was not heading into New York. Simple as that.
PookztA wrote:

When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown?

Because it was not of hurricane strength - that's why. It was just a tropical wave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_%282001%29
and was not heading towards New York.
PookztA wrote:

Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it did a ~150° turn away from its straight-line trajectory later that day and headed back out to sea.

Again, get your facts right. Erin became a tropical storm on September 2. That's why the media ignored it (see above link).
PookztA wrote:

• Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred?

But they were NOT statistically significant. If Wood had done her research properly, she would have found in the archives that there were numerous days in the months leading up to September 11, 2001 when the magnetic field fluctuations were just as strong as on that day. They happen all the time, being caused by solar flares.
PookztA wrote:

• Why do official seismograph readings around ground zero show smaller ground vibrations in comparison to the controlled demolition of the King Dome, which is a smaller building?

Well, that proves some of the weight of the building never hit the ground because a lot of concrete was, indeed, pulverized by all the demolition charges. But it is NOT evidence for dustification of steel by some process unknown to physics.
PookztA wrote:

Shouldn’t the smaller building have generated a smaller seismographic reading than the WTC buildings? Or perhaps the smaller reading of the WTC buildings came about because they were turned to fine particles of dust, as the evidence shows?

Why, of course. No 9/11 investigator worth his salt would dispute that much of the concrete in the towers was turned to dust. But you cannot use such seismic evidence to explain this transformation by DEW. It does not tell us how so much fine dust was created. It certainly does not prove that steel was turned into dust, as much as you might like to believe it does.
PookztA wrote:

• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?

Um. there were many reports of bombs going off. They have a bad habit of destroying electrical circuits.
PookztA wrote:

• Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?

Er, because they got covered in hot cinders and the oxygen gas expanded and burst the cylinders? That's a more believable suggestion than unknown physics was at work.
PookztA wrote:

• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?

How about hundreds of tons of high-explosives?
PookztA wrote:

• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?

Oh dear! Not this again!. Those cars were towed there to create free passage for clean-up trucks and fire engines, etc. I am afraid that "metal warping" is just wishful thinking.
PookztA wrote:

• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?

Er, the clean-up guys were not too bothered about how they parked the debris.Laughing
PookztA wrote:

• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?

Until you can prove that their bending could not have been achieved mechanically (and of course you haven't), no one is going to pay attention to claimed effects that have been replicated by independent scientists and published in peer-reviewed, academic journals. I have seen some of the photos of these bent beams and I see nothing particularly anomalous about them.
PookztA wrote:

• Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?

Er, because the demolition reduced them to fragments too small to be recognizable. What's so odd about that?
PookztA wrote:

• Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?

Never underestimate what lots of high-explosives can do. That was Wood's error.
PookztA wrote:

• How did countless pieces of paper money survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless intact paper bills survived?

Paper is far more difficult to damage than metallic or concrete items. I am not in the least surprised that lots of paper survived the massive explosions.
PookztA wrote:

• How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?

Your rhetorical question seems to be assuming that nothing - absolutely nothing - could remain intact after being blasted by conventional explosives. This of course is wrong, but it suits your faulty theory to make such a wrong assumption.
PookztA wrote:

• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?

No problem. The air was full of very acidic smoke (from the burning gypsum in wall boards, for example, as well from from burning PC plastics). This attacked the steel chemically, corroding and oxidising the surface, causing ferric oxide to form much more quickly than normal
PookztA wrote:

• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?

The hosing was of dust, not smoke caused by fires. That is normal practice in demolition sites.
PookztA wrote:

• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?

Cite one physicist who says such round holes are caused by longitudinal waves. I bet you cannot even find one who admits longitudinal waves other than sound even exist. The circularity of the holes is not anomalous but no doubt has a mundane explanation in terms of material physics.
PookztA wrote:

• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?

Er, because the full weight of the towers never impacted on the bathtub. That's one of the reasons why the demolition proceeded from the top, not from the bottom. The perps did not want to cause flooding of the WTC by creating cracks in the bathtub.
PookztA wrote:

• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?

Er, because thousand of tons never fell on them. Instead, they were blown to smithereens. Again, you cite a piece of evidence as though it has no alternative explanation than DEWs powered by Hurricanw Erin!!!!
PookztA wrote:

• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?

Another worthless argument that assumes that high-explosives cannot lessen the weight of falling debris sufficiently to not cause considerable damage when it lands.
PookztA wrote:

• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?

Er, you are merely repeating your argument.
PookztA wrote:

• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?

My word! Could it just be that Wood knows that her so-called "evidence-based legal cases" will be thrown out by the courts as sheer speculation and a waste of court time, whereas Jones has been trying to find more solid evidence that cannot be refuted?
PookztA wrote:

• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?

Er, perhaps because some groups are more careful about what they claim and are trying to pose as brilliant scientists.
PookztA wrote:

• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers?

Are you seriously interpreting scientific jealousy here as an indication that Jones is a shill for the US government? That's really desperate of you.
PookztA wrote:

Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?

Wood accused Jones of being an incompetent scientist (melted aluminium glows/does not glow controversy). Banning her from his site does not mean that he does not support any 9/11 investigation. That said, of course he should not have banned her over a scientific disagreement.
PookztA wrote:

• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?

I have no idea. If you want to indulge in paranoia and claim that all these organisations are out to get you because you have championed Wood's version of the truth, I feel sorry for you.
PookztA wrote:

• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.

One thing you need to lean in scientific research: scientists don't play fair. If you are hard-pressed to understand and want to believe you are excluded because you hold the truth, well, that's just being arrogant.
PookztA wrote:

• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

Goodness, golly gosh! Join the club. Plenty of 9/11 truthers can cite similar experiences for their own theories.
PookztA wrote:

• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?

Er, because he did not agree with Wood (and you)? Ha! Ha!
PookztA wrote:

• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?

Perhaps they already did and it got them no where. So they saw you were pushing alternative ideas that made 9/11 truthers like themselves look like wackos and they tried to discourage you.
PookztA wrote:

Lastly, you wrote, "Focus on the goals of the movement.....the official version is a lie, a new, real investigation needs to occur.....let us not be distracted from that by sectarian infighting." Certainly you genuinely mean what you wrote, so your many dishonest statements in your post must not have been for the sake of "divide and conquer," but were the focus of "the movement." That is, you have essentially told us that misrepresenting Dr. Wood is the focus for the goals of the movement. Did I understand you correctly? If not, perhaps you can explain.

No, of course he did not mean that. You have deliberately misunderstood. The goal of the movement is to present the essential facts, not push the agenda of someone like Wood whose outlandish theories are irrelevant and which damage the credibility of many people who want the truth to come out and for justice to prevail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micpsi,

The truly unscientific, inaccurate nature of your replies, does not warrant much need for me to respond to you, but I did want to make sure that I corrected you on at least one of the rumorous inaccuracies you are attempting to spread in your post.

Even your Wikipedia link acknowledges that Hurricane Erin was indeed a Hurricane. This is a simple, easily verifiable fact. Did you even read the link you posted? I assume not, because at the link, you would have read this:

"Erin strengthened into a hurricane on September 9 while moving northwestward. This was the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since Hurricane Diana on September 10, 1984.[1] Erin quickly intensified and reached peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) later on September 9

...after passing just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland it became extratropical on September 15. The extratropical remnant continued northeastward and lost its identity near Greenland on September 17."



I'm sorry I don't have time to point out every single inaccuracy in your reply to me, but I am sure that it doesn't matter, because people are looking into this issue for themselves, viewing all the evidence with their own eyes, and making up their OWN mind about it.

The truth will prevail, regardless of our opinions.


In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group