WTC1 Demolition Viewed from the West
Wow, this is interesting-- I never saw the angle before in all the videos of the WTC destruction I've seen over the years.
The end has a view of the "spire"-- it clearly does not disintegrate, but falls into a cloud of dust.
The end has a view of the "spire"-- it clearly does not disintegrate, but falls into a cloud of dust.
posted by spooked at 6:22 PM
7 Comments:
spooked, that isn't a "video" but a collage of videos, from my perspective.
also, Dr, Woods' videos and her analysis of them show the same thing, the metals in the building do not "explode" apart, but disintegrate into nano particles (my words.)
I respect your opinions but we are about 145 degrees apart on Woods' work. I also appreciate Fetzer's stuff, but I keep in mind that he, you, I and most others spent many years of debating before we finally concluded that no planes were involved -at least not as said. I believe that Fetzer, and some others, have hit the wall of egoism, whereas Judy Woods has not -although she may be wrong on some things.
saludos, joe
ever notice that all the vids of wtc demolition are mostly silent? some of them do have a kind of rushing/roaring sound but not one has the "bang bang bangs" of cutting charges that would probably have to precede the disintegration phase.
many firemen testified as to having been aware of those cutting charge "bangs!"
yes, it's hard to know what to make of the sound issue. I think basically it was very loud and you could hear a lot of different things depending where you were, or where your mic was. It's too bad there isn't a better or more accurate audio record of the demolition.
I think it's clear that the WTC both exploded AND disintegrated. I think the best explanation for this is micro-nukes. Wood doesn't seem to have any sort of coherent, specific explanation for what happened to the WTC that I've heard. She says it wasn't nukes, but even nukes are a form of "directed energy weapon" and at least we know nukes exist.
"at least we know, now."
my point was that most things we take for granted today were unheard of and would seem ridiculous back when we were kids -or even teens. whoever heard of a microwave oven, or imagined that microwaves -HAARP- could be used to generate weather and earthquakes?
much of this leakage -or boasts- comes from the military generals themselves, so I don't think Dr Woods is so far off target.
joe
the main problem with Wood's DEW theory is how vague the whole thing is. She basically posits some device that is able to produce every anomalous feature that she sees in the demolition. There is no coherence or rigor to the weapon she describes. She just ties a bunch of gobbelygook together. She says it can dustify steel and concrete but not aluminum. Fine, but how? What does it do to people? How did it destroy all the furniture? All the toilets? She makes bogus claims about how much steel was vaporized. The most bothersome, odd thing is she denies that there was any heat at GZ or any molten metal. Why does she think this is all a hoax? Who knows.
judy woods obviously bends over backwards for somebody else's benefit. probably bends over forwards as well.
however, her BILLIARD BALL EXAMPLE, refuting the offical govt/media 9/11 fairy-tale, was a stroke of genius.
maybe she should have just left well enough alone.
h is for ha bitch!
Post a Comment
<< Home