thanks - the amount of brigading that Judy Wood's materials get is absurd :)

inb4 "we can all agree she's misinformation, right?" That's the chorus you're likely to hear in this thread. I spent a few hours yesterday reviewing her materials and am looking forward to diving deeper.

IMO you can tell she's legit because she focuses on defining the problem (what actually happened) rather than trying to pull on various threads or construct a narrative - just focus on the events and what happened and everything comes into place - even though you get some odd conclusions. Thanks OP

I support Judith Wood spammers spamming over there instead of here.

[deleted]

+1 - from your lips to the mod's ears.

Dr Judith Wood.

Although I was convinced Judy Wood doesn't seem like misinformation I'd just like to let you know there is one possibility that exists that would classify her as disinfo.

Have you checked out CluesForum's theories on 9/11?

I know it sounds strange, but many of them have developed a fascinating theory that a handful (or all) of the image and video footage we have is either composited, or CGI. What this implies is that analyzing the "dustification," "burning cars," etc are akin to analyzing fake footage and cars that were dragged from the junkyard and either lit on fire or blown up; all with the intention to confuse/shock the public.

Something to think about before you go all in with Judy Wood. (It's at least worth reviewing the image and video galleries alongside their rationale why they are faked.) So it becomes either classified technology or fake footage with the intention to confuse those willing to question the official story. In this scenario, the reason Judy Wood's focus is defining the problem is that it enraptures us in seemingly logic defying video and picture evidence. The "Aha" moment here is that in reality, she never mentions (either intentionally => disinformation, or unintentionally => honest mistake) the possibility that the pictures and videos could be an illusion. Please see CluesForum for more information.

Again, I'm not sure which one is more likely after extensively reviewing the evidence proposed by both.

[deleted]

I never claimed all footage was faked. Just that there is seemingly good evidence that footage most people collectively agree is "strange" and at least points to the possibility of classified energy technology of unknown power and potential for destruction. So it seems we are agreeing on some level?

Something like burned cars is easy to create as stage props. Thinking about this from a magicians standpoint, burned cars are placed there to further prop up the potentially false narrative that directed energy weapons were used. The magician covers as many bases as possible in order to ensure misdirection in all observers (in this case most believe the official account, and if any of them don't buy it, he sets up another level of misdirection, in this case, "energy weapons".

Responding to the scene(s) in the video you linked to; They could have been set up in 30 minutes to an hour with a few tow trucks. Either pre-rigged with explosives to blow them up or exploded after being positioned. I don't see how collapsed buildings (say, demolished with thermite) would have this effect on the surrounding cars (up to a half mile away apparently?)

Food for thought.

[deleted]

Meaning nano-thermite used to demolish the buildings has that effect on surrounding cars? Or nano-thermite planted within/on the cars has that effect?

[deleted]

Fair enough. Would have to figure out if that explanation has any weight. I feel like it's a stretch to be honest, since a fuel tank should be for the most part hermetically sealed.

nano thermite yes for the demolition, flashes in windows are seen in closeup videos of the WTC towers. esp near the corners where they wanted the building facade to weaken then peel once the demo was underway.

its possible they used backpack sized nukes for shredding the core and pushing the building down, the explosive collapse does suggest small nukes.

a longer and very complex preparation job for the towers, this implies they were mostly empty too, apart from some disposable companies and the restaurant maybe.

WTC7 was completely empty that morning, not one single story or injury from that building, Jennings does not count, he was a govt employee.

One of her biggest points is that there should have been a lot more material present after the collapse as well - and that there should have been more damage and more fire. The material in the buildings coming down also should have done more damage to the surrounding areas, which were basically surrounded on all sides water dams. There was also no significant earthquake activity - which would have been present if a structure that size hit the ground.

I'm also somewhat creeped out that she calls one of her presentations "The Dawn of a New Age" but that may be neither here nor there.

I will definitely give CluesForum another look though, thanks for the suggestion.

Your first paragraph is filled with good points. But I'd ask how much if it relies on either video/image testimony (proferred by either the news stations/helicopters and 'amateurs') or unverifiable/unsubstantiated claims (seismic evidence and the supposed inevitable damage to the slurry walls on collapse)

If I understand one thing, the whole day stinks of misdirection of unknown magnitude. Keep an open mind. I'm definitely playing devil's advocate here. I'm looking forward to Judy Wood releasing more analysis and continuing her efforts)

there is a lot of fakery surrounding 9/11, the TV footage was CGI for the most part,

both NYPD and FEMA faked a lot of images (no wonder they want once cleared Kurt Sonnenfeld back for lobotamisation and a pretend show trial), the FEMA photos of the Deutsche Bank Building interior damage is amusing, melted warped girders... plastic almost, no wonder the 'death ray from space' crowd got excited. trouble is they are excited over CGI images.

the large smoke plume is not to scale for the burning towers, its way too cartoony ie overscale like a burning match not smouldering office furniture.,

some likely was from smoke generators in the upper parts of the building, smoke appears to come out of distinct spots well above the impact areas, and it flows along the building downwind.

the woman in the hole burns near the end, yet she still appears to be waving, that suggests mechanics ie a motorized manikin.

You say it was CGI

based on what evidence?

Lol this is retarded, you are an idiot.

Do you have any idea how much particulate matter comes off of a burning building? What about third hand accounts and images? I've heard firsthand testimony from people I trust who were in and around Manhattan that day, as well as family who were in the pentagon. How do you explain that?

[deleted]

No seismic activity that indicates enough material from the towers hit the ground and no damage to the surrounding area indicates that the towers were mostly gone before they fell, does it not?

[deleted]

I don't think it does but it's important to ask the right questions. One of the biggest anomalies as I understand it is the lack of seismic activity and the lack of collateral damage around the building fall sites, which would both indicate that the towers were "dusted" or whatever before they had the opportunity to crash to the ground.

I don't know if it was directed energy or what but there's lots of evidence they didn't hit the ground.

[deleted]

Definitely

Dr Judy Wood.

One looks fine. One looks like a joke of the other one. Interesting.

Having Ask[insert anything], you cannot create. Tried the other day and it appears that word is reserved. What word are you talking about?

seems like all the things she describes (burnt cars, steal beams turning to dust, etc.) could have been caused by a nuclear detonation device.

someone needs to ask judy wood about how she feels about the "nuclear detonation device" theory.

I believe she has commented on that somewhere and when I find her statement, I will post it

that would be great. thanks.

follow-up:

I don't see that a nuclear device would cause the destruction evidence she reveals.

speaking from your own experience with nuclear detonation devices, no doubt. (as a nuclear physicist or nuclear engineer at the very least, i am sure.)

and here is my (equally anonymous) opinion about judy -- for what it's worth:

https://np.reddit.com/r/DrJudyWood/comments/3hv1y3/jim_fetzers_bizarre_phone_call_to_judy_wood_part/cydjkci

ok

edit. i am unable to find a video entitled "14 years later". would you mind post a direct link?

Meaning nano-thermite used to demolish the buildings has that effect on surrounding cars? Or nano-thermite planted within/on the cars has that effect?

nano thermite yes for the demolition, flashes in windows are seen in closeup videos of the WTC towers. esp near the corners where they wanted the building facade to weaken then peel once the demo was underway.

its possible they used backpack sized nukes for shredding the core and pushing the building down, the explosive collapse does suggest small nukes.

a longer and very complex preparation job for the towers, this implies they were mostly empty too, apart from some disposable companies and the restaurant maybe.

WTC7 was completely empty that morning, not one single story or injury from that building, Jennings does not count, he was a govt employee.