it's the crater from the thermonuclear demolition device. check out the melted rock.. that ain't from 'nanothermite'. that's a blend of granite and manhattan schist, btw - very hard rock.
as an aside: the nytimes ran a story that tried to explain the craters as 'glacial potholes' - AS IF you'd build the largest buildings on earth on friggin fill dirt!
I'm guessing melted concrete. Probably from a nuclear device used in the basement to facilitate the demolition of the towers in order to shock the nation into justifying another war for profit.
right, but that's not concrete - it's melted rock. the demolition devices were placed 50m beneath the lowest part of the basement, which was itself 27m below ground.** the holes were vaporized from solid granite/schist. imagine the heat..
interesting note: they used nukes in the soviet union to create underground storage 'tanks' in solid rock.
** for a total of 77m below ground. the number 77 has an occult significance - it's one shy of 777. essentially, 77 means the same as 666. very appropriate.
There are many of those in Siberia. Russia started releasing the pics a few years ago. I am working on a theory those were underground weapons tests. And this is a stretch but I believe tests were done by the perpetrators prior to 9/11, and those tests would of been similar in effect to these pics being released.
I thought that too. I am still studying the sites. But just off the top of my head I think that if they could figure out the key components like depth, distribution, temperature, and duration, they could mathematically deduce how much material it could incinerate.
I have noticed with these holes is they seem to be etched on the sides with very distinct burning patterns moving upward. There is only a slight disturbance that pushes up around the rims. So this is very controlled cut. I assume the earth was incinerated to ash and whisked away in the breeze. These could possibly be many decades old.
i also had the thought the other day that nagasaki and hiroshima were technology demonstrations - the 'manhattan project', remember. and i also wonder if they tried the nuclear demolition technique in those cities and used the bombing as a cover.
very interesting that a plane hit the empire state building, very 9/11-like, about a week after the trinity test and about a week before hiroshima.
Man I've been really getting into Dr. Judy Wood. She provides empirical evidence of what happened on 9/11. She says it's a weapon by the likes of what we've never seen, not some loaded terms like nuclear bombs or nano thermite or even space death beams. She speaks of energy being manipulated in a way that disrupts objects on a molecular level. Free energy is real and it's being used maliciously.
What I found interesting in her book was her chapter on the bathtub. The basement and "bathtub" which kept water diverted from the Hudson River wasn't even disturbed. She goes on to explain that jack hammers and heavy machinery did more damage then the two towers collapsing on the bathtub.
Well she isn't jumping to conclusions. She is basing everything she says on data that was collected from the site. All this nuclear bomb and nano thermite shit is misinformation. There's not a shred of evidence pointing to either of those weapons used on 9/11.
igot666problems could not be more than correct. I've read Dr. Wood's book over 5½ years ago and I am well versed on those who distort her research. Would you be surprised to learn that it is the oil industry in concert with the interests of our "government" who is to blame?
Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 are:
1 Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed
2 Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed
3 Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed
4 Conventional explosives blew the buildings up
5 Mini-nukes blew the buildings up
Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up. Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong.
Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yes, I know it’s amazing. Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy?
THE FACTS:
DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.” Rubble totaled less than a story. It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found. Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers whispers “no collapse.” See Chapter 9.
BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown. If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse. Did not happen. Upshot? Collapses did not happen. See Chapter 5.
SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood. Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses. This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7. Again, no evidence of collapses. See Chapter 6.
SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST. Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal. See Chapter 6.
DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower? I simply couldn’t comprehend it.” The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown. Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere. The volume was incredible. Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA. As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.” See Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.
Well formatted dude. There's no way I could have laid it out this flat. Hopefully soon we can stop all this disinfo on judy woods and get people to just listen to what she says. She did a remarkable job on this.
I've let a few people read her book and everyone is amazed with all the data and information. The bathtub not being damaged and flooding parts of the city is something a lot people never thought of. I honestly never thought to even look into it until I read her book.
1.) Create and promote unscientific alternate forms of destruction.
2.) Promote her research and then find fault with it.
3.) Make personal attacks against her character.
4.) Marginalize her research and call it "voodoo science".
5.) Promote her research but misquote her and run it into the ditch.
6.) Ignore her research and evidence then call it a "theory".
7.) Say that you have read her book and find fault with it when you never did read her book.
8.) Create other faux groups like the "Sandy Hook Hoaxers" to keep people from asking the right questions and looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This also creates distrust in our government and people that ask questions. If our government was responsible for 9/11, our government is the only way to reverse the damage it has caused. Anarchy is not the answer.
it got hot down there bro... burned and smoldered for a week. what's wrong? too burnt for you? not burnt enough? or do your mean the fossil in the bottom right mid center?
My point was to ridicule the well poisoners. Let's just stick to actual, physical evidence that supports planes hitting the towers and thermite bringing them down.
My point was to ridicule the well poisoners. Let's just stick to actual, physical evidence that supports planes hitting the towers and thermite bringing them down.
35 comments
5 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
it's the crater from the thermonuclear demolition device. check out the melted rock.. that ain't from 'nanothermite'. that's a blend of granite and manhattan schist, btw - very hard rock.
a brief explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc
as an aside: the nytimes ran a story that tried to explain the craters as 'glacial potholes' - AS IF you'd build the largest buildings on earth on friggin fill dirt!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html?_r=0
4 Bacore 2016-09-17
I'm guessing melted concrete. Probably from a nuclear device used in the basement to facilitate the demolition of the towers in order to shock the nation into justifying another war for profit.
3 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
melted granite / manhattan schist, but yeah.
-3 Awkwardmoment22 2016-09-17
concrete is not made from granite buddy...
7 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
right, but that's not concrete - it's melted rock. the demolition devices were placed 50m beneath the lowest part of the basement, which was itself 27m below ground.** the holes were vaporized from solid granite/schist. imagine the heat..
interesting note: they used nukes in the soviet union to create underground storage 'tanks' in solid rock.
** for a total of 77m below ground. the number 77 has an occult significance - it's one shy of 777. essentially, 77 means the same as 666. very appropriate.
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
You mean these?
Craters in Siberia
2 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
maybe. i don't know what made that crater. cool lookin tho
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
There are many of those in Siberia. Russia started releasing the pics a few years ago. I am working on a theory those were underground weapons tests. And this is a stretch but I believe tests were done by the perpetrators prior to 9/11, and those tests would of been similar in effect to these pics being released.
1 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
so.. test runs basically? interesting. i wonder if they did any tests with scaled down buildings?
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
I thought that too. I am still studying the sites. But just off the top of my head I think that if they could figure out the key components like depth, distribution, temperature, and duration, they could mathematically deduce how much material it could incinerate.
I have noticed with these holes is they seem to be etched on the sides with very distinct burning patterns moving upward. There is only a slight disturbance that pushes up around the rims. So this is very controlled cut. I assume the earth was incinerated to ash and whisked away in the breeze. These could possibly be many decades old.
1 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
i think a lot of it flashed straight to plasma.
i also had the thought the other day that nagasaki and hiroshima were technology demonstrations - the 'manhattan project', remember. and i also wonder if they tried the nuclear demolition technique in those cities and used the bombing as a cover.
very interesting that a plane hit the empire state building, very 9/11-like, about a week after the trinity test and about a week before hiroshima.
2 igot666problems 2016-09-17
Man I've been really getting into Dr. Judy Wood. She provides empirical evidence of what happened on 9/11. She says it's a weapon by the likes of what we've never seen, not some loaded terms like nuclear bombs or nano thermite or even space death beams. She speaks of energy being manipulated in a way that disrupts objects on a molecular level. Free energy is real and it's being used maliciously.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sRlYwyqDA3Y
http://www.drjudywood.com/faq/
EDIT: wording
2 eMarshall8 2016-09-17
What I found interesting in her book was her chapter on the bathtub. The basement and "bathtub" which kept water diverted from the Hudson River wasn't even disturbed. She goes on to explain that jack hammers and heavy machinery did more damage then the two towers collapsing on the bathtub.
1 RecklessRatRedditor 2016-09-17
I can see this. Causinf some kind of phase shifr in matter or something crazy. Maybe it was all of these things a little bit...
1 igot666problems 2016-09-17
Well she isn't jumping to conclusions. She is basing everything she says on data that was collected from the site. All this nuclear bomb and nano thermite shit is misinformation. There's not a shred of evidence pointing to either of those weapons used on 9/11.
7 WDTTG 2016-09-17
igot666problems could not be more than correct. I've read Dr. Wood's book over 5½ years ago and I am well versed on those who distort her research. Would you be surprised to learn that it is the oil industry in concert with the interests of our "government" who is to blame?
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg
Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 are:
1 Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed
2 Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed
3 Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed
4 Conventional explosives blew the buildings up
5 Mini-nukes blew the buildings up
Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up. Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong. Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yes, I know it’s amazing. Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy?
THE FACTS:
DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.” Rubble totaled less than a story. It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found. Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers whispers “no collapse.” See Chapter 9.
BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown. If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse. Did not happen. Upshot? Collapses did not happen. See Chapter 5.
SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood. Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses. This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7. Again, no evidence of collapses. See Chapter 6.
SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST. Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal. See Chapter 6.
DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower? I simply couldn’t comprehend it.” The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown. Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere. The volume was incredible. Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA. As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.” See Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.
2 igot666problems 2016-09-17
Well formatted dude. There's no way I could have laid it out this flat. Hopefully soon we can stop all this disinfo on judy woods and get people to just listen to what she says. She did a remarkable job on this.
2 eMarshall8 2016-09-17
I've let a few people read her book and everyone is amazed with all the data and information. The bathtub not being damaged and flooding parts of the city is something a lot people never thought of. I honestly never thought to even look into it until I read her book.
1 WDTTG 2016-09-17
Here are ways to cover up Dr. Wood's research:
1.) Create and promote unscientific alternate forms of destruction.
2.) Promote her research and then find fault with it.
3.) Make personal attacks against her character.
4.) Marginalize her research and call it "voodoo science".
5.) Promote her research but misquote her and run it into the ditch.
6.) Ignore her research and evidence then call it a "theory".
7.) Say that you have read her book and find fault with it when you never did read her book.
8.) Create other faux groups like the "Sandy Hook Hoaxers" to keep people from asking the right questions and looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This also creates distrust in our government and people that ask questions. If our government was responsible for 9/11, our government is the only way to reverse the damage it has caused. Anarchy is not the answer.
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
Bookmarked, thanks
2 HangoutUnlimited 2016-09-17
That's a picture of what happened when someone super charges the mega powers and tears down the twin towers.
2 wurrboutit 2016-09-17
It looks similar to the river beds around the sierras.
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
Which I assume was the result of an event caused in some way by magma. This hole could be perceived as like a shaft of a volcano, in that regard.
1 wurrboutit 2016-09-17
Yeah, it was almost certainly molten when created.
1 EhsanButt 2016-09-17
Nuclear Science Subfield Called "Neutron Reaction & Transport" Can Explain Why Cars Parked Around WTC Got Toasted On 9/11 http://academicmafiaproducesshit.blogspot.ca/p/exposing-deceptions-of-academia-you-can.html
-1 Awkwardmoment22 2016-09-17
it got hot down there bro... burned and smoldered for a week. what's wrong? too burnt for you? not burnt enough? or do your mean the fossil in the bottom right mid center?
5 flyyyyyyyyy 2016-09-17
a week?? there was molten rock and steel for 3 months!
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
None of the above, I'm actually wondering how far down it goes
-6 ExtHD 2016-09-17
CGI.
/s
1 Beneficial1 2016-09-17
Sorry, that's not an explanation. It's an assertion. If you can validate that it would be most helpful.
-6 ExtHD 2016-09-17
The planes were CGI. The buildings were CGI. The collapses were CGI. The nukes were CGI. The DEWs were CGI. The new buildings are CGI.
No, wait. I got it. The nukes destroyed the CGI buildings and the DEW was used to set off the nukes... and the nukes were holograms.
1 boudy96 2016-09-17
Someone's angry their government doesn't love them
1 ExtHD 2016-09-17
My point was to ridicule the well poisoners. Let's just stick to actual, physical evidence that supports planes hitting the towers and thermite bringing them down.
1 climbin_trees 2016-09-17
I'm with you, it was a a big screw us and we've been told bs. Any idea seems better then the 'truth' we've been given.
1 ExtHD 2016-09-17
My point was to ridicule the well poisoners. Let's just stick to actual, physical evidence that supports planes hitting the towers and thermite bringing them down.
-3 Awkwardmoment22 2016-09-17
concrete is not made from granite buddy...