It's the spire disintegrating. That's why it looks like the spire disintegrating.

It's a slam dunk certainty that all of the joinery,welds and bolts disintegrated at the same moment or else the buildings couldn't have collapsed at near free fall speed.

I don't think we need to determine which of the government's arsenal of explosives and incendiaries was used once we have established that one was used.

The debris would be completely different if gravity took the buildings down, it was instead shrapnel which is always created by explosives and never be gravity. I think you're right there is no other way than the fact that our government and a host of their colluding traitors attacked us for power and profit. They took care of some troublesome white elephant real estate and some evidence against powerful people in the process.

Joe normal is a sorry ass for not seeing this and coming to our conclusions too.

I was a 'controlled demolition' guy until I actually spent the time to hear what Dr. Judy Woods was saying - some sort of directed energy weapons were used (likely star wars based tech)

It goes deeper than the pulvarization of the buildings - molten cars with intact tires, facades made of one material on a building being disappeared while windows and bricks still intact, it goes on and on.

Some sort of resonant energy tech that can break bonds in molecules. It's honestly not that far-fetched.

Like I said - I didn't even look at this because I thought controlled demolition was sufficient - it's not. It will probably convince you within the first half hour that something very, very strange happened that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMVf6dUhIU

I'm on your side. It wasn't thermite. Thermite looks like this when it buns and this is simply not what any of us saw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQdpmiEx3mA

There was no fiery bright molten liquid steel during the collapses and there were no brilliant showers of sparks like thermite makes. I have no idea why so many of us think they saw a thermite demolition.

The molten metal was found underground after the demolition. In MY opinion it was caused by the friction of thousands of steel beams striking each other on the ground while bouncing and sliding around. Since such a thing had never happened before people think the melting happened in the buildings as they stood.

Here is the actual forensic evidence left by the collapses. Shredded metal, not melted by thermite.

http://imgur.com/2K5nFgt,X0d5mko,NKThWhf,FdWK3j6,GYOylgd,hMgzmi9,jb53ntv,uAwcjO6

http://imgur.com/4KLSY2v,oreM9zZ,vSjv3Ph

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc021.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc073.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc072.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc064.jpg

http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc071.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/66zO1wS.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xYATTpV.jpg

Thanks for this.

/r/nuclear911

/r/DrJudyWood

Nothing to see here concerned citizen. An airplane flew into tons and tons of steel, shredded the steel, the jet fuel... though it burned quickly... melted the steel as well. Our government is now saving us from these terrorists so it's important you work all fucking day and give them like 30 percent of what you make so we can keep fighting these bad guys before they take down another building. Also, don't forget to be scared of Russia. It's very important we elect only certain officials otherwise the bad guys will get us that way too. Best way to make sure you are electing the right officials is to turn on your tv. The people on the TV will tell you what to think and who to vote for. All they want to do is keep you safe as well. So remember, the government and media just want to keep you safe from bad guys. And in order to do so they need your money, your land, and your guns. If we would all just help out our government there would be no more bad guys! Keep paying taxes! Keep watching tv!

"Don't fret precious I'm here, step away from the window, go back to sleep"- Maynard James Keenan

And don't forget to say the pledge of allegiance and wear your flag t-shirt, the one with the bald eagle not the wolf.

Fuck it's animal farm

The attitude we're supposed to adopt here is something like, hm, well we saw planes fly into buildings, so whatever happened after that must just be what happens when planes fly into buildings.

Some think it was nuclear weapons of some sort because of the way the building was blown apart and vaporized, and the high cancer rates of first responders and radionuclides found in soil samples.

Refuse to accept what liars tell you and learn to trust what your own eyes are telling you. It is a steel tower disintegrating right before your eyes. How is that possible? Jet fuel, my friend... jet fuel.

No technology I am aware of could have produced that result, neither planes nor controlled demolitions, at least not alone. For the genuinely curious, this is a key piece of the puzzle to ponder on.

See also toasted cars and drjudywood.com .

The trouble is, that 'new technologies' are an even bigger mindstretch than getting people from "official story" to "controlled demolition". In many contexts it makes sense to emphasize the simpler narrative, or even better, relentless pushing of "the official story cannot be true".

Out-there theories are perfect for the opposition to divide their critics, even if they should eventually prove to be true

I was a 'controlled demolition' guy until I actually spent the time to hear what Dr. Judy Woods was saying - some sort of directed energy weapons were used.

It goes deeper than the pulvarization of the buildings - molten cars with intact tires, facades made of one material on a building being disappeared while windows and bricks still intact, it goes on and on.

Some sort of resonant energy tech that can break bonds in molecules. It's honestly not that far-fetched.

Like I said - I didn't even look at this because I thought controlled demolition was sufficient - it's not. It will probably convince you within the first half hour that something very, very strange happened that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMVf6dUhIU

I just watched a Judy Wood presentation yesterday and was blown away. Its obvious that the towers collapses don't make sense intuituvely. What got me was the torched cars...That's when I started looking into the idea that something else was used and it all falls into place. I believe that WTC7 was pre rigged for demo all along given its high profile occupants. Towers 1 and 2 clearly did not fall because of the plane and ensuing fires but I could not wrap my head around what could have done it until I looked into advanced tech theories. I picture maybe a giant air conditioner type machine placed in an empty floor near the center, maybe multiple of them. Once it's set off it disintegrates the molecular bonds in specific types of metal instantly. This is why it appears something is free falling. Its the machines free falling knocking out everything along the way. Just a theory.

The most common arguments that debunkers make are variations of "it would have taken so many bombs and people to rig the buildings, that someone would have noticed or talked! Therefore they fell down without any bombs."

This is not only invalid, but also ironic and self-defeating, since they have to admit in the first place that it would take lots of extra energy to explain what happened (before coming to a conclusion that refutes the very premise of the argument!)

So the argument is worse than ineffective to support the "a plane hit it, duh" theory.

HOWEVER...you look at what happened and you think, "wait, how DID they manage to get so much explosives into every single floor of the buildings?"

So I'll concede that debunkers have a point, but it's not what they think it is. Unfortunately, bringing this up among serious 9/11 people is likely to go over as well as bringing up 9/11 controlled demolition at Thanksgiving dinner with your extended family in the Ozarks right after you came out of the closet.

bringing this up among serious 9/11 people is likely to go over as well as bringing up 9/11 controlled demolition at Thanksgiving dinner with your extended family in the Ozarks right after you came out of the closet.

LOL :)

This is clearly the tower reminding us that it will be back and not to lose hope. Clearly, since John Conner sent the tower back in time to protect him in the first place he shouldn't be crying in that scene because he knows EXACTLY when he'll see him again in the future to send him back but whatever.

ITT - the Judith Woods disinfo spammers are back.

What exactly is disinfo about asking for clarification? Can you provide any?

Judith Wood is the disinfo.

Again, I'll ask...can you contribute information to the discussion? I am new to her work and she certainly raises interesting questions so here I am asking some of them in hopes of either proving or disproving them. Simple as that. If you have some info on what you are seeing in the video, or information about her being dis info I'd be very interested to hear it. Throwing accusations around without anything to back it up sounds like an attempt to discredit her and her theories.

I am new to her work

Yeah, just what I thought.

...might be the most worthless exchange of words I've ever experienced. Thanks for your contriubution to that.

If you want a bunch of worthless words you should read Judith Woods.

You are very nice and helpful person to the newly awakened jacks1000, for all of us I wanted to give a big THANK YOU!

/S

Just warning people about the well know Judith Wood propaganda bullshit meant to discredit the truth movement.

Fortunately no one actually buys any of her bullshit.

I hear where you are coming from, just seemed like it could have been put in a nicer manner.

No point in red pilling people if they are just going to think we are all irrational assholes.

A couple of points. Seems if this "dustification", as some call it, would be better believed if some of the wreckage showed it. i.e. partially dustified beam. Have we seen any examples?

Why Judy doesn't use this closeup video to help sell her "dustification" claims? Her story holds up until you travel outside her tightly controlled presentation.

Hey wait a minute...this video you posted shows that leftover spire/skin falling. It's falling at freefall speed just the the building did. Watch it up close. The leftover bit of external frame that's left standing for some time suddenly just freefalls straight down?

I've never seen that before. That's not right. It should have just fallen over or stayed upright. Instead it fell straight down after many seconds of standing still.

It's like it is being vaporized at the bottom by something...

The twin towers didn't fall at free fall speed.

It's like it is being vaporized at the bottom by something...

"Like" lol

The unseen bottom. lol So not compelling.

NIST claims it fell in 10 seconds, free fall from the top of the tower is about 9...it's wayyyy too close to free fall for the official NIST conclusions to make sense.

NIST claims it fell in 10 seconds

We know from observation it took longer than that. Even the North Tower rooftop descends at "only" 0.64g, the "collapse front" is even a little slower.

Whatever the actual speed of collapse, give or take one or two seconds doesn't matter, the fact is that it fell as if there was essentially zero resistance, straight through the path of most resistance. That can not be rationalized by gravity alone. That is the fact that should be focused on.

it fell as if there was essentially zero resistance

You can tell how much resistance there was: ~36% of the weight.

That can not be rationalized by gravity alone.

Precisely.

That is the fact that should be focused on.

Absolutely.

^{/r/towerchallenge}

Thanks for that. Had never heard of that sub. Out of curiosity, what do you think happened?

Lord Voldemort used the dark side of the Force to reset the Matrix.

Makes more sense than NIST report

The toasted cars is an interesting piece of evidence...

What to say when the bs spire story turns into dust? No doubt the toasted cars are interesting but they don't necessarily support the good Doctors story.

You haven't proven anything about the spire disintegrating being BS. In fact what I'm seeing in that video is the same as in the one linked in the OP. I can only speculate here but it seems to fall from the bottom and turn to dust on the way down..if you can't see that I'm not sure what else to say. The cars would likely have been toasted like that by whatever "advanced tech" took down the towers. I'm not sold on this idea I'm just theorizing as well. But the video you linked is identical to all the other angles and it seems to disappear before it reaches the ground.

You haven't proven anything about the spire disintegrating being BS.

Sure as fuck have. Judy doesn't use this as evidence because the spire doesn't look like "dustifies" like the blurry shots she uses as evidence. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

turn to dust on the way down

Like many, I think it looks like a falling building that doesn't turn to dust. Your speculation can be upgraded when you find a partially "dustified" beam.

Judy Woods' maybe wrong, but she goes about rationally and her hypothesis explains things that other hypotheses fail to. That is not disinfo.

Actually that is the problem, she isn't rational and her "hypothesis" is not actually scientific since it isn't falsifiable.

She's basically shit-tier propaganda.

Ok, I'm not in opposition to the "inside job" hypothesis. Like you I don't know what happened but there are just too many connections to assume that it was a simple case of terrorism.

But to play devils advocate for the "disintegrating spire" effect I will offer my initial interpretation.

Simply put, the building fell down around the central column, pulverizing itself as it went. Debris and dust from the collapsing portion of the building was deposited on the remaining portion of the spire. The collapse compromised the foundation of the central column, causing it to collapse at near free fall leaving all of the dust and debris in its wake in a cloud that partially obscured the collapse of the column.

This is in no way evidence against the "inside job" hypothesis or even the "controlled demolition" hypothesis; just an observation.

Ok, I'm not in opposition to the "inside job" hypothesis. Like you I don't know what happened but there are just too many connections to assume that it was a simple case of terrorism.

But to play devils advocate for the "disintegrating spire" effect I will offer my initial interpretation.

Simply put, the building fell down around the central column, pulverizing itself as it went. Debris and dust from the collapsing portion of the building was deposited on the remaining portion of the spire. The collapse compromised the foundation of the central column, causing it to collapse at near free fall leaving all of the dust and debris in its wake in a cloud that partially obscured the collapse of the column.

This is in no way evidence against the "inside job" hypothesis or even the "controlled demolition" hypothesis; just an observation.

Fair point you raise and this is exactly the point of my post. I too wondered if residual dust from the collapse was left on the spire and when it too collapsed may have left a sort of floating ghost of dust if you will. But it leaves a strange question still, and that is why we didn't even see a shadow of the intact metal spire fall in any direction. It simply disappears into dust. I don't claim to know anything just curious what others think about this phenomenon. One things for sure...911 was a day of many "firsts".

Also, the columns were coated with a material designed to help protect them from fire. As the column started to collapse, you can see it is swaying. This movement would have helped to crack and dislodge this coating creating the cloud of debris left in its wake as it fell.

It simply disappears into dust.

No, it simply falls behind a "smokescreen" of dust.

You can clearly see it going downwards through the cloud it left behind, especially in the first shot.

It collapsed/crumpled onto itself or into the foundation.

DUSTIFICATION is not "disinformation". It's merely presented as a scientific hypothesis, one that makes a lot of sense to me! No matter what your beliefs are on 911, Judy Wood deserves credit for taking on the government in court over the disposal/removal of crime scene evidence. I believe her case made it to the Supreme Court, and if it weren't for lack of funding she would have won. It's pretty sad that drunk Alex Jones is taken more seriously than an actual scientist who makes no conclusions about motive, only presenting examples of how the towers did not fall in a "collapse".

Lol that justice system sounds like total shit

"She could have won if she just had more money" rofl

I'm pretty sure she sued the company who NIST contracted out to do the analysis of why the buildings fell but the judge dismissed the case as frivolous or something. In her presentation she shows a slow motion video of one of the "wheat Chex" disintegrating in midair. It's a pretty convincing video that something weird was going on that day

DUSTIFICATION is not "disinformation". It's merely presented as a scientific hypothesis, one that makes a lot of sense to me! No matter what your beliefs are on 911, Judy Wood deserves credit for taking on the government in court over the disposal/removal of crime scene evidence. I believe her case made it to the Supreme Court, and if it weren't for lack of funding she would have won. It's pretty sad that drunk Alex Jones is taken more seriously than an actual scientist who makes no conclusions about motive, only presenting examples of how the towers did not fall in a "collapse".

Before entering into the territory of directed-energy weapons, or dustification, please check out September Clues. It is a much better explanation for the events on 9/11, and the creator has been responding to critics for years at the forum where he posts.

The most common arguments that debunkers make are variations of "it would have taken so many bombs and people to rig the buildings, that someone would have noticed or talked! Therefore they fell down without any bombs."

This is not only invalid, but also ironic and self-defeating, since they have to admit in the first place that it would take lots of extra energy to explain what happened (before coming to a conclusion that refutes the very premise of the argument!)

So the argument is worse than ineffective to support the "a plane hit it, duh" theory.

HOWEVER...you look at what happened and you think, "wait, how DID they manage to get so much explosives into every single floor of the buildings?"

So I'll concede that debunkers have a point, but it's not what they think it is. Unfortunately, bringing this up among serious 9/11 people is likely to go over as well as bringing up 9/11 controlled demolition at Thanksgiving dinner with your extended family in the Ozarks right after you came out of the closet.