WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D

[Seamus Coogan]

Thanks, Charles. I don't know why I even bother being
polite to assholes...beg pardon, I should have used the
more technically correct term sphincter...no matter which
side they are on. I hate it when clueless people like this
claim to be on the "right side"...they give us a bad name.

Hey...somebody give me the book and I will certainly
read it before donating it to UTA with all my other research
materials. But I do not intend to buy it just to give away.

Jack

Jack I often disagree with you. In the 9/11 stuff very much so. But cheers! CD as per bloody usual is right. Your work with John Armstrong was to say the least extremely interesting. I also thought your work on the Roscoe White stuff was really unclouded by BS which was unique for the time. I also like how you can agree to disagree.

If I wanna go for stuff straight out of the box your a great guy to dicuss these issues with. I look forward to disagreeing and agreeing with you in the future lol!

[Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd]

I find it amazing and shocking that a thread can be about the book Dr. Wood has written and no one has read the book would be posting about the book; wherein this invokes a maxim in logic and intelligence precluding condemning the empirical evidence contained within or affirming the empirical evidence within flows a fortiori that those of that ilk's posts are less than the white noise in the ether lacking any intelligence.
Ralph

[Charles Drago]

Blather.

Still waiting.

[Andrew Johnson]

I find it amazing and shocking that a thread can be about the book Dr. Wood has written and no one has read the book would be posting about the book; wherein this invokes a maxim in logic and intelligence precluding condemning the empirical evidence contained within or affirming the empirical evidence within flows a fortiori that those of that ilk's posts are less than the white noise in the ether lacking any intelligence.
Ralph

It's either a lack of intelligence or a combination of panic, fear and a realisation that implications of the evidence are so huge that they change everything completely - so they have to ignore, trash, deny, smear ridicule or pretend "not to understand".

Heck, it took me a while, but 2 towers were there, then, an hour or so later they were both completely missing. It's so straightforward that the transparency of activity on most forums (including this one) is quite close to the "transparency" shown on satellite and other photos of the aftermath of the buildings' disappearance.

So, we can have more meltdowns, more Libya's, Iraq's and Afghanistan's over oil - or we can look at the evidence and realise what is happening and has been happening the world - truly...

A world of abundance or a world of scarcity - you choose... (sorry if you haven't "got it" yet - perhaps the "politics" are just "too deep" to grasp..)

I think Eisenhower understood the "politics" (of secrecy) and so did Kennedy - a shame so few other people do.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/in...&Itemid=55

[Charles Drago]

This thread sure does attract posters with interesting names.

And even more interesting agendas.

"Andrew Johnson" would have us believe that to challenge Dr. Wood's conclusions is to demonstrate ignorance, cowardice, and maybe even complicity in deep political operations.

I'm willing to bet that "he" and "Ralph" and their Jewish/Muslim/Latino comrade know quite a bit about the latter.

You're flunking Provocations 101, "fellas" -- or whoever/whatever you are.

Go tell it to Oswald LeWinter.

[Andrew Johnson]

This thread sure does attract posters with interesting names.

And even more interesting agendas.

"Andrew Johnson" would have us believe that to challenge Dr. Wood's conclusions is to demonstrate ignorance, cowardice, and maybe even complicity in deep political operations.

I'm willing to bet that "he" and "Ralph" and their Jewish/Muslim/Latino comrade know quite a bit about the latter.

You're flunking Provocations 101, "fellas" -- or whoever/whatever you are.

Go tell it to Oswald LeWinter.

Ah thank you for not addressing any of the evidence involved in relation to the destruction of the towers - rather, trying to make some kind of judgement about Andrew Johnson - probably knowing nothing about me (not that there is much of great interest to know).

It matters not who I am (but at least you can go onto my website and check) - what matters is the evidence - and what is shown in the video clip.

If you are interested in establishing my identity, you can go onto the "about" page on my website - have a look - other articles include my phone numbers etc.

I just have to say that from my own research - especially in the last 7 years - technology "trumps" politics - the former actually dictates the latter, not the other way around. Therefore, understanding technology is vitally important - and the secrecy surrounding some of it. With such an understanding, contemporary global politics cannot be properly understood.

My book, by the way, which is free to download (in audio and PDF form) clearly demonstrates complicity in cover up - due to the evidence it includes.

Ignorance is demonstrated - in the book - and here - by the inability to answer the question "Where Did the Towers Go?". That central questions is MOST comprehensively addressed - singularly - by one researcher - Dr Judy Wood. I was involved in the reaction to the presentation of key parts of the evidence - and that is what my book/collection of articles documents.

By the way, my agenda is simple - it is one of documenting and offering information - which proves certain things. I think the things proved are of very great importance.

So, take it or leave it - abundance or scarcity - once you know what questions to ask and where to look.

[Charles Drago]

Blather.

Tell it to Oswald LeWinter.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Perhaps I am missing something about the Wood book which is entitled "Where did the Towers Go?"

Is it wrong to presume from this teaser title that Dr. Wood's book attempts to answer that question? I think not. But perhaps I am wrong.

My understanding is that Wood attempts to describe the absence of the "remains" of the towers and then provides an hypothesis as to how this material could be disappeared or "dustified" including much of the steel... which most people would think accurately rather difficult to dustify, with explosives or fire.

Is this basically what the book contains? If not perhaps you could provide a bit of detail about what it does!

[Charles Drago]

Actually, it's

The Worst,
"Ralph"

Blather.

Tell it to Oswald LeWinter.

[James Lewis]

Jeffrey, I understand where you're coming from, but I feel that I have to clarify a couple of the points you made. First off, the buildings didn't take 10 to 15 seconds to collapse, they took under seven seconds apiece to collapse. The fact that they collapsed, in this manner, in their own footprint, not only suggests, but strongly implies that that controlled demolition was involved in both the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, which collapsed in the exact same manner and wasn't hit by anything. In a Fox News hit piece on Jesse Ventura, Ira Goldstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, clearly stated that he had given the order to "pull" Building 7...the term "pull" means to demolish. As Building 7 was only damaged slightly by fire, the question arises as to why the building was "pulled", and more importantly, how were explosives placed into WTC 7 that quickly, on such short notice. This also implies, of course, that WTC 1 and 2 were also pulled. This strongly suggests that 9/11 was an inside job, and it happened to bring us into war with Iraq, and it also resulted in the passage of the Patriot Act, which basically gave the U. S. government free rein to impose a police state in the name of "fighting terrorism". Just rambling a bit

There was a lot of dust created by the collapse of the three towers. Most of the structural steel was not destroyed. Some of it was almost intact, much of it mangled and bent, a few pieces showed eutectic burning.

All the recovered steel was not inventoried before it was shipped away and sold for scrap. Bush said we were attacked so you don't investigate an act of war (attack), the country "responds". So we are left with little hard evidence and lots of images and videos many of them seem to be tampered with.

The steel did not turn to dust. The towers took 10-15 seconds to collapse and so this appears to be gravity at play. Some believe that this was too fast. This is an assertion not a fact.

Some are studying the collapses and the debris images to this date and discovering new information and new understanding of what happened. All three towers moved a bit before they "let go and collapsed" and this indicates that in the period of slight motion preceding the collapses, only detected with computers and sophisticated software analysis of the vids, that the structure was failing progressively and there was load / stress redistribution going on. Over time this left too little of the structure to support the loads and the buildings then collapsed from their own weight.

This was possible because of the unique design of the three towers which had long span open office floors with no columns interrupting them. So their design was partially their undoing.

We don't know what got the load / stress distribution and progressive failures going. Fire seems like an unlikely cause to do this in such a short time and without high enough temps. However once the structure was losing columns etc. it could not support the weight and gravity, as in a CD brought it down.

I personally wouldn't spend $50 to read Wood's book which if I understand correctly presents a DEW or some other form of energy which was used to "dustify" the towers. I reject that thesis for the reasons stated above.