And I meant to add that where there is a SINGLE bit of smoking evidence, it is imperative, as it is in a murder trial, to investigate that smoke, and explore its origin. One simple thing can convict and SHOULD convict. E.G. The "fires" that caused molten metal to be tested for temperature which for months lay at the bottom of the bas…
And I meant to add that where there is a SINGLE bit of smoking evidence, it is imperative, as it is in a murder trial, to investigate that smoke, and explore its origin. One simple thing can convict and SHOULD convict. E.G. The "fires" that caused molten metal to be tested for temperature which for months lay at the bottom of the basement of both towers as it cooled, could absolutely NOT have reached the fire-fighter's detectors reporting such high temps. Impossible! Therefore, a second-grader would rightly conclude malfeasance. Chemistry cannot lie, as do people! The fact that military-grade, nano-ized thermite dust particulates was present in the cloud of white ash over Manhattan proves to be a secondary smoking gun, providing the case with solid evidence that cannot be refuted. End of investigation.
A scary, and interesting time we live in. Best to trust in God and be protected eternally once gotten through it all.
There is so much evidence that it is astonding. Only willfully mindless people refuse to consider the obvious. I am studying that phenomina. Preliminary results are that an inverse proportionality exists. Better educated in science / easier to hood wink...
I think you're spot on! I've noticed the same trend you mention. A child of 10 or 11 would be FAR easier to reason with than the graduate of a "higher learning" facility. Could it be that it is so unsavory to the "all wise" students for having spent lots of calories and days of their lives learning a lie? Or maybe the threat of an infusion of truth into their created (taught) paradigm is a direct affront to their pride, and therefore rejected before it even gets weighed.
The scenarios are so "out there" and illogical, that it always astounds me, and I"m totally in the dark as to the short circuiting in their brains, when so many of the "educated" and otherwise seemingly "normal" people will venture down a road that is so obviously treacherous, dark and foreboding.
Thanks for the reminder. Now, help me to forget about it! lol
The issue I have with that, aside from the more obvious, is that the huge steel girders were "angle cut" using what appeared to be thermite demo charges. Low noise, extreme heat, etc...
Explosives are avoided if possible during demos for obvious reasons. The intent was to create a disaster which was "explainable" and nukes no matter how small, (if they're even existing) would certainly leave their signatures behind. I'm not saying it's an impossibility, only that I personally tend to think it's a bit of a stretch.
Thanks for your input and please shoot me that link to her info.
Were the angle cuts artifacts of the initial demolition, or of later demolition work? If former, perhaps a shielding effect? Nanothermite isn't a very effective demolition explosive, but is inordinately expensive. (How do you even make nanoaluminum? Byproduct of aluminizing telescope mirrors or Mylar? I inadvertently made nanomagnesium while working on a science fair project.) Explosions were reportedly heard. The nukes in question would have been Davy Crockett munitions repurposed for demolition since soldiers can't be expected to use a munition they know will inevitably kill them.
Yes, Judy Wood. Interesting stuff there. Will finish the vid soon. Re: nanothermite. It's not the "explosivity" of the stuff, but the effectiveness in cutting through thick metal which I commented on. Yep, the angle cuts on the massive H girders was certainly NOT cut with a torch during clean up. The site was still being scoured for survivors and it was during the first couple days after the tower fell. ANYway, the cloud of white dust was later analyzed for content, and found to have that thermite in it. Or its signature. 'Not sure how the chemistry works, but it does not lie.
I'd likely enjoy reading it. There are so very many clues to unpack with regard to that fateful day. Some are like "block-busters" others circumstantial, but collectively convincing and when one assembles a full LIST of them all, who can argue the picture it paints?
Shoot me a link of Judith Wood's material, if you have it. Thankx
She encountered considerable criticism regarding her findings, but like the shots of the car damage there in Lahania (sp), she shows similar contradictory evidence. It wasn't a mere use of explosives, which might have been there as a diversion from the technology actually used.
Yes,
And I meant to add that where there is a SINGLE bit of smoking evidence, it is imperative, as it is in a murder trial, to investigate that smoke, and explore its origin. One simple thing can convict and SHOULD convict. E.G. The "fires" that caused molten metal to be tested for temperature which for months lay at the bottom of the basement of both towers as it cooled, could absolutely NOT have reached the fire-fighter's detectors reporting such high temps. Impossible! Therefore, a second-grader would rightly conclude malfeasance. Chemistry cannot lie, as do people! The fact that military-grade, nano-ized thermite dust particulates was present in the cloud of white ash over Manhattan proves to be a secondary smoking gun, providing the case with solid evidence that cannot be refuted. End of investigation.
A scary, and interesting time we live in. Best to trust in God and be protected eternally once gotten through it all.
R
There is so much evidence that it is astonding. Only willfully mindless people refuse to consider the obvious. I am studying that phenomina. Preliminary results are that an inverse proportionality exists. Better educated in science / easier to hood wink...
RRR,
I think you're spot on! I've noticed the same trend you mention. A child of 10 or 11 would be FAR easier to reason with than the graduate of a "higher learning" facility. Could it be that it is so unsavory to the "all wise" students for having spent lots of calories and days of their lives learning a lie? Or maybe the threat of an infusion of truth into their created (taught) paradigm is a direct affront to their pride, and therefore rejected before it even gets weighed.
The scenarios are so "out there" and illogical, that it always astounds me, and I"m totally in the dark as to the short circuiting in their brains, when so many of the "educated" and otherwise seemingly "normal" people will venture down a road that is so obviously treacherous, dark and foreboding.
Thanks for the reminder. Now, help me to forget about it! lol
Ray
Mininukes convert common building materials (steel, aluminum, and wallboard) into mimics of nanothermite/ate.
The issue I have with that, aside from the more obvious, is that the huge steel girders were "angle cut" using what appeared to be thermite demo charges. Low noise, extreme heat, etc...
Explosives are avoided if possible during demos for obvious reasons. The intent was to create a disaster which was "explainable" and nukes no matter how small, (if they're even existing) would certainly leave their signatures behind. I'm not saying it's an impossibility, only that I personally tend to think it's a bit of a stretch.
Thanks for your input and please shoot me that link to her info.
R
Were the angle cuts artifacts of the initial demolition, or of later demolition work? If former, perhaps a shielding effect? Nanothermite isn't a very effective demolition explosive, but is inordinately expensive. (How do you even make nanoaluminum? Byproduct of aluminizing telescope mirrors or Mylar? I inadvertently made nanomagnesium while working on a science fair project.) Explosions were reportedly heard. The nukes in question would have been Davy Crockett munitions repurposed for demolition since soldiers can't be expected to use a munition they know will inevitably kill them.
"her"? If you mean Judy Wood, https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/toasted-cars/
Yes, Judy Wood. Interesting stuff there. Will finish the vid soon. Re: nanothermite. It's not the "explosivity" of the stuff, but the effectiveness in cutting through thick metal which I commented on. Yep, the angle cuts on the massive H girders was certainly NOT cut with a torch during clean up. The site was still being scoured for survivors and it was during the first couple days after the tower fell. ANYway, the cloud of white dust was later analyzed for content, and found to have that thermite in it. Or its signature. 'Not sure how the chemistry works, but it does not lie.
Thanks so much for your observations,
Ray
Judith Wood's analysis is most convincing to me.
Oh?
I'd likely enjoy reading it. There are so very many clues to unpack with regard to that fateful day. Some are like "block-busters" others circumstantial, but collectively convincing and when one assembles a full LIST of them all, who can argue the picture it paints?
Shoot me a link of Judith Wood's material, if you have it. Thankx
Ray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2NFKJKFZX8&ab_channel=911EmpiricalEvidence
She encountered considerable criticism regarding her findings, but like the shots of the car damage there in Lahania (sp), she shows similar contradictory evidence. It wasn't a mere use of explosives, which might have been there as a diversion from the technology actually used.
See above.