Where did the Building go?

[mr_pixie]

I know some this has been disscussed before but there are people who have overlooked this information and there will be new people who arnt aware of this.

Notice the picture below with building seven in the background

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/after.gif
This photo was taken was take around noon on 9/11/01, showing the height of WTC6 compared to the "rubble pile" of WTC1 which is appears in the foreground. Where did the building go?

The Towers
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/before.gif

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

[mercuryrapids]

The argument was that the rubble went into the basement (Controlled Demolitions' mantra), but, as Judy Wood et al have shown, the basement levels appear virtually intact.

[mr_pixie]

The argument was that the rubble went into the basement (Controlled Demolitions' mantra), but, as Judy Wood et al have shown, the basement levels appear virtually intact.

Yes thanks Mercury rapids.

Heres a picture of that evidence.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg

Lets look in here
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg
No Rumble in here either?

What about down here then?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image300.jpg
Nope still no Rubble?

[marpat]

The argument was that the rubble went into the basement (Controlled Demolitions' mantra), but, as Judy Wood et al have shown, the basement levels appear virtually intact.


Could it not be that a whole building will be full of empty space so you get the impression of a massive structure but once it has collapsed all of those internal spaces are taken up with rubble?

[abababba]

Weren't rescue workers at ground zero day and night for a reasonable period of time cleaning up rubble? If there was barely any rubble, how long would it have taken?

[mercuryrapids]

Weren't rescue workers at ground zero day and night for a reasonable period of time cleaning up rubble? If there was barely any rubble, how long would it have taken?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/after.gif

The above photo was taken on 9/11. You can see WTC 7 behind the smoke. I think Dr Wood said it was probably taken around midday. Those rescue workers sure got hard at work cleaning up, didn't they??? :rolleyes:

[mercuryrapids]

Could it not be that a whole building will be full of empty space so you get the impression of a massive structure but once it has collapsed all of those internal spaces are taken up with rubble?

That's a valid point, but you'd still think the pile would be a wee bit taller than a couple of storeys.

[venividivici2311]

Could it not be that a whole building will be full of empty space so you get the impression of a massive structure but once it has collapsed all of those internal spaces are taken up with rubble?

Good point!but why didnt they just say that?thats the most logical,but nope they said that everything fell in the basement....(wich really didn't)

[marpat]

That's a valid point, but you'd still think the pile would be a wee bit taller than a couple of storeys.

Dont know, I guess the downward force of all that weight could have had some compression effect

[abababba]

The above photo was taken on 9/11. You can see WTC 7 behind the smoke. I think Dr Wood said it was probably taken around midday. Those rescue workers sure got hard at work cleaning up, didn't they??? :rolleyes:

I was wondering why it took a long time after 911 to clean up the small rubble pile, not why the picture on 911 showed so little rubble.

Or are you just trying to say they are being lazy, maybe I misunderstood? Can you clarify?

[mercuryrapids]

I was wondering why it took a long time after 911 to clean up the small rubble pile, not why the picture on 911 showed so little rubble.

Or are you just trying to say they are being lazy, maybe I misunderstood? Can you clarify?

No, it was I that misunderstood. Sorry.

I wasn't saying the clean-up workers were lazy, but the reason it took so long to clean up (it's still not clean, 8 years after 9/11!) is because the towers were largely turned to dust. That's why there's so little debris, the buildings were almost completely pulverised. That's why so many first responders and ground zero workers are dropping dead, because they've been breathing in carcinogenic particles from what's left of WTC1 & 2.

[mr_pixie]

Could it not be that a whole building will be full of empty space so you get the impression of a massive structure but once it has collapsed all of those internal spaces are taken up with rubble?

I'm not sure what your saying but how can two of these buildings dissapear?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/06_blueCookieTower.jpg

all of those internal spaces are taken up with rubble?
But there was no rubble.

but once it has collapsed
And the buildings didnt collapse they turned to dust before they reach the ground.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image28.jpg

[mr_pixie]

Weren't rescue workers at ground zero day and night for a reasonable period of time cleaning up rubble? If there was barely any rubble, how long would it have taken?

But were told there was rubble even though the evidence proves there wasnt much. And weeks and months later what small amount of buils there was, was mounded up with tons and tons of soil (dirt) to bulk it up and probely make it look like there was loads of ruble. Plus the soil was also used to soak up the the contaminated site from the on going affects of the directed energy weapon. They took old soil out and brought fresh soil in like changing a nappy.


Theres soil eveywere! Landfill, potting soil, top soi.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3885.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5313.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5707.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html

[marpat]

Well by looking at those pics it seems to me that at least a portion of it was blown outwards. That would remove some of it. How much of those building was just empty internal space as well?

Although I am not trying to make any claims as to what is right or wrong I would say that the rubble pile looks small because some of it was blown outwards, the stuff that fell would have been compressed due to the weight pushed down on top of it and all the internal space was removed.

[mr_pixie]

Well by looking at those pics it seems to me that at least a portion of it was blown outwards. That would remove some of it. How much of those building was just empty internal space as well?

Although I am not trying to make any claims as to what is right or wrong I would say that the rubble pile looks small because some of it was blown outwards, the stuff that fell would have been compressed due to the weight pushed down on top of it and all the internal space was removed.

But nothing much fell, it turned to dust in mid air! And in the pictures of the sub basements people are walking around so what rubble was compressed?

Please provide some pictures of this compressed rumble?

[marpat]

But nothing much fell, it turned to dust in mid air! And in the pictures of the sub basements people are walking around so what rubble was compressed?

Please provide some pictures of this compressed rumble?

Like I have such pics :rolleyes:

I was just making a logical statement. If 20 tons of rubble tall from a height there is going to be some compression of that material.

At the end of the day I am not trying to prove any particular theory just making a comment on possibilities. I guess that the intense fire could also have burned some material up. Looking at those pics it does seem that there is a lot of rubble over the general area as well as quite a bit within the building framework. Who is to say that the picture reflects the entire amount of rubble from the building? there could be some in palces that are concealed from the camera

[mr_pixie]

Like I have such pics :rolleyes:

I was just making a logical statement. It 20 tons of rubble tall from a height there is going to be some compression of that material.

At the end of the day I am not trying to prove any particular theory just making a comment on possibilities.

But it wasnt a pancake collapse. The buildings where destroys in mid air as i keep saying. watch the videos. theres no evidence for compressed rubble its just a myth. I agree that we should look at all the evidence but the 9/11 truth campaign havent done his. In fact they have ostrasized people who has look into the questions i'm asking and evidence I'm posting on here.

[marpat]

But it wasnt a pancake collapse. The buildings where destroys in mid air as i keep saying. watch the videos. theres no evidence for compressed rubble its just a myth. I agree that we should look at all the evidence but the 9/11 truth campaign havent done his. In fact they have ostrasized people who has look into the questions i'm asking and evidence I'm posting on here.

A myth? I havent even read up on the subject, I was making a logical deduction.

[mr_pixie]

A myth? I havent even read up on the subject, I was making a logical deduction.

Look at the evidence

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/

[merlincove]

Some valid points here, again from both camps, lol...

one point i always felt about an energy burst weapon was that if such came from a satelite, as suspected then the two buildings would come down almost simultaniously, given satelite possition and time to manouvre between the two sites would take moments if the weapon was utilised from directly above the towers. Yet there was, was it ten minutes, between falls? TYen minutes i guess gives time for a high altitude aircraft to turn and come back in...

So what weapon are we suggesting was used to turn the buildings to dust?

The buildings were designed to withstand a whole lot of stresses, both internaly and externally, but those stresses would have been levelled out across the plane of the structure. And looking at the disign a controled demolition would have bought the building down into its footprint, but those outer walls could not have collapsed in on themselves, they would have fanned out, i feel, and remain beyond the footprint. Anf yet there is very little evidence of those outer walls - much of that structure would / should be evident strewn all around, and from these photo's it isn't.

There aint much rubble for sure, it would be interesting if we could sourse some data from other controlled demolition sites in respect of the measurement that occured in the techtonics and Seismology as the towers had a record on the Seismology graphs, as did the impacts, apparently.

By comparing the towers' measured Richter scale with other established demolitions we might better understand how much of it hit the ground?

[mr_pixie]

Some valid points here, again from both camps, lol...

one point i always felt about an energy burst weapon was that if such came from a satelite, as suspected then the two buildings would come down almost simultaniously, given satelite possition and time to manouvre between the two sites would take moments if the weapon was utilised from directly above the towers. Yet there was, was it ten minutes, between falls? TYen minutes i guess gives time for a high altitude aircraft to turn and come back in...

So what weapon are we suggesting was used to turn the buildings to dust?

The buildings were designed to withstand a whole lot of stresses, both internaly and externally, but those stresses would have been levelled out across the plane of the structure. And looking at the disign a controled demolition would have bought the building down into its footprint, but those outer walls could not have collapsed in on themselves, they would have fanned out, i feel, and remain beyond the footprint. Anf yet there is very little evidence of those outer walls - much of that structure would / should be evident strewn all around, and from these photo's it isn't.

There aint much rubble for sure, it would be interesting if we could sourse some data from other controlled demolition sites in respect of the measurement that occured in the techtonics and Seismology as the towers had a record on the Seismology graphs, as did the impacts, apparently.

By comparing the towers' measured Richter scale with other established demolitions we might better understand how much of it hit the ground?

Some valid points here, again from both camps,
Are there diferent camps in this thread? Maybe just people looking for the truth.

one point i always felt about an energy burst weapon was that if such came from a satelite, We dont know where the weapon is? Judy Wood hasnt said she knows where the weapon is.

I think it could be from space but it could be somewhere else?


given satelite possition and time to manouvre between the two sites would take moments if the weapon was utilised from directly above the towers. Yet there was, was it ten minutes, between falls? QUOTE] i surpose you make a fair piont here but then it doesnt mean the weapon is space based? It could be anywhere?

[QUOTE]TYen minutes i guess gives time for a high altitude aircraft to turn and come back in... I'm not sure what your saying here?


So what weapon are we suggesting was used to turn the buildings to dust? Directed Energy Weapon (DEW)


The buildings were designed to withstand a whole lot of stresses
Agreed.


And looking at the disign a controled demolition would have bought the building down into its footprint, Can bombs in the builing + thermite create so much energy?

much of that structure would / should be evident strewn all around, and from these photo's it isn't. Yes there should be a lot more steel in the Rubble.

it would be interesting if we could sourse some data from other controlled demolition sites in respect of the measurement that occured in the techtonics and Seismology as the towers had a record on the Seismology graphs, as did the impacts, apparently.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html



http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

[mr_pixie]

People need to watch this presentation.

http://vodpod.com/watch/426452-911-the-new-hiroshima-part-1-dr-judy-wood-madison-aug-2007

[abababba]

How does a DEW create the perception of dust and debris being blown out or ejected from the tower? This seems more consistent with some type of explosion emanating from within (with the energy possibly coming from some type of nuclear weapon in addition to thermate).

[merlincove]

Are there diferent camps in this thread? Maybe just people looking for the truth.

We dont know where the weapon is? Judy Wood hasnt said she knows where the weapon is.

I think it could be from space but it could be somewhere else?


[QUOTE]given satelite possition and time to manouvre between the two sites would take moments if the weapon was utilised from directly above the towers. Yet there was, was it ten minutes, between falls? QUOTE] i surpose you make a fair piont here but then it doesnt mean the weapon is space based? It could be anywhere?

I'm not sure what your saying here?



sorry m8

i see an instance where a DEW burst is initiated from space requiring the satelite to be directly above the target. So to destroy one tower the sat moves above it and lets the energy beam go. I can't recall how long between tower one falling and tower two falling, though the time it would take the sat to move between the points would have been moments. One energy direction, move, second energy direction, the towers would fall almost simultaniously. This didn't happen, there was a time break between the two collapses - if the energy beam had ben directed by a high altitude plane, then the time differance may come into plat as reflected in the possitioning of that aircraft, moving away from the site, turning and moving back in for the second hit.

i know we can't say where that beam came from, or even if such tech actually exists, so am just throwing ideas around....

And yeah, not two camps, just people looking for answers.

[mr_pixie]

How does a DEW create the perception of dust and debris being blown out or ejected from the tower? This seems more consistent with some type of explosion emanating from within (with the energy possibly coming from some type of nuclear weapon in addition to thermate).

How does a DEW create the perception of dust

I'm not sure if I can explain all of the science behind this but it has to do with Molecular Dissociation and the links in this thread I've given will help with more detail from Judy Wood. When you say create the perception of dust Its not really a perception, they do turn to dust!


Here
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image38.jpg


And here
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/poof_1539.jpg



debris being blown out or ejected from the tower?
Only a few bits of the outer shell of the towers. Unless your talking about the squibs which are not bombs going of inside. That ot more to do with the lathering up process.

This seems more consistent with some type of explosion emanating from within (with the energy possibly coming from some type of nuclear weapon in addition to thermate
If it was a nuke then there would of been a blinding flash along with a very powerfull wind, plus heat and radiation fallout. If thermate/thermite was involed in bring down the towers then doesnt it thermate cut through with heat? But there wasnt any high temperatures at groung zero.

[mr_pixie]

[QUOTE=mr_pixie;865518]Are there diferent camps in this thread? Maybe just people looking for the truth.

We dont know where the weapon is? Judy Wood hasnt said she knows where the weapon is.

I think it could be from space but it could be somewhere else?




sorry m8

i see an instance where a DEW burst is initiated from space requiring the satelite to be directly above the target. So to destroy one tower the sat moves above it and lets the energy beam go. I can't recall how long between tower one falling and tower two falling, though the time it would take the sat to move between the points would have been moments. One energy direction, move, second energy direction, the towers would fall almost simultaniously. This didn't happen, there was a time break between the two collapses - if the energy beam had ben directed by a high altitude plane, then the time differance may come into plat as reflected in the possitioning of that aircraft, moving away from the site, turning and moving back in for the second hit.

i know we can't say where that beam came from, or even if such tech actually exists, so am just throwing ideas around....

And yeah, not two camps, just people looking for answers.

i see an instance where a DEW burst is initiated from space requiring the satelite to be directly above the target. This could happen but we dont know for sure, sounds interesting. But the global power group might have the weapon more sophisticated than this. they definatly tested it out on 9/11.

I can't recall how long between tower one falling and tower two fallingI think it was around 40 or 50 minutes but i could be wrong someone said beore it was 10 mins?

if the energy beam had ben directed by a high altitude plane, then the time differance may come into plat as reflected in the possitioning of that aircraft, moving away from the site, turning and moving back in for the second hit. I thought you ment this but wasnt sure if you were talking about the boeing plane or Dave Von kleist flashes and pods stuff.
Yeah, this could also be how they made those plane shaped holes in the biuldings.


or even if such tech actually exists The Tech defenitly does exists they have been using it in Iraq. And there are companys who are involed in it.

[abababba]

I'm not sure if I can explain all of the science behind this but it has to do with Molecular Dissociation and the links in this thread I've given will help with more detail from Judy Wood. When you say create the perception of dust Its not really a perception, they do turn to dust!



What I am asking is why the explosion appears to eject material out from the core of the building. If the source of the energy was external to the building, you would not expect this pattern.

[abababba]

If it was a nuke then there would of been a blinding flash along with a very powerfull wind, plus heat and radiation fallout. If thermate/thermite was involed in bring down the towers then doesnt it thermate cut through with heat? But there wasnt any high temperatures at groung zero.

The nuclear energy could have been a fusion bomb instead of fission. There are many nuclear weapons of varying sizes and the effects of all these are not exactly the same.

I've seen satellite pictures awhile after 911 with temperatures over 1000 degrees at ground level, implying heat above that below ground, so your claim about high temperatures is not true (unless you argue these pictures are not accurate).

Plus, there is evidence of thermate in different independent dust samples not only tested by Steven Jones but by independent labs. There may have been other things involved, but there was definitely some thermate

I haven't got much from the Judy Wood work because she tends to just present pictures and ask leading questions. There aren't very many technical calculations or analysis to show things are possible or impossible. When asked about whether she performed an energy calculation for directed energy weapons, she didn't. Now that doesn't mean directed energy weapons weren't used and that some of her research isn't valuable, but she shouldn't be the only source you use.

[mr_pixie]

I'm waisting my time here. Motel Metal is a fake story!

How could those firemen be able to walk around under ground zero if it was hot?

[abababba]

I'm waisting my time here. Motel Metal is a fake story!

How could those firemen be able to walk around under ground zero if it was hot?

So are you saying the satellite pictures are fake? Do you have any evidence? There could by many places where the firemen don't walk because it is so hot, presumably you would know if the ground ahead of you is 1000 degrees before you stepped on it. Relying on a priori logic instead of physical evidence is exactly what the debunkers try to do. We should try to move away from it as much as possible where there is evidence to look at.

Anyway, I think its reasonable to deny that thermate was the only thing to bring down the building, but I don't think it is reasonable to deny there was some thermate present in the dust (unless I see some evidence to the contrary).

[musti]

We dont know where the weapon is? Judy Wood hasnt said she knows where the weapon is.

I think it could be from space but it could be somewhere else?


i think there is quite a good chance wtc 7 was used for this purpose and hence had to be destroyed.

[venividivici2311]

John Lear said the WTC was brought down using a DEW,he said the same for the Oklahoma building,that Timothy McVeigh "bombed".
Theres not much evidence of the WTC but there are allot of photos of the oklahoma building that almost looked like there was a piece "carved" or cut out of it,just like al DEW would cut through.

http://www.tedi.net/images/bomb.jpg

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/murrah.jpg

[musti]

Theres not much evidence of the WTC but there are allot of photos of the oklahoma building that almost looked like there was a piece "carved" or cut out of it,just like al DEW would cut through.


if you compare wtc 1-2 collapse and wtc 7 collapse, i think it is quite evident. the top of the building is intact in wtc 7 whereas wtc 1-2 pretty much comes top down dustified.

[andrewjohnson]

John Lear said the WTC was brought down using a DEW,he said the same for the Oklahoma building,that Timothy McVeigh "bombed".
Theres not much evidence of the WTC but there are allot of photos of the oklahoma building that almost looked like there was a piece "carved" or cut out of it,just like al DEW would cut through.

http://www.tedi.net/images/bomb.jpg

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/murrah.jpg

try this: http://www.drjudywood.com/#history

[mr_pixie]

try this: http://www.drjudywood.com/#history

I was going to put this picture on but i forgot and I get disheartend when people just dont even bother to look at the Links i provide.

[venividivici2311]

I was going to put this picture on but i forgot and I get disheartend when people just dont even bother to look at the threads i provide.

Thanks mr pixie! ;)

[white horse]

Like I have such pics :rolleyes:

I was just making a logical statement. If 20 tons of rubble tall from a height there is going to be some compression of that material.



Mostly of steel I believe...?

[mr_pixie]

Mostly of steel I believe...?

Please show us a picture of this steel compression?

[white horse]

Yes thanks Mercury rapids.

Lets look in here
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image300.jpg
No Rumble in here either?


I notice what looks like a plastic water bottle, bottom left; presumably dropped by a ground zero worker! :eek:

[white horse]

Please show us a picture of this steel compression?

Oh yeah exactly, I was kinda wondering out loud all this talk of rubble, that 'rubble' would mostly be made up of steel wouldn't it?

Are we saying that the steel got kinda scruched up inot tiny iddy biddy balls?

Or are we talking disintegration of that steel?

I presume if you are talking about DEW type weoponry, which is really a general term for an unknown piece of apparatus.

It could be laser, sonic, microwave; reminds me of an old microwave years ago, it was a catering oven, it was insane. If you put a pizza in for a half a minute too long the pizza would come out maintaining its shape but if you touched it it just collapsed to a sort of dust. That was many years ago... I've just remembered that tonight...

Any way this was quite an interesting read...


http://www.army.cz/mo/obrana_a_strategie/1-2003eng/valouch.pdf
ELECTROMAGNETIC DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
FOR ELIMINATING ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Capt. Dipl. Eng. Jan VALOUCH

Nobody knows about the use of DEW for criminal activities and terrorist attacks with exception of the offenders themselves and their victims. The German experts even ofcially recommended application of these means to the German police units since there were recorded several cases of use of DEW by the German underground. With DEW it is possible to commit perfect crime, as they leave no evidence. No doubt, in future a wide use of these weapons can be expected which can means an increased risk of their misuse. [emphasis added]


Not very technical but a good overview... but it does have some good references you might wanna check out...

REFERENCES
[1] MUNZERT, Reinhard: Targeting the Human with Directed Energy Weapons, 2002, Erlangen, Germany
[2] MERKLE, Laurence D.: Virtual Prototyping of RF Weapons, 2002, The Air Force Research Laboratory,
Kirtland.
[3] COOP, Carlo: The Electro-magnetic Bomb: A Weapon of Electronic Mass Destruction, 2000, Melbourne
Australia.
[4] VALOUCH, Jan: Activities of VTÚ PV Vyškov in the area of EMC and DEW, presentation of NATO
RTO / SCI–132, 2002, Munster, Germany.
Selection of unclassied documents from the session of Panel NATO RTO/SCI:
[5] SCI–119 Workshop Tactical Implications of High Power Microwaves, Copenhagen, Denmark,
11—13.6.2002.
[6] Open Meeting of NATO RTO/SCI–132 on High Power Microwave to Infrastructure and Military
Equipment, Munster, Germany, 22—24.10.2002.

[mr_pixie]

This picture is ment to be right under groundzero the sub basments and underground train staiton.

In the above picture the steel structure looks in place cart see any bent or broken beams down here? theres what looks like plaster boards and and other inner building stuff but no big beams on the floor. Hold on I've just gone back to this forum thread and you have changed the picture white horse!? Its now that hole were there was ment to be Motel metal? And we have people climbing down into a big hole were a building used to be? Where has the building gone? There are only a few big beams down there laying on the bottom, on top of the bedrock you can see the bedrock were the pools of water are.

[white horse]

This picture is ment to be right under groundzero the sub basments and underground train staiton.

In the above picture the steel structure looks in place cart see any bent or broken beams down here? theres what looks like plaster boards and and other inner building stuff but no big beams on the floor. Hold on I've just gone back to this forum thread and you have changed the picture white horse!? Its now that hole were there was ment to be Motel metal? And we have people climbing down into a big hole were a building used to be? Where has the building gone? There are only a few big beams down there laying on the bottom, on top of the bedrock you can see the bedrock were the pools of water are.

Aye.. I quoted to the wrong pic at first, just poiting out the plastic bottle... looked kinda out of place.

What's the general theory on the type of DEW? Sonic? Microwave? Other?

Is the theory that this weapon disintegrated the fabric of the building into dust which then blew away mostly...?

[mr_pixie]

Aye.. I quoted to the wrong pic at first, just poiting out the plastic bottle... looked kinda out of place.

What's the general theory on the type of DEW? Sonic? Microwave? Other?

Is the theory that this weapon disintegrated the fabric of the building into dust which then blew away mostly...?

Not sure I saw a plastic botle?

The general evidence that Judy Wood presents is that a DEW was to blame for the distruction of the WTC complex. she sometimes talks about Microwave energy as a possabilaty being used but things like lazers are use heat, but as we know there was no heat.

Is the theory that this weapon disintegrated the fabric of the building into dust which then blew away mostly...? I might agree with that.;)

[mr_pixie]

So no steel compression here then.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/Lizardhunter/Image300.jpg

[matrix911]

Ven... do you know when JL's theory about Ok city Dew was first presented?

I asked since there was someone else who said/revealed that the day it occurred which at the time was difficult to fathom since it was back in 1995 or so right?

If there's any truth to Dew Tech having been used back then, then what occurred on 911 had many years of advancement and hardly a NEW TECH.

In fact this same person also explained how MCVEIGH was a counter-agent who took the fall to explain/cover up something that couldn't be explained... and further asserted that McVeigh was never put to death... he was put to sleep... then either his ID changed (perhaps plastic surg) witness protection and disappeared.

far fetched and bizarre... but then there's evidence and many of the facts surrounding OK CITY seem to support this extreme theory.

and oh yeah,,, as bizarre as that seems, this person also claimed to have had prior knowledge about OK CITY in a FAX WARNING he sent to all major media warning about a BIG BANG to occur on 4/19/95 at target ALPHA...

ALPHA is Military code... ALfred P murrAH

and there's an actual federal court case where this document was filed.

Terry Nicols attorney knows all about this case... something that never really officially came out in the MSM... but its all archived and timestamped for those who want to check whether its real and this warning given several times including 2 days before OK CITY.

Anyways,,,, now back to your regularly scheduled 911 program ;)



John Lear said the WTC was brought down using a DEW,he said the same for the Oklahoma building,that Timothy McVeigh "bombed".
Theres not much evidence of the WTC but there are allot of photos of the oklahoma building that almost looked like there was a piece "carved" or cut out of it,just like al DEW would cut through.

http://www.tedi.net/images/bomb.jpg

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/murrah.jpg