Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/27/2022 at 7:12 PM, TheConsultant said:

I cannot work out if this hour documentary is brilliant because I read her book "where did the towers go?" or if its not detailed enough, the book certainly goes in to far more detail on the events, measurements and surrounding evidence of her forensic studies and @webtrekker you are absolutely correct, nothing to refute whatsoever but a lot to add but not on here.
 

 

 

Wow ..... I mean Wow !! That makes so much sense and explains things that no theory I've heard of does. WOW! Thanx for posting this. I try to keep an open mind, but I always leaned towards the thermite theory because it seemed to provided the best explanation .... until now. I started out watching this sitting back in my chair, rolling my eyes; and by the end, I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my mouth hanging open .......  An ah-ha moment fer shure.

 

I gotta get the book 🤨

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, JCP said:

 

Wow ..... I mean Wow !! That makes so much sense and explains things that no theory I've heard of does. WOW! Thanx for posting this. I try to keep an open mind, but I always leaned towards the thermite theory because it seemed to provided the best explanation .... until now. I started out watching this sitting back in my chair, rolling my eyes; and by the end, I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my mouth hanging open .......  An ah-ha moment fer shure.

 

I gotta get the book 🤨

You can thank @webtrekker for recommending and posting the book as its genuinely not a subject I bothered looking in to as all the information (I thought I needed about it) was "inside job" , "not the people we were told responsible" and "at least one other country knew about it before hand". But its truly eye opening and the book is very detailed as she is a forensic expert first and foremost and appears to be absolutely right. Unfortunately you have to follow the evidence same thing in truth, it leads the way regardless of how uncomfortable that may temporarily be. I was the same in terms of watching it but I gave it a go and it does summarise her main points, albeit not anywhere near as detailed as the book but more concise and easier to absorb for the visual learner. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 12:30 PM, webtrekker said:

I think the work of Dr Judy Wood, R.I.P, is of paramount importance when trying to determine the reasons behind the pulverisation (not collapse!) of the towers. It should be the basis of everyone's reasoning and below I have provided a link to her book 'Where Did The Towers Go?' I make no excuses for posting this link. If you want to buy the book then feel free, but I think it's information that should be available in the public domain and not just to people with £50 to spare.

 

[Click image to download PDF, or use the link below] The book contains many pages (around 550 I think) so is best viewed in Adobe Reader and not through your browser.

 

WDTTG

 

https://fudgeys.co.uk/WDTTG_towersocr_compressed.pdf

 

If you're stuck for time and want a quick summary then see her website - http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

 

Her old website is here and provides much of the information that is used in her book. Well worth a look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is a long time that i had read and watched info that Nikola Tesla is responsible for the Tunguska explosion

from NY.....

maybe it was dis info 

it is the most powerfull toll they have and the best way to hide your actions 

Edited by screamingeagle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 5:41 PM, legion said:

There's a really easy explanation for this. 

The plane companies, always on a tight budget, do not laminate the flight recorders or engines to save $$$$s.. 

They might scrimp and save on aircraft engines and flight recorders ,but they put a great deal of effort into passports , they seem to have the plastic laminates nailed  and that's  lucky because we know who did it now otherwise people might think it was an inside job

Edited by peter
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JCP said:

 

Wow ..... I mean Wow !! That makes so much sense and explains things that no theory I've heard of does. WOW! Thanx for posting this. I try to keep an open mind, but I always leaned towards the thermite theory because it seemed to provided the best explanation .... until now. I started out watching this sitting back in my chair, rolling my eyes; and by the end, I was sitting on the edge of my seat with my mouth hanging open .......  An ah-ha moment fer shure.

 

I gotta get the book 🤨

 

trouble with Judy is that she HAS to trust photo evidence of that day to construct her thesis.

When confronted with challenging the evidence available (crime scene was completely controlled on 9/11. All photo booths had everything consficated by police. Evan Fairbanks had his camera consficated on the day also. Rick Siegals footage was taken and returned. EVERYTHING released is untrustworthy. ) she was asked to confirm Newtons 3rd law of motion with regard to plane impacts she refused to answer and hid behind her cohort at the discussion.

Judy relies upon the controlled images and i would say many of which are fabricated, fake, faux scenes.

WTC7 footage is highly questionable as authentic and unaltered.

 

and never forget ... the criminals had all the evidence removed and shipped off to china to be melted down.

 

She pointed out the burnt out cars all lined up but failed to say those cars were towed there from multiple new york locations and lined up deliberately.

 

she even stated "we dont know what we dont know" but continues with her position based upon photos which have been in the hands of the very people she is asserting used energy weapons .

 

heres and interview with Greg jenkins n.b she was fuckign shattered after travelling and a show if i remember so excuse the jetlaggyness but note how her attempts to frame her argument with technical ideas are matched with gregs knowledge

 

 

 

 

Edited by zArk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zArk said:

Trouble with Judy is that she HAS to trust photo evidence of that day to construct her thesis.


If I am not mistaken she has said a few times that she was on site going through physical evidence with a small group. Possibly only one other but either way she was on-site personally at ground zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


If I am not mistaken she has said a few times that she was on site going through physical evidence with a small group. Possibly only one other but either way she was on-site personally at ground zero.

 

😆 4 years after the event or 10?

she wasnt part of FEMA was she ? 🤣

 

added thought .. "she was examining the evidence at ground zero that she claims was dustified ?" 🤣

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

😆 4 years after the event or 10?

she wasnt part of FEMA was she ? 🤣

 

added thought .. "she was examining the evidence at ground zero that she claims was dustified ?" 🤣

It was a matter of day(s) I believe, and the evidence required for forensics was still there she also used seismic activity, satellite imagery, spectroscopy and various other methods, as well as her expertise in material science. 

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

It was a matter of day(s) I believe, and the evidence required for forensics was still there she also used seismic activity, satellite imagery, spectroscopy and various other methods, as well as her expertise in material science. 

seriously? she claims she had access to ground zero in september 2001 ?

 

a new one to me i admit

 

a professor at south carolina university was granted access to wtc plaza . incredible 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come on , dish the dirt. i am wetting myself here waiting.

 

when did she make the claim ?

do you have references for her claims?

 

is she more 'taking the piss' than 'cointelpro' , tiger squad style, for 9/11 or is she like Alex Jones , protecting the fraud of airplane hijacks and crashes (by the Neo-cons) which  covered up the demolition of the WTC with bombs planted by 'foreign nationals' who were under the protection of the Democrats (like Oklahoma city) which would have enacted Martial Law and the break down of the US , making the Commies very very pleased with their agents and the round-table group clapping on the side lines

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

Read her book, its posted on this thread by webtrekker

absolutely no mention in the book that she visited ground zero and took samples in the days post 9/11

 

Quote

f I am not mistaken she has said a few times that she was on site going through physical evidence with a small group. Possibly only one other but either way she was on-site personally at ground zero.

so you were mistaken.

 

She examined photos which are controlled and released by FEMA and she refers to reports released by NIST and FEMA

 

i reiterate

 

she had to trust the photos and she had to trust the reports to concoct her thesis of DEW rather than the obvious .... loads of bombs in the buildings.

 

i accept its sexy and exciting to think DEW were used but in the real world bombs do the job.

 

n.b i remember the UFO WTC videos which was one of multiple hooky vids for the truth movement to latch onto. DEW was latched on as was the thermite idea.

 

big bombs was just too smegging boring i guess

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, zArk said:

i accept its sexy and exciting to think DEW were used but in the real world bombs do the job.

Read. her. book. controlled demolition is impossible looking at all the data she goes through even discounting all of the pictures. She and an English chap (possibly others) were on-site at ground zero a matter of day(s) afterwards. She definitely mentions visiting the site in 2007 in the book as she was shocked that some evidences she was looking for were still remaining 6 years later. Whether the more timely visit was in the book and or in interviews I couldn't tell you at this point, it has been communicated regardless and she was not let down by what she gathered from being on-site. Also you do realise the video interview above you posted commission for 9/11 truth or similar name was started by intelligence? Not the greatest of resources to post. I wouldn't call her evidence destroyed in any manner.

Stick to FE ;)

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 5:04 PM, TheConsultant said:

Have you looked in to what they call The Hutchison Effect outside of the book you posted on 9-11?

 

On 9/20/2022 at 6:03 PM, webtrekker said:

In all honesty I haven't delved into the Hutchison Effect

 

23 hours ago, zArk said:

trouble with Judy is that she HAS to trust photo evidence of that day to construct her thesis.

 

The Hutchinson effect is very real, Hutchinson was probably the most research i ever did when on the net back in the day, that and UFO's, @zArk when you say that Dr Judy Woods had to go on is photographic evidence including video is not to be dismissed, as that is all we had to decipher the truth from, myself i have never been to New York so i can not even say that those buildings existed although i have spoken to people that have been there and i trust their first hand witness account, but look, WTC 7 is the smoking gun and is without a shadow of doubt controlled demolition, now it is not possible for a building to be wired with explosives on that day it came down, it was pre meditated, but now we cross over into technology and in particular scalar wave technology and it is very real, those buildings were hit by this tech because if it had been any other way the steel beams would have peeled away like a banana skin but instead turned to dust in mid air, the problem that we face is the acceptance of this type of tech is real and the fact you witnessed it being used, when you accept these facts the real picture emerges and also the outrageous EVIL of those that did this, corona should have been the big fukin wake up call to pay attention!!!

PULL IT, check out as many vids as you can find on Silverstein, analyse the body language when he is with an audience, i can tell you that man signals to those that are in the know within the audience.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2022 at 5:26 PM, zArk said:

 

trouble with Judy is that she HAS to trust photo evidence of that day to construct her thesis.

When confronted with challenging the evidence available (crime scene was completely controlled on 9/11. All photo booths had everything consficated by police. Evan Fairbanks had his camera consficated on the day also. Rick Siegals footage was taken and returned. EVERYTHING released is untrustworthy. ) she was asked to confirm Newtons 3rd law of motion with regard to plane impacts she refused to answer and hid behind her cohort at the discussion.

Judy relies upon the controlled images and i would say many of which are fabricated, fake, faux scenes.

WTC7 footage is highly questionable as authentic and unaltered.

 

and never forget ... the criminals had all the evidence removed and shipped off to china to be melted down.

 

She pointed out the burnt out cars all lined up but failed to say those cars were towed there from multiple new york locations and lined up deliberately.

 

she even stated "we dont know what we dont know" but continues with her position based upon photos which have been in the hands of the very people she is asserting used energy weapons .

 

heres and interview with Greg jenkins n.b she was fuckign shattered after travelling and a show if i remember so excuse the jetlaggyness but note how her attempts to frame her argument with technical ideas are matched with gregs knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

That video just confirms Judy Wood is a true scientist. That idiot interviewer can't answer HER questions! The whole 'interview' was a setup from the start.

 

Read about his 'debunking' scam here ...

 

911ftbk.jpg.52828c02e5745e16677910a419783ece.jpg

 

PDF

 

Excerpt from the book: Chapter 5 ...

 

2022-09-30_17-59-29.png.01f2931929b700b9c4fb076229cf7e6c.png

[Download the book to read more]

 

The author also has another book of interest ...

 

911htbk.jpg.9ce8c5b78c74a3e49e98339e7bd21f3e.jpg

 

PDF

 

Don't just post irrelevant youtube videos to back up your claims without doing some proper research first. Come back and discuss after you have read ALL of Chapter 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by webtrekker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

 

 

 

The Hutchinson effect is very real, Hutchinson was probably the most research i ever did when on the net back in the day, that and UFO's, @zArk when you say that Dr Judy Woods had to go on is photographic evidence including video is not to be dismissed, as that is all we had to decipher the truth from, myself i have never been to New York so i can not even say that those buildings existed although i have spoken to people that have been there and i trust their first hand witness account, but look, WTC 7 is the smoking gun and is without a shadow of doubt controlled demolition, now it is not possible for a building to be wired with explosives on that day it came down, it was pre meditated, but now we cross over into technology and in particular scalar wave technology and it is very real, those buildings were hit by this tech because if it had been any other way the steel beams would have peeled away like a banana skin but instead turned to dust in mid air, the problem that we face is the acceptance of this type of tech is real and the fact you witnessed it being used, when you accept these facts the real picture emerges and also the outrageous EVIL of those that did this, corona should have been the big fukin wake up call to pay attention!!!

PULL IT, check out as many vids as you can find on Silverstein, analyse the body language when he is with an audience, i can tell you that man signals to those that are in the know within the audience.

 


WTC 7 was not even in their report because you cannot explain that any other way than CHOOSING to "pull it". WTC 1 and 2 not collapsing in to their own footprint as if they had Lower Manhattan would have been flooded due to breaking the bathtub the site was built in to. They had to consider that breaking when pulling the very few remaining parts of the buildings left, suggest controlled demolition is very unlikely.

I may have misspoken in regards to her visiting the site days afterwards as it looks like in the book at least it was testimonies of various services firefighters, medical etc. Both Judy Wood and this English guy I cannot remember the name of visited ground zero 6 times according to a radio interview I have, possibly more?

image.png.de438bd72e2a871175fa390840e8bfcb.png

I genuinely may have misspoken regarding her visit that closely to 9-11, I read the book, watched a lot of interviews and listened to radio interviews and remember people mentioning evidence she discusses on the day or very closely to the day and may have wrongly attributed it to her

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

She definitely mentions visiting the site in 2007 in the book as she was shocked that some evidences she was looking for were still remaining 6 years later.

 

so 6 years later ...... 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

Read. her. book

heh, yes, i have the book and she doesnt mention visiting ground zero, like you suggested, in the days after 9/11

 

in fact she doesnt mention visiting it at all, other than in her mind

 

the book is "where did the towers go" ? right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

That video just confirms Judy Wood is a true scientist. That idiot interviewer can't answer HER questions! The whole 'interview' was a setup from the start.

 

not disagreeing that she is a scientist, with credentials and experience.

 

just that shes full of shit, was out to muddy the waters and had no interest in actually dealing with 9/11 other than being a  looooooooooong distraction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

not disagreeing that she is a scientist, with credentials and experience.

 

just that shes full of shit, was out to muddy the waters and had no interest in actually dealing with 9/11 other than being a  looooooooooong distraction

 

Ah, ok. So you didn't read the chapter I linked too then? Why am I not surprised?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

That video just confirms Judy Wood is a true scientist. That idiot interviewer can't answer HER questions! The whole 'interview' was a setup from the start.

 

Read about his 'debunking' scam here ...

 

 

 

2022-09-30_17-59-29.png.01f2931929b700b9c4fb076229cf7e6c.png

[D

 

Don't just post irrelevant youtube videos to back up your claims without doing some proper research first. Come back and discuss after you have read ALL of Chapter 5.

 

 

you cant seriously believe that bumbling Fetzer and Reynolds are proper guys?

 

they were the 2nd barrage, the scholars for truth, who took over the distraction  after the 'in plane sight' celebrity gaggle of tits faded

 

however this reopening of the 'operation shutdown and control exposure of 9/11' bringing up the main characters is actually great and should be a good learning exercise for everyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zArk said:

not disagreeing that she is a scientist, with credentials and experience.

 

just that shes full of shit, was out to muddy the waters and had no interest in actually dealing with 9/11 other than being a  looooooooooong distraction

 

Do you know anything on the Philadelphia experiment/Montauk project, at all?

Do you know what eminent scientists were involved?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sock muppet said:

 

 

 

The Hutchinson effect is very real, Hutchinson was probably the most research i ever did when on the net back in the day, that and UFO's, @zArk when you say that Dr Judy Woods had to go on is photographic evidence including video is not to be dismissed, as that is all we had to decipher the truth from, myself i have never been to New York so i can not even say that those buildings existed although i have spoken to people that have been there and i trust their first hand witness account, but look, WTC 7 is the smoking gun and is without a shadow of doubt controlled demolition, now it is not possible for a building to be wired with explosives on that day it came down, it was pre meditated, but now we cross over into technology and in particular scalar wave technology and it is very real, those buildings were hit by this tech because if it had been any other way the steel beams would have peeled away like a banana skin but instead turned to dust in mid air, the problem that we face is the acceptance of this type of tech is real and the fact you witnessed it being used, when you accept these facts the real picture emerges and also the outrageous EVIL of those that did this, corona should have been the big fukin wake up call to pay attention!!!

PULL IT, check out as many vids as you can find on Silverstein, analyse the body language when he is with an audience, i can tell you that man signals to those that are in the know within the audience.

 

🤣

 

you think he 'accidentally ' let slip those words

 

jeeze you lot need help with analytical thought.

 

WTC 7 is a red herring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...