WATCH: Where the Towers Went
An evaluation of Dr Judy Wood's "directed energy weapon" hypothesis
The final film in our un-official 9/11 documentary season is a presentation by Jonathan Cole, a former civil engineer and veteran 9/11 truther, responding to Dr Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go?
Does he make a good case? What do you think?
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I trust that the “Veterans Today” article suggesting many mini-nukes (the tactical variety) as the cause of the demolition
I watched September Clues and found it interesting, but questioned a few points. I won’t watch this clip since the truth will never be admitted by those that planned the 9-11 spectacle. I still wonder how many people had to know beforehand about the event and never came forward. What convinced me the most that it was a terrible hoax (to be kind), was Bush’s reaction when he was told about the disaster. As I remember, he was reading a book to a group of school kids, probably more intelligent than he, and tried to act surprised at the news. Think Reagan was a bad actor before he became president (some think he was after he was elected as well)? Bush won the Razzie Award for Worst Actor for that performance.
Bush had already been told about the World Trade Center at this point and the book he was reading was inexplicably upside down; also these famous images were captured by the same photographer who captured the picture of the flying bullet that apparently nicked Trump’s ear at Butler in 2024.
The demise of a once great empire is near, but was it ever?
Mor important was that if we knew America was under attack and Bush would certainly be a target, why wasn’t he taken to safety as is secret service protocol? The whole event stinks.
Okay this documentary is actually pretty good, if a little patronizing. It does appear more likely that thermite caused the buildings’ collapse rather than a DEW. But then that always the case.
Many important points from Dr Judy stand tho and are brushed over quickly: where did the filing cabinets go? Was there really enough steel and rubble around the footprint? There should have been a HUGE pyramid of steel and debris left over. How did the car engine blocks melt leaving tires and mirrors intact?
Plus no mention of the Cali and Hawaii fires that appeared to leave some houses untouched and strange tree fire artifacts indicating existence of DEWs. Plus no mention of Pentagon and Washington sites where no planes crashed but we were lied to. So not clear we have the whole story yet.
Then there’s Shanksville
Almost stopped watching when it implied that the crop circle phenomenon was created by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley
UFOs making crop circles
These passenger jets could NOT have travelled at 500 miles per hour at sea level. They would have broken apart in mid-air at that speed
Can’t believe how deliberately dishonest the US groupthink really is. It must have to do with being loyal to the Empire. Wood and most others seem to think that in being rigidly scientific they will be able to prove their theory in a milieu when honest science is a hostage of the highest money bidder, with the rest of our institutions, including our courts, having been corrupted by the same powers. When you put all of the unadulterated evidence together, 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag, and Israel did the wet work, having months in the summer of 2001 with their “art teams” to rig every second floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2 for the planned demolition. WTC 7 was rigged in a more conventional way as it was not such an soaring tower needing to be pancaked down. Truthers all seem to have their limits when it comes to the truth. Covid proved that. Shortly after the official narrative evaporated telling us that the virus was from a Wuhan bat and likely bat soup, and it was then proven to be an engineered virus, all loyal Americans were very eager to blame the Chinese for its escape, and the entire source issue then also quickly evaporated.
Good film. Although I am not an engineer, but not exactly technically ignorant, I dare say that I see no problem with Jonathan’s analysis.
About 10 000 tonnes of demolition explosives could pulverise 400āÆ000āÆcubic metres of ordinary concrete which would wiegh roughly 960āÆ000āÆmetric tonnes – more explosives make finer dust.
That’s only the concrete, the steel would be a differrent explosive and is also quite heavy, and the holes would have to be made with specially placed charges, also.
The carting of 10 000 tonnes of explosives and placing them in the building is itself entirely plausible, but doing it secretly and setting the timing of detonation so as to be invisible sounds difficult.
What explosives would you use?
Radio waves can be used in laboratory conditions to trigger some kinds of reactions, such as refactory oxide formation, but I don’t know if that is quite relevant.
Dr Woodās work is by far the most polished and presentable book on this topic. This is a red flag to me; also that she appears to look quite male and may be a trans deceiver.
Consider that 9/11 could have required decades of planning to pull off. Has anyone seen the Newsweek cover where David Rockefellerās watch is set to 9:50 (hands at 9 and 11)? What if the towers were built to be destroyed?
Once you start exploring the occult angles (SK Bainās The Most Dangerous Book in the World and William Ramseyās Prophet of Evil) you are forced to consider that 9/11 was a ritual.
They had 30 years to plan this, so why couldnāt they have built the towers in such a way to give us the show we got that day? What if they were built in such a way to facilitate the demolition? How many of the floors were even finished and/or occupied? How do we actually know that the towers were built to sustain a plane impact?
Recall that Flight 77 was airborne for 77 minutes, hit the 77ā tall pentagon (located at 77th meridian) going 777 ft/s at impact. They could have fabricated a different flight number and a different flight duration, and velocity, but they didnāt. They chose these numbers knowing we could see them. They blew up WTC7 knowing we could see it. Only a dumbass would drop a building to get rid of a bunch of papers inside. WTC7 was meant to be seen, it was meant to light the fuse of a future revelation of the kind that Pike prophesied to Mazzini.
Instead of presenting arguments you attack Judy Wood. This not only reflects badly on you but it also shows clearly bad intent. Furthermore it is an admission of standing empty handed and therefore you lost the argument.
I have and read the book. The video doesn’t address the seismic data/comparisons and energy simulations/calculations necessary for freefall speed which the book posited and which if correct beg for imaginative solutions. Video has too much unsubstantiated ‘mocking’. Also the video was totally naive in terms of energy weapons, hurricane manipulation (does’t realize HAARP activation creates electromagnetic anomalies and hurricanes paths have been manipulated for decades already ) and intentional deception tactics like explosive AND clandestine technologies used in unison, dancing jews intentionally getting arrested etc.. Building 7 could have been taken down with conventional demolition and the main towers differently to avoid the obvious lack of collateral damage in the area.
Whether the planes were real or not is irrelevant and a devisive distraction.
To me it looks like there’s a force directly above pushing the whole thing down which would explain the initial tilting of the antenna and the shape of the dust/debris during the demolitions of the two main towers.
Surely Judy wasn’t totally correct but like with many things we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater in very complex matters. A big redherring in the investigation is that US or Israel are popularly considered autonomous entities…kind of like when not even the POTUS gets a guided tour of Area 51. Thus the event could have been a message to the world that a supranational power has taken control and now runs the theater of events that the public sees falsely as genuine conflict. Think of ‘war’ as a combo of controlled ‘industrial restructuring’ and satanic ritual…both sides funded and orchestrated by the same entity.
On/Off Topic.
The Plane, that hit the Pentagon. Doesn’t it have fuel tanks in the wings, which hit those lamp posts?
No, the plane carried no fuel.
Seems like a hit job on Dr Judy Wood and her observations, and the questions she asks.
Isn’t it possible there were a combination of factors, such as explosives, cgi, directed microwave type energy, and even nuclear? Enough factors to cause a serious degree of confusion, and in-fighting amongst questioners, and throw people off from the truth?
What do you think? To ask an annoyingly additional time.
If these energy force waves exist, as I suspect they were also used in Lahaina HI, there would definitely be people who WOULD NOT want ANYONE to even consider the possibility of. For numerous reasons, some good, some very, VERY bad.
Anyone possibly guilty of using such things in a destructive fashion, after killing so many, would probably easily kill again, to not be found out. They would also go to extremes to keep the cover up and silence going.
Anyone credible, giving people the real promise or realistic hope idea of cheap or free energy would probably be assassinated in short order. Or made to seem like a kook.
Is it possible these HAARP type weapons were also used in Lahaina and in the Mid East? I will never forget seeing the horrible destruction of that beautiful area in Hawaii that the natives were trying to hold onto. And the pictures of the big green trees right there alongside all the black and grey desolation. Microwaves seem to heat from the inside out as far as what I have observed. Also, there was a research lab for these types of things suspiciously near by.
The Last American Vagabond (TLAV) had some good coverage on Lahaina and also 9/11 and the Mid East horrors.
Hopefully we can agree there are unanswered questions. and that we SHOULD think for ourselves, instead of letting the media, or the government or ANYONE else, do it for us.
We can agree that there are things terribly amiss with the “official” story. We can hopefully agree that there is more to learn and discover.
Would we want an “Oppenheimer” type weapon of such force to be known about before we understood human nature enough to contemplate accurately what would cause a human, or a group of humans, to use it to destroy others? Destructive weapons don’t end wars. They CAUSE them, in the hands of destructive and irresponsible individuals.
..
Highly recommend and request that You add this one additional Sept. 11 documentary to the un-official 9/11 Documentary Season: “The Virtual 9/11 Museum Walking Tour” that uses the actual exhibit items in the 9/11 Museum at Ground Zero itself covering all aspects of the events that day to prove that the official story is a total PsyOp Lie and had over a million views on YouTube before being taken down during Covid.
Barbara Honegger, Board Chair, Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (lcfor911.org)
https://archive.org/details/9-11-memorial-museum-virtual-walking-tour
I suspect she is overcomplicating things. Look at a video of a conventional demolition of an office tower and that’s probably what happened to the the Twin Towers, with or without the involvement of planes. It is certainly telling that there is so little information online about a momentous event like 9-11.
Hi Thom,
We have to be careful in our interpretation of what we call ” information out there” lest we become victims of gas lighting. We only can see what we are told is there to see. Wood’s book primarily questions the validity of narratives. Socrates would be proud. Remember to ‘ question everything’but not to respond with panic if one’s understanding disrupts the self; alter all understanding is a journey in which we reach travel at different speeds. š
The wings hit lamposts?
The wings contained fuel tanks?
The wings also have 12,000lb Pratt and Whitney titanium turboprop engines. There was no hole or even mark where the engines would have hit the building. nor were the engines on the ground. Did all that titanium just vaporize at a few hundred mph or did something else hit the building?
Dear Off-G,
It was also mentioned by another poster a short while ago(which I would quote, but I can’t find the comment anymore) but would it not be a good idea to sort out the topics?
I get quite lost in which article I have posted in. Some really good conversations/opinions/comments/links about particular subjects get lost.
For example: there have been 4 articles about 9/11 alone in the last week.
The topics get all jumbled up.
I’m sure it would improve the whole Off-G experience and there’d be more people posting.
But Thank you very much for the site!
Lots of love to everyone,
Claret
Yep, by Design , from the Getgo, the conflation & obfuscation of Association was imperative, to create Confusion via Misinformation & Disinformation overload, that even led to most being unaware of WTC 7, not just on that fateful day …
a Decade later. ! !
In 2016 & ever since, in these columns, I emphasized the need to Focus the Attention (spanned over 2 Roman Candles…) on why WTC 7 collapsed & its’ Content, moreover… howsoever, unQuestionably unequivocally a controlled demolition & proven correct , by the Fairbanks University-Alaska. Onwards, I submit…
What it Evidences, as official historic narratives, still to this day, an office fire
re-writing Very Acute Laws of Science … Chemical Cash Crop Kings & Co.
Drought Resistant Seed.
Weather “Force Multipliers”.
Corporate D.o.D.Hegemony.
$$$ 2.3 Trillion $$$ M.i.a.
48 Stor(e)y Building
81 Steel Columns
2.2. Seconds FreeFall
2.3 $US Trillion M.i.a.
10 Seconds Flat
1 Vertical Implosion of
The I.R.S. D.o.D. N.S.A. C.I.A. F.B.I. &&& (from office š„ fire š š£) the list is Long inc. The S.E.C. Records on cases such as… Enron. I probably should elaborate, but sorry, not now. Everything-everything was engineered & Tested prior to 1997 and Legitimised inc. Enron’s Weather Derivative Funds on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Nuff’ said. Point: cross reference the Exponential Growth of Aladdin & Blackrock’s size & influence over all nation’s Media & Government , Legalised Monetary Control, unjustly, like Tony Blair did, that year… and you should be wise enough to add 2+2 =
Aladdin Hijacked Sovereignty, in a nutshell pre-programmed Profiteering
& Cheering Warmongering by harmonising Psycho-logical Operations… like a
War on Terror . New Pearl Harbour. Office Fire WTC7
Complete Larry Fink Funking ABSURDISTAN-LALALAND !
Via the Media, and we know…ABC ABVGD in Cyrillic,
WPP Preston Rabl & Larry Fink’s OLD A.i. Rumbling…
We enabled Monsters. They are Monstrous. The Monstrosity still is, in
WTC 7, in full DENIAL of ALL SCience inc. Geo-engineering
A Tyrannical Geo-Political-Monstrosity of Inhuman Resources… Aladdin.
I was there , working nights for the CEO of B.P. when ‘we’ purchased the
Atlantic Richfield Corporation ARCO Oil & Gas & Patents of Bernard Eastlund’s designs , evidenced in Alaska , by the buy, High Auroral Accoustic Research Programming of the HAARP.
Did you know Larry Fink was a funking funky HAARPIST, long prior to 1997 &
Aladdin’s Legitimacy ? Rhetoric, logic, how could one legalise something
>>> not worked upon <<< most secretively Tested ? !
E.g. on Farmers or wholesale humanity.
Just like Covid Scientific Guinea Piggery.
But for this: riddle me whose A.i. today is more powerful…
Sam Altman’s & Elon Musk’s or Preston Rabl’s & Larry Fink’s ?
Blackrock WPP Compounding & crunching numbers from the days
& Daze of Enron Valhalla 1987, before the internet ever got delivered,
To their ‘client’ & moreover PRODUCT…
all product kinds, in Advertising Terms.
Death Bed Spreadshitters (sorry) ‘Spreadsheet Wizards’.
Reason to Focus,
Greetings,
Balkydj
Just a quick update Balkydj, that day there were actually seven towers that were destroyed,,,TWT 1,2 & 7 AND 3,4,5 and 6.
Dr Judy Wood’s “directed energy weapon”
why the change of heart?
“directed energy weapon” used to get ridicule on this site.
now most you have seen covid and the fake Italian people falling from covid, the empty hospitals
the fake tests, the theatre production of the mask wearing for cameras and the fake injections for PM’s / MP.
How can anyone believe TV when something as cheap of a production of Trump assassination and fake charles kirk shows that people can see reality from fiction.
The planes hitting the towers is the same production company of 7/7 or Trump and Kirk.
I’ve been emphasizing that looking real isn’t evidence that it is
real. Looking real is not sufficient evidence to say it is definitely real
because every magic show you go to looks real. You know, we are foolable, dupable. You have to keep in mind that
you can be tricked. So, we’re looking at these things as not just a captive
audience watching a magic show with everybody else, but we get out of our seats. We go backstage. We get more information.
Go backstage? Yep the only thing to do is get out of your seat and go back stage and see all for what it is pure theatre.
Dr Wood’s ideas are not touched by the thin arguments in this video. E.g. The idea that flying a thin aluminium tube into a very solid object will pierce that object due to rapid speed is just wrong. If it isn’t then why do militaries spend vast sums on weaponry to slice through steel and concrete?
The work of Dr Wood strongly indicates that the rulers of our world have an immense energy sorce and weaponry at their disposal, an idea every bit as important as knowing that our own governments contrived to bring about 9/11.
I think militaries invest in arsenal that is pound for pound as destructive as possible. They donāt buy fleets of lumbering airliners and fly them into targets because this is expensive, inefficient and impractical.
Anything moving fast enough can exert enough force to puncture even very strong substances like steel. You can cut steel with a high pressure water jet.
Perhaps give the video another watch and try to think in terms of strength of evidence, since we must be guided by evidence, you know? A2
OK…
So, a modern battle tank fires a 120mm shell at a very high velocity, but they don’t fire large aluminium coke cans filled with jet fuel to either destroy other armour or buildings and bunkers. It would be cheap and easy ammunition, but obviously it wouldn’t work.
The idea of the Pentagon damage being caused by a plane is even more out there – the walls of that building are 2 feet thick masonry, and we’re told the plane went through 6 of them, plus internal walls and columns!
In WW2 a bomber hit the Empire State building and the damage was localised. Again in WW2 Royal Navy aircraft carriers withstood direct hits by bomb carrying Kamikazes with just 3 inches of deck armour.
The key point of Dr Wood’s work is not that we now know everything, but it shows us how truly vast is the 9/11 deception.
Are you assuming the intention was to use the planesā penetrative power to level the buildings, hence your comparison with munitions? Iām not sure many people argue this.
Footage appears to show a plane impacting the second tower but not causing huge structural damage. If thereās evidence to suggest this couldnāt happen we should present that evidence for discussion.
The pentagon of course has no video footage and itās highly improbably a commercial airliner could have caused that damage.
Letās argue from the evidence. A2
It’s a given that planes didn’t destroy the towers. The question is whether planes hit the towers at all, something that I increasingly think to be unlikely.
The footage of the plane simply carving into the building is impossible as much of the aircraft would have disintegrated against the steel and concrete, with presumably some penetration through the glass windows and perhaps a few beams brocken in. The relevance of the Pentagon is that the same story of plane attack was used, albeit without film footage, so if there was no plane hitting Washington that indicates the ‘plane wot done it’ explanation is an obvious lie for one part of the operation, casting further doubt on the New York attacks.
Well maybe but I guess itās hard to know, I havenāt seen much footage of airliners hitting buildings in other circumstances.
Given the date and the early state of computer generated video, I think itās reasonable to assume whatever took place was a āpracticalā effect, ie. It was somethmg that really happened. Whatever that was, we probably agree it didnāt initiate collapse, I guess? A2
‘The footage of the plane simply carving into the building is impossible as much of the aircraft would have disintegrated against the steel and concrete, with presumably some penetration through the glass windows and perhaps a few beams brocken in.’
Exactly this.
‘Collision/crash physics’ explains this quite simply.
The kinetic energy of the 60/70 tons of the aluminium tube impact would have easily been absorbed by the enormous 200,000 tons (?) of steel and concrete structure.
Regarding the Pentagon: The hole was not large enough for a plane to have passed through– but there were no plane wings lying on the lawn. I think it was Dick Cheney who was out there helping to very quickly pick up the small pieces of wreckage before they cd be recognized as some sort of missile that was NOT a plane.
I thought it was Donald Rumsfeld, but it doesn’t make any difference as even the idea that some high-ranking politician would be tidying up the fckin lawn after a so-called terrorist attack is completely ridiculous.
It was Rumsfeld. Cheney was in the basement of the White House or somewhere around there. Giving the “stand down” (or don’t) order.
excellent observation
Thierry Messan’s Voltaitenet is still a great resource if you comb through his 1000s of articles.
Pentagon / 911:
https://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html
it was Rumsfeld
Let us say the airplanes, filled up with fuel, hit the building with high velocity in the 4/5 point.
The plane penetrates the building, the fuel explodes inside the building, melt all the steel around immediately, below, and up.
The weak 4/5 point melts so the 1/5 building roof fall directly down on the 4/5 building below.
Too much top loading, the building collapse, why we see whole parts of the side walls falling to the ground.
I see it as a controlled demolition which would happen in almost same fashion as building 7, as this technique is quite normal engineering.
https://ezcleanup.com/controlled-demolition/ – resume:
Controlled demolition is not merely the act of destruction, but rather a carefully orchestrated process that combines science, technology, and a deep understanding of architectural structures.
Itās a ballet of destruction, where every movement is calculated, every action precise, and the final performance is nothing short of awe-inspiring.
Planes hitting the twin towers AND controlled demolition later on? why not?
There’s clearly photographic evidence of one of the tops of the Twin Towers falling off the side of the building at the onset of ‘collapse’, what ever ‘collapse’ means in these two unique cases.
Go check Google images.
What does this mean?
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=fdc0ea62532f3346&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeuYzzFkfneXafNx6OMdA4MQRJc_t_TQjwHYrzlkIauOKj9nSuujpEIbB1x32lFLEvHqOmFe_-41rWC15qkwKqyh1Adl28caI-H4UkF8vEkZPiKeLm1-IF950TIh8vlACO2mbTPf8VBxPKSqKtr1s8uQjQLdEjaVIu_0_-ZWXvwTw3fTWnw&q=wtc+1+%26+2+collapse&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPv5mGwuiPAxXbxAIHHblWMQEQtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=1536&bih=678&dpr=1.25#vhid=aSAkH7CQQCe8iM&vssid=mosaic
‘Anything moving fast enough can exert enough force to puncture even very strong substances like steel. You can cut steel with a high pressure water jet.’
…..
Yes, there are rockets that can penetrate armour plated tanks or whatever.
High pressure water jets have got absolutely nothing to do with it.
The water jet point has everything to do with it, as it illustrates the physics of force = mass x acceleration. If water, a material less dense than steel, can break the atomic bond and cut steal when travelling at sufficient velocity, then so too can aluminium and other aeroplane fuselage IF itās travelling at sufficient speed.
In fact the equations would be quite straight forward to do. We could input the density and mass of all the structures involved in the 9/11 collision, and we could estimate the speed of the plane with a certain amount of accuracy from various video footage.
If the math indicated an object with a mass/acceleration of the observed airplane couldnāt have created enough force on impact to create the observed tower damage, we could then dial the equation up or down to help us understand what sort of material/structure would have been.
Perhaps someone should do this math. Or perhaps someone has?? A2
Maybe you should google water jet cutting Sam, and understand how it works, the water is only a carrier for an abrasive, like garnet, that is much harder than steel. It works kinda like liquid sand paper.
Imagine you have a steel baseball bat the size of the tower, and swing it at whatever speed you like, at a coke can the size of an airplane. If you imagine anything other than a splat, you don’t understand physics and material science.
What about something a little denser, like an air rifle pellet, travelling at 1000 ft per second, yeah splat is the only answer, same reason.
Yes, I accept itās more complicated, but high pressure water can cut through dense substances and the physics is on my side. In terms of high pressure water, yes, in industry there is commonly a combo of forces. The momentum of the water plus the abrasives. Perhaps a structural engineer should weigh in. Rough equations should be straightforward enough in principle as regards the planes hitting the towers. Has anyone done these? A2
If anyone has done the calculation, I can’t find it, the AE911Truth search feature is not the best either.
The Brave browser Ai was more instructive, it does give the calculation (not worth trying to paste the whole page of it tho). try this question for yourself
it explains what is happening at this theoretical level and gives the formula:
So to get into the theoretical nitty gritty, where alluminium can “cut” steel, you need speeds in the hypervelocity range, greater than 2.5km/s
The fastest speed of the planes on 911 is ~503 MPH officially, pilots for 911 truth say 590MPH from video and radar analysis (which is impossible at that altitude as the plane would break up)
503MPH= 810km/h=0.225 KM/s, which is 11 orders of magnitude too slow for the theoretical Hypervelocity speed required for Alluminium to “cut” steel via kinetic energy.
So at 503MPH, you just get a splat, as I said.
Have you seen the September Clues Documentry? what did you think?
Clearly this is a complicated topic! It would be really interesting to have a structural engineer weigh in in order to determine a) whether the mass of a plane fuselage could conceivably cut steel girders at the acceleration and b) if not, then what could replicate the video and photographic evidence.
Iām sure there are numerous shearing and deformation forces to take account of, not simply ācuttingā or slicing. I imagine the tower girders were bolted/welded in order to withstand vertical compression and tension, not to withstand horizontal impact/shearing forces.
Something on this would be incredibly interesting, although not strictly within the remit of ae911truth since I believe they mostly focus on collapse initiation (which is generally more of a question of whether the resulting fires could have softened the steel, rather than the initial plane impact itself, I believe). A2
A rule-of-thumb comparison
While a precise conversion is impossible without more information, a simplified comparison can illustrate the dramatic difference in size due to steel’s higher strength-to-weight ratio.
For example, a rough comparison for a bridge girder might look like this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xESkLydLt3Y
a) Nope, a plane couldn’t do it, it just goes splat
b) I’m going with explosives, CGI trickery, and planted crisis actor witnesses.
With regards A), I would definitely have to defer to a structural engineer before I was confident.
For example, paper is extremely strong for its weight in tension, if the tension is applied equally across its surface at either end, but load it unequally and it becomes extremely vulnerable to tearing.
Iām not sure that your info above (from AI?) is taking into account how a structure/substance reacts differently if loaded in ways it isnāt designed to withstand.
But obviously, we must recognise the validity of other perspectives, and while my intuition says no, you might be right for all I really know. A2
You don’t really need a structural engineer when a an aprox equiv concrete example Vs plane goes splat.
And a rough material science calc shows it’s 11 orders of magnitude impossible.
You just need logic, and/or common sense.
Iām not convinced this āapproxā example accounts for all the forces involved. Also your video is about testing a āone million pound concrete barrierā against aircraft strike, with protecting nuclear reactors in mind. Hardly an equivalent!
Steel high rise buildings are a cage of steel girders with relatively thin concrete and glass between. At the very least an aircraft could be expected to puncture the glass and the concrete! The steel girders, which were not designed for strength in the horizontal plain, must have been subjected to relatively extreme and very localised horizontal shearing forces. They were bolted together, a point of weakness, plus steel is malleable when subjected to high impacts, it buckles, twists and potentially tears like paper.
Neither of us are structural engineers but I donāt think your assurances based on these types of (I think rather too broad) approximations are dealing with the whole picture. Soz. A2
The buildings were designed, by structural engineers, to take a hit from Boeing 707
You just have to imagine one box girder beam, 14″x14″ stood vertially concreted into the ground, then an alluminium plane wing comming at it horizontally at 500mph, like the rocket sled example.
If you think the aluminium wing could cut that steel beam, which you seem to believe, what can I say, I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you. Soz.
I hope youāre not attempting to reduce a complicated question into increasingly simplified soundbites lol. You are not a structural engineer, as you say, so perhaps thatās not a wise move for either of us,
Allow me to take the opposite approach and humbly present my perspective in some detail (and perhaps youāll address all the detail rather than ignore it this time) š
The buildings were designed to withstand a collision by an aircraft without compromising the structural integrity in order to remain standing and structurally sound, meaning they were over engineered in terms of the number of supporting girders, amongst other things.
This doesnāt mean an 80 tonne aircraft (unladen) impacts and goes āsplatā without leaving a mark, similar to hitting a million pound block of concrete. And tbh I think that goes without saying in a sane world.
The towers were not a block of concrete. They were a shell of steel, concrete and glass supported by an inner column of steel that encased lift shafts among other things. There was sufficient structural redundancy to allow an aircraft strike, but Iāve not seen anyone imply a plane would just go splat as you state.
Also I didnāt say anything about the wings cutting the beams like a knife per se, simply that forces act differently at higher momentum and it would be interesting to hear a structural engineerās opinion. There would have been two substantial jet engines too, of course. 80 tonnes (unladen) is a significant force to apply in a relatively small area.
I do hope you aren!t trolling me here lol
Honestly, I was very happy to admit you might be right, but the more you become embedded and certain the less I tend to think you actually are right lol This is based on my observations of how humans tend to behave in conversations like this, nothing else.
Perhaps we should try not to descend into increasingly ludicrous certainty? Your opinion appears to have morphed into a loony tunes scenario, a big splat followed by a squeaky noise as it slides down to earth leaving not a scratch.
I mean, yeah, youāre right, as this conversation goes on I feel increasingly unqualified to comment. A2
We must remember the wing didn’t hit 1 column, there was a 25″ window and then another 14″Ć14″ column and then another etc etc. Each side of each tower was 36% solid structural steel connected horizontally to massive RC cores containing lift shafts and stairs and “bathrooms”. SPLAT.
Retired MICE here. For what it is worth.I laughed out loud as I saw that 1st plane completely disappear into that 1st tower.
From shiny wingtip to shiny wingtip. My thoughts were “pull the other one its got bells on”.
On the day I thought “that’s a lot of dust, and when the dust had cleared, so little debris. But like everyone else I knew concrete and steel don’t just turn to dust and blow away. I had no explanation for what I saw until Dr. Wood wrote her book.
0.225 is approx one tenth of 2.5 ie an order of magnitude smaller. Do you think you might be out of your depth?
The plane is not cutting steel. It is plowing through cement and office wall dividers. The steel columns sit in the center area of the WTC towers.
You are correct. I’ve used high pressure water in cleaning applications at industrial sites. We demonstrated on several occasions cutting through steel, cement and other materials many times for clients to demonstrate the dangers while we are cleaning high pressure vessels.
I dont understand what the posters are trying to argue here. Stick to facts otherwise we just start in-fighting on crap that has no evidence. Arguing constantly how the towers came down is almost a moot point now. The “why” is way more important.
How fast can a commercial airliner go at that altitude/height?
Wasn’t the supposed plane exceeding that speed by some distance?.
How is that possible?
No fire has ever brought down a steel framed building, the Twin Towers were brought down via controlled explosions in a pancake fashion, then the debris was quickly removed to hide any evidence of wrongdoing- and those that, were involved in it – and aided the perps have gotten away with it, because many folk just don’t want believe that their government and other parties were capable of doing such a thing, to their closed minds its unthinkable.
Just like some folk still believe, that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK
You are not an engineer, a fully loaded plane catching fire can heat metal beyond its tensile strength, the weight of the second hit building was greater than the first, i said the second would fall first, and it did, from the additional weight and weakened structure.
Your like a river, you just took a wrong turn and kept on goin
What about the hiding of the debris evidence? What about Building 7? Why wasn’t the tail end of the plane sticking out after the crash? Why, in some videos, does a plane-shaped hole open up into which the plane disappears?
No you’re right I’m not an engineer, but I’ve read countless accounts from REAL engineers that the Towers were brought down in controlled explosions – now who should I believe, the official narrative – or engineers and architects who know about this stuff, its a no-brainer as they say.
I,M an engineer and your dead right RoS.
Yes there’s far too much evidence, from people who know about structures, and how they collapse and why (depending on the circumstances) to brush-off their expertise.
A couple of questions arise in response:
Does the thermite argument also explain the dustification of all this stuff (basically the estimated contents of the towers)?
Could some form of thermite have caused the cylindrically-shaped hollowing out of several other WTC buildings? See aerial photos of the post 9/11 WTC site, for example in Wood’s book. The hollowing didn’t seem to be caused by WTC 1 or 2 debris falling on them.
As far as I’m aware, what was left was removed to some areas used as sifting sites – to remove, the official narrative was human remains belongings (jewellery etc) or any valuables, probably the true purpose of moving the debris so quickly was to, discover and hide – any evidence of the explosions.
ļ»æ š ļ»æ
It’s a shame he used evidence of airplane parts as evidence of planes, those parts have been identified and proved not to be from either of the planes used in the narrative, they were planted parts.
It spoiled an otherwise very excellent analysis. It’s been proved beyond doubt no plane hit the Pentagon (hole too small, no wing debris) No plane hit Shaksville (no surface debris)
It’s been proved beyond doubt the two planes involved in the twin towers narrative could not not have been real, physically impossible speed and manoeuvres at low altitude, impossible physics disapearing into the towers, no-one waiting for passenger arrivals at any of the destination airports etc.
All the TV footage of planes hitting the towers was faked as shown in the documentry September Clues.
Otherwise, Cole does a very good job examining Dr Woods theories. I have her book, I subscribed to her theory for a couple of years, but after the thermite experiments I had doubts, I looked up historical hurricane paths and found ~8 others with very similar paths. Hutchinson posted some obviously faked videos (not all, but some) that when played in reverse it became obvious they were faked (magic flying spanner movements etc.) destrying any credibility he had.
Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition, if they had time to plan and execute that, they had time to plan and execute a top down controlled demolition of the two towers.
Can you detail with a link to the evidence of why the parts are fake at the Pentagon?
The engine used in the video has been proved not to be used by those airlines.
At the Pentagon, the hole was only 30ft across before the roofline collapsed, so all of it was fake, there were no wings sat each side of the hole.
some links here detailing the problem with the engine used in the video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/34o4y0/911_engine_that_shot_out_of_the_south_tower_was/
http://pauldonahue.net/Images/9-11/c-pentagon_montage.jpg
‘All the TV footage of planes hitting the towers was faked as shown in the documentry September Clues.’
Yes and the 9/11 half-truth crowd were booing and hissing the ‘no-plane theory’.
I too thought it was crazy at the time.
Then the September Clues docu blew my mind about 15 years ago, when I watched it for the first time. It’s not easy to watch in one go,as it is jammed full of information.
Then Clues Forum investigated and dismantled the ‘collapse footage’.
https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=802&start=510
I’m of the opinion that even the ‘live on TV’ collapse footage is CGI.
And here we are, discussing CGI footage.
It was the ‘no planes’ theory that sent me down the whole 9/11 rabbit hole at the time, I thought it would be the easiest thing to debunk, I ended up proving to myself it was correct.
One of the first startling discoveries was comparing the shanksville site pre 9/11 with post 9/11 google Earth images, the “scar” was already there, it was also the site with the least scene dressing.
So much of it all has been memory holed now, it’s difficult to find loads of the research from back then. There was an excellent documentry made about the pentagon, interviewing loads of eye witnesses, even the taxi driver who supposidly had the iconic lampost through his windscreen, he wasn’t the brightest candle on the cake, his story was full of inconsistancies, when he realised the documentry crew had him bang to rights he warned them off (parphrasing) “you don’t know who you’re dealing with, these people are dangerous”. (his wife was CIA).
Cluesforum and the letsroll forum did a lot of sterling work, course both were hacked and gutted and are now a shadow of their former selves.
There was a lot of photo fakery, I remember some of the images of jumpers and trapped people hanging out of windows, I remember some of the people had to be 13ft tall comparing the known size of the windows to the people.
The first missing persons wall was a joke too, some of the posters were 12ft off the ground, like the first thing a relative would do, rather than calling hospitals and morgues, would be to photocopy a photo of their loved one grab a set of ladders and go post a poster up nearby, and all of them were stuck up with the same roll of tape.
Then there were the “vicsim” threads, analysing all the memorial photos, many of which were photoshopped versions of the same person, used 3 and 4 times with different hats on, some of them were so bad.
And here we are over 2 decades later, and they still got away with it.
He’s already been spotted lazing in the sun on a beach in Hawaii,
sipping a Margarita…
A Margarita, for f**k’s sake !!**
** Some people have no refinement !!
Cole effectively pulverizes Woodward, her speculations and her book. We pretty well know how and why the buildings were destroyed and people murdered by controlled demolitions. What we want to know is by whom, from deciders to riggers; and how did they pull it off. Then we want justice.
Wrong. What you need to understand first & Foremost is WHY WTC7 & its’
Content, was TARGETED …
Tech. Wise. Did you know Larry Fink could play the
Haarp, before 1997 ?
Budgeted…
Allah Aladdin.
Balkydj
Went?
Into the big black hole of expedience.
But the article, the 9/11 feature and more elder moon landings are good examples on the digital fake world we now are going into.
In the future all public and personal discussions will walk on whether something on the screen went up or it went down. ļ»æ š ļ»æ . https://rutube.ru/video/0312ace000008f5593835c3af0412ae7/ .
If anyone is interested in her book for free!
https://archive.org/details/where-did-the-towers-go-eviden-judy-wood_202208/mode/2up
I think the interesting point is that we spend time trying to understand the minutiae of what happened. In truth, all that matters is that the world comes to know that 9/11was a false flag terrorist attack.
Look at this theory that could help confirm Judy Wood’s work:
The structure of the towers themselves could have been designed and built to be actual, gigantic tuning forks which could be why they could come down in the way they did?
Here is the link for more details on the theory ā ā9-11 WERE THE TWIN TOWERS BROUGHT DOWN WITH RESONANT FREQUENCY WEAPONS?ā :
https://thefullertoninformer.com/9-11-were-the-twin-towers-brought-down-with-resonant-frequency-weapons/
But then why did the buildings explode
Directed-energy kerosine in the non-existent planes, of course.
No. Steel does not act that way physically by resonance.
I doubt it’s coincidental how similar that shape is to the triple underpass through Dealey Plaza.
Itās a shame you had to start being mean to us because you misremembered your own username! Something doesnāt sit quite right there with me.
Iām popping you on premod as a timeout. Remind me in a week and Iāll take you off, if you can keep things respectful in that time. Thank you. A2
I gave apologies straightaway when I realised I miss-typed so what a tyrannical, controlling response from you by putting me on ‘pending’ (and I have seen you do similar to other commenters here in the past – no wonder there aren’t any real commenters left on OffG anymore). If you really think I would stay on this website with control freaks like you at the helm – you really are mistaken. We have (and will build more) real grass-roots media, we do not have to read your controlled output anymore.
Thankfully, almost no-one (real ordinary folk, that is) reads your lame website nowadays because they know you are all state agents pretending to be dissenters with all your carefully controlled articles and troll-bot moderators and the regular fake so-called ‘commenters’
You intelligence assets, Freemasons (and similar mason-types) controlling OffG must know by now that you are being used – you are the lackeys helping your evil, inadequate supremacist Jew-masters aka the real ‘incels of this world’ build the ‘new world’ – they will discard you after your use To us ordinary folk, you all look so ridiculous constantly licking their boots like masochists! Do you have no shame at all? Glad I am not you lot – neither a satanic supremacist incel-jew nor a supremacist masochistic lackey.
Adieu!
I of course regret my decision entirely now I realise what a lovely individual you actually are. I plain miscalled this one.
The way WTC building-7 collapsed in the late afternoon is probably the best place to always focus attention, it is the Achilles Heel of the whole false flag.operation.
There is some very interesting,excellent analysis of the ‘collapse’ video footage over at clues forum, suggesting that everything we saw ‘Live on TV’ that day was also totally fake. The Judy Wood character is just another distraction/half truther. imo. There were loads of them.
It’s well established that directed energy weapons exist and have been used for crowd control and harassment purposes, but I don’t believe they are anywhere near powerful enough to bring down such structures.
Iām not aware of any laser or DEW that can blow up a toaster much less a refrigerator much less multiple 110-floor steel framed buildings
They can burn down Lahaina, all except the plastic and the wood.
Why does the DEW not melt plastic and burn wood
Would explosives have dustified the buildings in mid air and left virtually only dust once the, ahem, dust had settled?
Given our present-day awareness that directed energy weapons (DEWs) actually do exist (did we know about them in 2001?) and that they can cut through steel, etc., I still tend towards Judy Wood’s theory.
“Australian Defence Force’s first directed-energy weapon, called the Fractl Portable High Energy Laser, is powerful enough to burn through steel and can track objects as small as a 10-cent piece travelling 100kmph a kilometre away.
Itās silent [and] virtually motionless…”
We also know that by the time the public becomes aware of any new tech, it has been researched and trialled by the powers that be for years beforehand. DEWs are set to make them a lot of money soon. Why does it appear so outlandish that these are the weapons they used to wreak such devastating havoc, while keeping the buildings right next to The Towers untouched?
Is this in response to the video above, or in spite of it?
A2
Does it make a difference? It’s only a comment.
I never gave much credence to Dr Woods until the past year or so. I think she asks some valid questions.
What makes her theory any crazier than the others?
Quite a bit of it makes sense to me.
We’ll probably never know exactly how it was done, or by who (whom?). Just like a great deal of the horrible acts of my lifetime.
I know it was evil, intentional, purposeful and effective. And it wasn’t 19 Saudi’s with boxcutters and a lost passport.
Well if we choose to disregard quality of evidence and declare everything equal then this is our right as individuals, thatās true, however thatās a personal choice. As admin here I must tell you very straightforwardly, this is not our moderation policy. We ask all commenters to show a high regard for quality of evidence in all communications.
I hope youāre well Judith, A2
But from what I understand there has been a great deal of study and research about directed energy.
Judy Woods asks some vyu fery relevant questions and points out a number of anomolies.
Whether her hypothesis is true, I think her presentations are high quality.
And, I might add, she is the only researcher I have seen that focuses quite a bit on World Trade Center buildings 3, 4, 5, 6.
It was not just the towers and building 7 that collapsed. There is so much more to the story, and she touches on it.
Thank you for your reply and explanation.
I wasn’t being contrarian or stupid. Jonathan Cole does ask valid questions – except for the whether or not we can believe the official story. I’m just emphasising my not-set-in-stone belief in Judy Wood’s argument about dustification and how it could be achieved. Perhaps it was even a combination of explosives set in advance and DEWs…
I feel like Judyās whole hypothesis is based on the assumed existence of an unknown and seemingly technologically imoossible weapon, the effects of which can only be speculated upon since no example of such a superpowered DEW is known to exist to compare to.
Furthermore the buildings exploded. Wouldnāt a vaporizing death ray be more like zapping it with a laser? It doesnt look like they are getting zapped with lasers. Even invisible lasers iād imagine would not cause the buildings to explodeā¦ by what means would a laser cause something to explode? Without aiming it a bomb? Is there evidence that anything of ANY size EVER been exploded by a directed energy weapon? I havenāt heard of such a weapon capable of blowing up a jug of milk, much less 3 extremely robust steel-framed skyscrapers.
Bombs, on the other hand, i am quite certain have the capability to blow things up including buildings
… and leave mere dust following collapse? Where was the rubble?
Can you send me a video of a DEW reducing an object of any size into dust?
You go first. Post evidence that an aluminium aeroplane apparently flying into a tower built with industrial-strength steel and concrete can reduce such a building to mere dust, with no rubble but leaving a deep hole where the building once stood, or that explosives set inside the building could do this.
Also see the link in my previous comment directly from the Australian defence force that their directed energy weapon can cut through steel, for example.
With a building collapse due to impact or explosives, there would have been lots of steel beams and concrete slabs all over the place.
But you gotta give it to them – they found an Arabic passport !
Instead of ripping each other to shreds we should welcome ideas and evidence found against the narratives pushed onto us by governments and their agents in an endeavour to arrive at the truth.
As a civil engineer, I can honestly say…
I have no idea of what is true here.
Never dealt with these kind of structures.
But..
I’m not a coffee connoisseur, either.
I can’t tell you when a cup of coffee is good.
But, I can tell you when it is bad…
If it’s not ‘bad’ then it must be ‘good’. Simple !!
Use ‘binary’ – it Works !!
Where is your specialisation? If you are electrical ok. Otherwise I dont understand how a simple fixed column-beam system in the height would cause you a problem.
Civil Engineer in coffee!? You must be a Scientist.
Well it was absolutely obvious as soon as the NIST ‘report’ came out that it was the proverbial shock of crit.
I was sure, back then, that it was between nano-thermite and directed energy weapons as the only two theories left standing back then. And the reason DEW was still standing was that I didn’t have the knowledge or expertise to evaluate it critically, mostly because I didn’t know where to find basic facts on such technology.
I’m pretty darn sure nowadays that controlled demolition brought down all three buildings, and 100% sure that it brought down WTC7.
The real questions that needed to be answered many, many years ago would have been:
Talk of controlled demolition, thermate, thermite or nano-thermite is spurious. These hypothetical substances only surfaced in 2007 [from a government employee at a nuclear lab]. How far apart were the cutting charges positioned on the beams? Did igniting them entail one spark-plug for each of the millions of charges, connected to a control panel by thousands of kilometers of wires? How long did this preparation take? How did it escape notice?
– Dimitri Khalezov, 2011
She looks insane, and so that about kicks it.