Skeptic Project

One thing many people try to deny is that the Steel and Concrete portions of the Twin Towers were primarily turned to dust.

There was plenty of rubble, chunks of metal, framework of the building, chunks of concrete and debris from the collapse, not everything was reduced to rubble that is an exaggeration.

They were in fact turned to dust, while aluminum was either bent or burnt, while paper was unharmed.

In fires in buildings particularly buildings of such magnitude the fires are not in every single location of the building and it is quite normal for all kinds of material to survive fires.
If you have ever seen a house burn down from fire and then go into it afterwards you can find all kinds of things that survived the fire. Trying to make out like the entire building was on fire and everything was ablaze is yet anothe misunderstanding of the properties and behaviour of building fires.

Cat survives fire and tonnes of rubble: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2009/09/08/johnson.cat.survives.fire.wlwt.html<br /> I guess the cat was just planted there afterwards right?

http://rememberwhen.gazettelive.co.uk/holy%20aftermath495.jpg
Hold on that is made of wood [like paper] it should of been burnt into non existance, oh it was just planted there and made to look like it was in the fire afterwards I guess ?
taken from here: http://rememberwhen.gazettelive.co.uk/2009/11/holy-trinity-church-stockton.html</p>

http://www.insidesocal.com/gritchen/2009/04/<br /> Hold on there is wood, cardboard, paper strewn all over the floor, that must of been planted there after the fire.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/3alarm_fire_damages_french_qua.html<br /> Hold on there is wood and paper left unburnt here, it must have been planted afterwards I guess ?

Need I continue to show how stupid that argument is ?

Weird how this same falling dust and building debris can cause 1,400+ cars to become 'toasted', while not burning the hundreds of people it coated in the streets, as some people try to suggest.

Suprisingly people are not filled up with flammable fuel sources such as petrol therefore they tend to not spontaneously combust when covered with hot ash, though their skin and clothing does and did burn. Talk about obvious man, are you really this uninformed about what cars fuel sources are?
If a huge building is collapsing and its filled with burnt rubble and fire ridden heated objects and they all fall from 100 floors down and land on a car, chances are that cars going to get a bit of damage and theres a likelihood its fuel will ignite.

People saw planes crash into the tower , People saw rubble and building sections falling from the plane crash as it happened.

Part 1: World Trade Center Towers—Basic Facts

Witness 1: Lakshman Achutan

Lakshman Achutan was attending a meeting on the ground floor of WTC1 when it was struck.
He describes an explosion, impact and aftermath (begins at 0:31).

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr327a01.mp3</p>

Purpose: evidence that something struck WTC1.

At 4:30 (same link), Mr. Achutan describes seeing with his own eyes—not on television—the
second plane crashing into the WTC2 tower.

Witness 2: Monique Mojica

Ms. Mojica, in this taped interview, describes working near the WTC tower and hearing the
impact of WTC1 when it was struck. At 2:32 she also describes a co-worker who specifically
saw an American Airlines jet fly right past his office window moments before the impact.

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr294a01.mp3</p>

Purpose: corroborates Lakshman Achutan’s claim that something hit WTC1. Evidence that it
was an airplane, possibly American Airlines, that struck WTC1.

Later, beginning at 5:28, she describes seeing a second plane strike WTC2.
Purpose: evidence that an airplane struck WTC2.

Witness 3: Carol Paukner

Carol Paukner was a New York City police officer. In an interview recorded at Hunter College,
she describes the morning of September 11. After getting a call regarding “unknown
conditions,” she walked outside and (at 1:25 in the interview) describes an airplane sticking out
of the WTC1 tower.
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr316a01.mp3</p>

Purpose: corroborates Lakshman Achutan that something struck WTC1; corroborates Monique
Mejia, and also provides independent evidence, that what struck WTC1 was an airplane.

I am unaware of any evidence that disputes the statements made by these witnesses—
consequently, it is reasonable to consider their statements are true.

● CONCLUSION 1: WTC1 was struck by an airplane.

Carol Paukner, continued: At about 5:20 (same link), Ms. Paukner describes a second
explosion caused by jet fuel having fallen down the elevator shaft in the WTC1 tower.
Purpose: evidence that plane strikes caused extensive damage throughout the buildings.

Witness 4: Denise Weiss

Denise Weiss was at school near the WTC towers. When the building was evacuated, she came
out and saw WT1 on fire. She then witnessed, with her own eyes, the second plane crashing into
WTC2. (Describes this beginning 1:34—also describes horrifying sight of people jumping from
the towers).

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr276a01.mp3</p>

Purpose: corroborates Monique Mojica; evidence that a second plane struck WTC2.

I am unaware of any evidence that disputes the statements made by these witnesses—
consequently, it is reasonable to consider their statements are true.

● CONCLUSION 2: WTC2 was struck by an airplane.

Oh and about the aluminium smashing into steel and snapping and falling guess again:

Water, at high enough pressure, can cut through steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYwrFwQrN4 /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1YjqouRDVo&feature=related

and practical uses of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuMb5qmdh2s

Abe you lazy ass, stop pasting the same pre-written responses:

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22So%2C+for+those+of+you+that+have+been+assuming+that+aluminum+can+some+how+cut+through+steel%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CERTbUbFgTPeqOIq2iwOx79CmCQAAAKoEBU_Qth60&pbx=1&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

Abe if planes didn't hit the building and the videos were faked, then what did the thousands of people who saw planes hit the building actually see.

Thousands of people saw planes? What are you talking about? Even the on-site reporters didn't see planes. If you would actually look at the information you would have realized this by now. LOOK...

1. Did Large Airliners Really Hit The WTC Buildings on 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

2. No Major Airline Wreckage at Pentagon on 9/11 | CNN News LIVE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxfsY9kX5U4

3. On-Site 9/11 News Reporter Gives Eye Witness Testimony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrwF0Dx_FuU

again, Andrew Johnson has done us all a great service by compiling all eye witness accounts onto a spread sheet, to determine how many people actually "saw" a plane, how many people actually "heard" a plane, and how many people both saw AND heard a plane. Very weird that you claim thousands witnessed a plane when approximately only 20% of people either saw or heard a plane, and even a smaller percentage of people both saw AND heard a plane. Please see the eye-witness analysis in the free e-book I linked to if you want to know what I am talking about.

Repeating hearsay and rumors, such as "thousands saw a plane!" just goes to how some people will blindly reject information, and repeat rumors and gossip, just to hold on to their beliefs. I challenge you to view the evidence I post and THEN make up your mind after. If you view the evidence and still feel like airliners hit the buildings, that is fine by me, because you looked at the evidence and took it into consideration before making a decision. Please do not make the mistake of forming a strong belief about it without first viewing all the evidence.

I respectfully disagree with you, but I do acknowledge that you are entitled to your own opinion. So, even though your opinion differs from mine, I thank you for sharing it, and for contributing to the discussion.

Have a good evening,

-Abe

I post my credentials to show that I am an intelligent person and am someone that has studied scientific evidence for a very long time. From writing scientific journal articles, to reading / reviewing / analyzing them, I have been trained to make decisions based on the evidence for a very long time. That is the only reason I post them. I understand my credentials do not make me an expert on something like 9/11, but at the very least, my credentials show that I have had a significant background of evidence-based thinking and logic. That is why I post them.

As for the "contradiction" you mention, I clearly state it as an exception. There are usually exceptions to generalizations or rules, except when there is not. Hehe :) Water with added solutes being accelerated to 900+ miles per hour and focused into a very narrow beam can cut through metals, which is an exception to the general rules of hardness contained in Mohs Scale of Hardness.

Thanks for asking,

-Abe

Calling me an idiot now? Hmmm... I will do you the favor of not insulting you in return, for I know very little about you and have no reason to insult you, nor would it accomplish anything productive.

I have spent too much time in this forum today, especially considering how many disrespectful posts have been made about Dr. Wood and myself.

I start my M2 school year tomorrow, so I have to go to bed early tonight. Thanks for sharing your honest opinion of me.

Have a good evening,

-Abe

@PookztA

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

Are you Muslim?

Interesting that he thinks because he is starting his 2nd year in medical school we are supposed to be impressed with his scholarly skills, yet he cant even understand the simple fact of the laws of motion and pressure effects on weak points. Yes a stationary object exerts an equal and opposite force, but its weak points under pressure are the first to break and fracture creating areas of no opposite force allowing the moving object to continue to pass through.

A practical example anyone can conduct:
This is school yard stuff. Why if I kick a steel plate welded to a steel frame does it buckle and break at the joins around the edge allowing my foot to continue through and bend the metal plate inwards away from me ?

Its the exact same process only higher tolerances and pressures, and topped off with explosives.
I can not believe that this supposed scientifically credible person can not even comprehend this glaring simple fact of physics.

Also I hope he realises he is talking to people who are long past their university education days and have also gone through the whole scholarly method.

I did not and do not deny that a large airliner could possibly penetrate the building, but what I specifically said is that the wings and tail sections, because they are spread out over a large area, would have snapped off at least PARTIALLY, and not entered the building. The entire "airliner" first disappears inside the building, THEN it explodes. Certainly we would have seen an explosion as soon as the wings hit the buildings, as that is where the fuel is contained.

Furthermore, if you would just watch this video, which you obviously are avoiding, you would see the obvious media fakery that was used on that day. The angles of entry of the planes in different shots also conflict. In one shot the plane is descending rapidly, but in another shot the plane is travelling parallel to the ground. Conflicting “live” images from our corporate media outlets.

Did Large Airliners Really Hit The WTC Buildings on 9/11? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE

How can the 2nd "airliner" be rapidly descending yet travelling parallel to the ground at the same time? It cannot, and this video does a great job of showing the media fakery that was used on that day.

Keep attacking me, keep calling me unintelligent or whatever you want. I have shown you evidence which must be explained, and until you explain ALL of it, your conclusion is less explanatory than that of Dr. Wood's. Only she has put forth a conclusion that can explain ALL the evidence, from Hurricane Erin being closest to NYC on the morning of September 11th, to the 5 Alaskan Magnometer stations all which detected an enormous deviation in our magnetosphere just as the attacks commenced, to the fact that there was virtually no rubble pile left by the Twin Towers.

Please explain how the Twin Towers were turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere.

Please explain how come steel and concrete were turned to dust, while aluminum was only bent or burnt, while paper was unharmed.

Please explain how 1,400+ cars were toasted / melted, yet the people in the streets next to those cars were not burnt by the debris that fell on them.

Please explain to me how steel beams were found shrivelled up in such a dramatic way that has only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments.

Please explain how cars were found flipped upside all around the ground zero area, next to trees that were not missing ANY of their leaves. What flipped those cars but did not blow the leaves off the tree?

Please explain how circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings around ground zero, when holes like these are known to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a specific way, so how come they did not shatter, and instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?

Please explain why you are not discussing the evidence found at www.drjudywood.com, but instead, you are simply attacking me and calling me unintelligent.

ALL these bits of evidence, and more, MUST be explained by any successful conclusion, and the only conclusion which explains ALL the evidence, is that of Dr. Wood. That is why I support her, because she is the only one who has explained all the evidence.

Dr. Judy Wood does not conclude that space beams turned the Twin Towers to dust. In fact, she specifically concludes that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

I challenge each and every one of you to try and explain ALL the evidence at www.drjudywood.com, regardless of which conclusion you support. ALL the evidence must be explained, and that is why I support the conclusions of Dr. Judy Wood.

Thanks,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

"I post my credentials to show that I am an intelligent person and am someone that has studied scientific evidence for a very long time. "

Intelligent people fall for stupid things all the time. In reference to the question of "Why do smart people believe weird things?" I believe Michael Shermer puts it best by stating that "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons".

Muertos,

I replied to a good chunk of your email, before I realized that we were not discussing the evidence she has gathered. Instead, you were simply asking me questions to cast doubt on her conclusion, yet you did not even attempt to disprove even one single piece of evidence from her website. Now, instead of disproving Dr. Wood, you are now telling me that I have to disprove NIST. Thankfully, that is also addressed at www.drjudywood.com, which you would know if you would just go there and view the evidence for yourself...

Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against NIST’s contractors in 2007, some of which are military / defense / weapons organizations. The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October of 2009. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html<br /> 2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

For some reason, some people are just hell-bent on avoiding her website. If you think she is so wrong, what do you have to lose? Go through her website, each page, and disprove ALL the evidence. Or maybe you just don't want to go to her website for fear that you might agree with her?

Ive seen all the videos before there is no need to avoid them, I have watched all 911 inside job videos.

The fact the images are different colors, you ever used more than one camera before to make a movie project? They produce different quality images when they are different types, you ever pointed a camera at a sky from different directions you get different colours with sunlight, smoke and atmospheric conditions, also you even consider the use of filters? Sheesh this is like talking to someone who tries to make an argument out of nothing.

"Certainly we would have seen an explosion as soon as the wings hit the buildings, as that is where the fuel is contained"

There was an explosion as it hit the building, plus the aircraft was travelling at around mach 0.5 upwards therefore it will keep travelling forward ahead of the explosion.

The fact you even think that the nose cone comes out of the other side of the building unscratched is also speculative, that could just as easily have been any part of the building travelling away from the impact force on the opposite side, it may have been a part of the aircraft that severed off but who can say, the video evidence shows nothing but an object coming through the backside of the building.

Much like when bullet goes through an object it takes out more than just the bullet on the oppsite side.

Abe,

Do your own damn research you lazy fuck.

Your friend,

-Sky

You can use that logic with anything:

Historians claim there were millions of witnesses to the war in Vietnam, yet historians have offered no proof what so ever of these "witnesses." There's no proof the war in Vietnam ever happened.

Surely if no planes hit, there'd be thousands witnesses that would have _not_ seen planes hit and mentioned it to the media or anywhere at all. You're talking morning rush hour in Manhattan, the idea that buildings could be zapped with lasers and then explode, and yet everyone go along with the planes, including all of the people interviewed on television, documentaries, etc. for the next 9 years. No one has ever said "I didn't see any planes! THERE WERE NO PLANES!"

Do you believe the war in Vietnam occurred?

Muertos,

How are photos, graphs, videos, and documents, supposition and innuendo? Those are hard bits of evidence that can be viewed by anyone with an internet connection, so this is yet another false statement from you. Very concerning how many false and inaccurate statements you have made in reference to Dr. Wood's work. Makes me feel like you are not interested in viewing evidence, rather, you are interested in asserting yourself as right. If you can disprove ALL the evidence she has gathered, please let me know.

Weird, you seriously must not have taken much time reviewing all the evidence at her website, especially considering you keep referring to her conclusion as "Space Beams". Dr. Wood never uses the term "Space Beams", and any one who does either is purposely misleading others, or they are just extremely unfamiliar with the evidence she has gathered and the conclusion she has put forth to explain all that evidence.

Disprove her if you can...

...it should be easy for you if she is "Dr. Kook Wood" as you called her. How is that for evidence? Name calling is definitely scientific... haha ;)

I have shown you evidence which must be explained, and until you explain ALL of it, your conclusion is less explanatory than that of Dr. Wood's. Only she has put forth a conclusion that can explain ALL the evidence, from Hurricane Erin being closest to NYC on the morning of September 11th, to the 5 Alaskan Magnometer stations all which detected an enormous deviation in our magnetosphere just as the attacks commenced, to the fact that there was virtually no rubble pile left by the Twin Towers.

Please explain how the Twin Towers were turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere.

Please explain how come steel and concrete were turned to dust, while aluminum was only bent or burnt, while paper was unharmed.

Please explain how 1,400+ cars were toasted / melted, yet the people in the streets next to those cars were not burnt by the debris that fell on them.

Please explain to me how steel beams were found shrivelled up in such a dramatic way that has only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments.

Please explain how cars were found flipped upside all around the ground zero area, next to trees that were not missing ANY of their leaves. What flipped those cars but did not blow the leaves off the tree?

Please explain how circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings around ground zero, when holes like these are known to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a specific way, so how come they did not shatter, and instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?

ALL these bits of evidence, and more, MUST be explained by any successful conclusion, and the only conclusion which explains ALL the evidence, is that of Dr. Wood.

All the evidence that must be explained, thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, can be found at www.drjudywood.com

Have fun,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology