DEW seems the most logical imho. There is almost no rubble, unlike a demo'd building. I grew up in a construction family and there should bigger chunks, which there weren't.
right. a very strong case can be made re "evidence of directed energy wpns". it seems, however, that there is a very strong bias against such. strange, but a big part of the human experience, unfortunately. i'm reading the long comment below this: a serious problem accepting the data re missing rubble. so strange. see Mass Formation Psychosis
"strong case" my ass, you got no case. Next you'll be telling us it was moonbeams that took down the tower. How about watching the video which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point your explanation.
I'm sorry. I made a classic, major, mistake, there. Let me inform you of something, a fact: The Burden Of Proof Lies ON YOU, to disprove, debunk, point-by-point, the presentations of DATA by Dr judy Wood.
anytime you want to get-on with that, let me know.
No it ain't. This post is about Richard Gage's video which debunks Judy Wood's thesis. That's what were commenting on. And he does debunk it, thoroughly.
If I went to a Judy Wood site and she posted her evidence for D.E.W., then and only then would the onus be on me to debunk her claims point by point. This is not the case.
So I repeat, go through the video, subject of this article, and explain point by point why Richard is incorrect. Or admit defeat.
What lack of rubble are you referring to? They had 1 million tons of rubble, including steel, concrete, and other materials in the wreckage. Some 200,000 tons of steel, a lot of hot molten steel and steel beams with the classic 45deg angle cut of explosive cutting charges on them. There were some 30,000 truckloads of debris removed from the buildings.
A lot of building materials, wallboard, insulation, ceiling tile will be pulverized by the explosive shock wave and collapsing debris. And much of that was blown over a wide area by wind.
It would take an incredible amount of energy for a D.E.W. to vaporize all that steel & concrete. Star Wars Sci-Fi levels of energy.
And why haven't we seen these mythical "directed free energy weapons" being used in the endless US/NATO/Banking wars that they keep losing? 9/11 was over 20yrs ago. Why aren't they well developed? Why haven't they been used to destroy the Russian campaign? They want to defeat Russia more than anything on the planet. It is their #1 objective. They will risk WW3 to achieve it. So why not use these incredible weapons you are claiming?
You could clear the sky in a single sweep of that type of weapon with 1/1000th of that power. No cruise missiles, rocket artillery, aircraft, helicopters or drones could be flown by Russia. Even hypersonic missiles would likely be unable to penetrate such a system.
Look at the George Stephanopoulos vid the next morning where he is on one of the morning talk shows and he comments on everyone asking the same question, "Where is all the debris"? The buildings became dust. That is very clear to anyone being intellectually honest. How they became dust is beyond my pay grade, but I know that is what happened. If you send enough time on Grok it will tell you how many stories tall the pile of rubble should have been, which it said to me was 1/8th to 1/12th of the building size, so 9 to 13 stories instead it is about 3.
He explains that, to whatever extent that needs explanation. You offer in turn some fable pulled out of thin air of which you have zero direct evidence of any kind.
You might as well claim, "I don't know why the building debris was less than I expect with my very low grade knowledge, so therefore I must conclude that witches cursed the buildings, bringing them down".
How about watching the video in which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point why he is wrong.
* YOU do not, in fact, know ANYTHING whatsoever re the power requirements of anything like a DEW, period. (please: "Star Wars Sci-Fi levels of energy"? please, sir...)
* why haven't DEW been used more? there could be a dozen rational, Big Picture reasons. you should be able to write a paper on that, yourself. (and, for ALL 'we' know, they could have been used many times, clandestinely. or NOT used.)
* why aren't they well developed? what in the world would make anyone think they AREN'T? c'mon.
* they want to defeat Russia... utterly absurd. what in the world would make anyone think that? again, The Big Picture.
* it is completely sensible to NOT deploy secret weapons, until... whatever. The Big Picture.
I know you are going blow-off all my arguments as stupid, delusional, malicious BS, weak minded, unhealthy thinking. OK. let me have it. don't hold back.
Schoolboy level reasoning. You couldn't fix an automobile using that level of logic.
How about watching the video in which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point why he is wrong.
Ideally we could get them to directly debate. You're welcome to try and set that up. I suspect that Richard is willing, but Judy is not. That's my experience in these sort of things.
Failing that, it is left upon you or another Judy believer to counter those points.
I debated Dr. Fetzer in 2023. :)
https://aneta.org/debate/20230911FetzerShaddock
What is the link for me to better advertise your debate on this site?
http://911Debate.org
DEW seems the most logical imho. There is almost no rubble, unlike a demo'd building. I grew up in a construction family and there should bigger chunks, which there weren't.
right. a very strong case can be made re "evidence of directed energy wpns". it seems, however, that there is a very strong bias against such. strange, but a big part of the human experience, unfortunately. i'm reading the long comment below this: a serious problem accepting the data re missing rubble. so strange. see Mass Formation Psychosis
"strong case" my ass, you got no case. Next you'll be telling us it was moonbeams that took down the tower. How about watching the video which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point your explanation.
I'm sorry. I made a classic, major, mistake, there. Let me inform you of something, a fact: The Burden Of Proof Lies ON YOU, to disprove, debunk, point-by-point, the presentations of DATA by Dr judy Wood.
anytime you want to get-on with that, let me know.
until then, I don't want to hear from you.
no hard feelings, sir, OK?
No it ain't. This post is about Richard Gage's video which debunks Judy Wood's thesis. That's what were commenting on. And he does debunk it, thoroughly.
If I went to a Judy Wood site and she posted her evidence for D.E.W., then and only then would the onus be on me to debunk her claims point by point. This is not the case.
So I repeat, go through the video, subject of this article, and explain point by point why Richard is incorrect. Or admit defeat.
And just how do you figure DEW will produce almost no rubble?
its totally technical. have you checked out the Dr Judy Wood material?
exactly how else do you think the lack of rubble can be explained?
What lack of rubble are you referring to? They had 1 million tons of rubble, including steel, concrete, and other materials in the wreckage. Some 200,000 tons of steel, a lot of hot molten steel and steel beams with the classic 45deg angle cut of explosive cutting charges on them. There were some 30,000 truckloads of debris removed from the buildings.
A lot of building materials, wallboard, insulation, ceiling tile will be pulverized by the explosive shock wave and collapsing debris. And much of that was blown over a wide area by wind.
It would take an incredible amount of energy for a D.E.W. to vaporize all that steel & concrete. Star Wars Sci-Fi levels of energy.
And why haven't we seen these mythical "directed free energy weapons" being used in the endless US/NATO/Banking wars that they keep losing? 9/11 was over 20yrs ago. Why aren't they well developed? Why haven't they been used to destroy the Russian campaign? They want to defeat Russia more than anything on the planet. It is their #1 objective. They will risk WW3 to achieve it. So why not use these incredible weapons you are claiming?
You could clear the sky in a single sweep of that type of weapon with 1/1000th of that power. No cruise missiles, rocket artillery, aircraft, helicopters or drones could be flown by Russia. Even hypersonic missiles would likely be unable to penetrate such a system.
Look at the George Stephanopoulos vid the next morning where he is on one of the morning talk shows and he comments on everyone asking the same question, "Where is all the debris"? The buildings became dust. That is very clear to anyone being intellectually honest. How they became dust is beyond my pay grade, but I know that is what happened. If you send enough time on Grok it will tell you how many stories tall the pile of rubble should have been, which it said to me was 1/8th to 1/12th of the building size, so 9 to 13 stories instead it is about 3.
He explains that, to whatever extent that needs explanation. You offer in turn some fable pulled out of thin air of which you have zero direct evidence of any kind.
You might as well claim, "I don't know why the building debris was less than I expect with my very low grade knowledge, so therefore I must conclude that witches cursed the buildings, bringing them down".
How about watching the video in which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point why he is wrong.
Why all the emotion in your text from DEW? What's your angle?
* there are many shots of missing rubble, early on, Tues 9-11.
* but, certainly a huge amount of rubble WAS removed; nevertheless, much WAS missing.
* those 45degree cuts could have been made in the later clearing operations, OR could have been made in CONJUNCTION with the use of DEW wpns.
* reportedly, sinks, toilets, cabinets, desktop computers, plus, plus, completely absent.
* YOU do not, in fact, know ANYTHING whatsoever re the power requirements of anything like a DEW, period. (please: "Star Wars Sci-Fi levels of energy"? please, sir...)
* why haven't DEW been used more? there could be a dozen rational, Big Picture reasons. you should be able to write a paper on that, yourself. (and, for ALL 'we' know, they could have been used many times, clandestinely. or NOT used.)
* why aren't they well developed? what in the world would make anyone think they AREN'T? c'mon.
* they want to defeat Russia... utterly absurd. what in the world would make anyone think that? again, The Big Picture.
* it is completely sensible to NOT deploy secret weapons, until... whatever. The Big Picture.
I know you are going blow-off all my arguments as stupid, delusional, malicious BS, weak minded, unhealthy thinking. OK. let me have it. don't hold back.
Schoolboy level reasoning. You couldn't fix an automobile using that level of logic.
How about watching the video in which he point by point shows that D.E.W. can't explain the multitude of facts, and then explain for each point why he is wrong.
so, I finally got to Gages' vid: I noticed he's not debating Dr Wood. do you realise the implications of Gage not debating Wood on the data?
well, I'm thinking "schoolboy level reasoning".
now: YOU think about whether Gage should debate Wood re the data. plz. sir.
Where is the link to the site holding the debate?
greatly anticipating your point-by-point debunking of Woods' data.
You don't need to anticipate, just watch the video and try explaining those points.
IT IS technical, THUS the respective EXPERTS need to DEBATE the data. does anything like that sound familiar?
no disrespect, but: how old are you? seriously, sir
Ideally we could get them to directly debate. You're welcome to try and set that up. I suspect that Richard is willing, but Judy is not. That's my experience in these sort of things.
Failing that, it is left upon you or another Judy believer to counter those points.