Yeah, all the jury just needs to understand is the evidence submitted to the US Supreme Court in 2009.
Dr Judy Wood is the only person who has tried to hold a US Government Agency to account regarding the false explanation it promulgated for the destruction of the WTC.
If you want to "mess" with someone - Go "mess" with someone else, or you'll get blocked.
If you don't have the mental capability to focus on a 3h well researched piece on all the events on 9/11, then my dear, you'll struggle ever getting your mind wrapped around the events of 9/11.
There are a multitude of videos on my Rumble channel to suit every type of person's cognitive abilities when it comes to concentrating on evidence presented. I suggest you go and wade through all my content...
I’ll just keep repeating this till it sinks in for you.
Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then 2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then 3) WHO did it. And only then can we address 4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.
Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build-up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.
If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml
Re dustification, I was hoping that Dr Woods would mention the typical seismic register made by a collapsed building versus the register made by the Towers and Bldg 7. I’m sure it’s a huge difference because of dustification. (But perhaps the Towers were brought down by DEW, and Bldg 7 by other methods, so 7’s register would be higher?)
Yes, she does - She compares it to the Seattle King dome - It was a 130 000 ton structure, mainly concrete and when it was blown up, the seismic reading was 2.4.
Then the twin towers were 500 000 tons each.
Seismic readings were 2.3 and 2.1 respectively...
Building 7 was a 230 000 ton building.
Seismic reading was 0.6 = Yes, you read it right a 0.6....
Bro, please try and write in coherent full sentences, you make absolutely no sense - Are you off your meds?
Full sentences, with coherent thoughts - Can you do that?
Try, try really hard.
Yeah, all the jury just needs to understand is the evidence submitted to the US Supreme Court in 2009.
Dr Judy Wood is the only person who has tried to hold a US Government Agency to account regarding the false explanation it promulgated for the destruction of the WTC.
Dr Wood didn’t “call for a new investigation.”
She did the investigation herself, then used the evidence in a court case against fraudulent government contractors. Read more about this: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/court-case-qui-tam/
Ask you what? You make absolutely no sense.
If you want to "mess" with someone - Go "mess" with someone else, or you'll get blocked.
If you don't have the mental capability to focus on a 3h well researched piece on all the events on 9/11, then my dear, you'll struggle ever getting your mind wrapped around the events of 9/11.
And I do not have time to babysit children...
There are a multitude of videos on my Rumble channel to suit every type of person's cognitive abilities when it comes to concentrating on evidence presented. I suggest you go and wade through all my content...
O, just to bring it home to you....
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
Thermite Revisited & Demolished in 2024
Aerospace Engineer discusses the truth about thermite and September 11, 2001
Presentation: https://911revision.substack.com/p/thermite-revisited-and-demolished
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
You make no sense - Try full coherent sentences.
I’ll just keep repeating this till it sinks in for you.
Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then 2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then 3) WHO did it. And only then can we address 4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.
You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.
You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.
If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.
Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.
She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.
Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.
The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.
Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build-up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.
Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report. Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.
If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.
But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.
Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml
The interview makes Jenkins look bad. He wasn't searching for truth
If US government could violate Nuremberg Code massively without any discussion even in msm etc then it could have done 911 by means suggested
God bless you.
I will. I just found out about Dr. Wood.
Yeah, not everyone seems to have the mental capability to critically think when confronted by the truth of 9/11.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
John - This Discussion is, person is a troll...
Thank you 9/11 Revisionist.
Re dustification, I was hoping that Dr Woods would mention the typical seismic register made by a collapsed building versus the register made by the Towers and Bldg 7. I’m sure it’s a huge difference because of dustification. (But perhaps the Towers were brought down by DEW, and Bldg 7 by other methods, so 7’s register would be higher?)
Yes, she does - She compares it to the Seattle King dome - It was a 130 000 ton structure, mainly concrete and when it was blown up, the seismic reading was 2.4.
Then the twin towers were 500 000 tons each.
Seismic readings were 2.3 and 2.1 respectively...
Building 7 was a 230 000 ton building.
Seismic reading was 0.6 = Yes, you read it right a 0.6....
9/11 "Truthers" vs. The Seismic Evidence
No Primary or Secondary Waves Recorded
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence
Thank you! I missed it.
Does anyone have link to Corbett/ Dr. Wood.
I want to give it to someone
Here you go: https://rumble.com/v4rskqx-james-corbett-when-a-truther-is-wrong-on-dew-will-he-apologise.html
Ty!!!
If you want to add, he looks like smart, guy wanting truth
https://dailynewsfromaolf.substack.com/p/the-man-behind-trumps-vp-pick-its