>>63876

Dr Judy Wood’s evaluation of the evidence proves that directed energy destroyed the World Trade Centre complex – all seven buildings. It is not a hypothesis.

The image to which you refer is analysed in the book Where Did The Towers Go? Chapter 13

Weird Fires

Fires Without Heat, Heat Without Fires

Section C. The Rumor of High Heat

Page 264.

It is not molten metal.

A&E9/11 and ST9/11 were established as part of the 9/11 cover-up.

Steve Jones, Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer are liars and traitors.

We know from the evidence what happened on 9/11. The buildings turned to dust.

Directed energy explains all the evidence.

>>63816

Some good information here, thanks.

Bill Cooper's statement was prophetic. Then killed Nov 6 2001!

The raid on the compound was fake.

>>63811

Quoting from Where Did The Towers Go?

Picture 1: A piece of aluminum cladding near the center of the photo appears to be glowing at one end. But aluminum melts at 660 °C, well before it becomes hot enough to glow. This piece of aluminum cladding has not melted and is still holding its shape. (Pages 263 and 264).

Pictures 3 and 5: Consider the thermal images of Ground Zero [your images]. If these hot spots at Ground Zero were “real”, rescue workers, at 400-800 degrees Celsius, would have been instantly cooked, charred and desiccated. A turkey cooks at 177 degrees Celsius (350 degrees F). How could anyone walk around on top of an 800-degree Celsius oven and live for more than a second or two? (Pages 271 and 272).

Picture 4: The photograph… has often (and inappropriately) been used as evidence of “molten metal and “proof of thermite.” (Page 264).

Picture 2: The “spire” turning to dust. Originally compiled by Andrew Johnson checktheevidence.com

>>31727

A good discussion about the evidence.

#PsyOp Recovery Program with #DrJudyWood

Dr Judy Wood discussing her qui tam, whistleblower, court case and the evidence.

>>65604

Glowing occurs from about (1:07).

Hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot.” (Page 262).

Luminescence without heating is a phenomenon that is seen in cold fusion as well as in the Hutchison Effect. (Page 264).

From Where Did the Towers Go? by Dr Judy Wood. Chapter 13.

Weird Fires

Fires Without Heat, Heat Without Fires

C. The Rumor of High Heat (Page 262).

Also see:

drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

>>65604

Glowing occurs from about (1:07).

Hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot. (Page 262).

Luminescence without heating is a phenomenon that is seen in cold fusion as well as in the Hutchison Effect. (Page 264).

From Where Did the Towers Go? by Dr Judy Wood. Chapter 13.

Weird Fires

Fires Without Heat, Heat Without Fires

C. The Rumor of High Heat (Page 262).

Also see:

drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

>>65928

The photograph [Figure 274 in the book Where Did The Towers Go?] has often (and inappropriately) been used as evidence of “molten metal and “proof of thermite.” This image appears in the NIST report where the compilers acknowledge having adjusted the intensities in the photograph. Let us assume the color was not changed, only the brightness.

The material pouring out of the window on the 80th floor, directly below the arrow noting column 255, appears to be glowing a yellow-orange colour. If the material is glowing because it is hot, then it would need to be approximately 1,100°C. It also appears to be splashing over the aluminum cladding below it, yet that aluminum cladding does not appear melted. Furthermore, the flow appears to be enormous, coming from a reservoir of perhaps hundreds of gallons, all of it presumably 1,100°C. And yet nothing adjacent to it appears to be hot, melted or deformed.

(Page 264).

Quoted from Where Did The Towers Go? By Dr Judy Wood. Chapter 13

Weird Fires

Fires Without Heat, Heat Without Fires

Section C. The Rumor of High Heat Page 264.

There is no evidence of molten metal.

The is no evidence of the use of explosives.

The plane-shaped hole, it would be logical to assume, was created utilizing the same technology used to destroy the entire WTC.

I agree. The evidence shows that the towers were not destroyed by heat.

>>66705

I’m also curious about how the airplane-shaped hole was created, however, I agree with you when you say

>everything with the planes are a distraction, they don't matter.

I think what is spilling, or pouring, is material (any solid or liquid) that is undergoing the effects of cold fusion / low energy nuclear reactions. “Luminescence without heating is a phenomenon that is seen in cold fusion as well as in the Hutchison Effect.” - WDTTG p. 264.

It appears that any type of material (except maybe paper - low mass) can undergo atomic dissociation and / or transmutation.

>>67388

Rebekah Roth is a liar

checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410&Itemid=60

>>68337

Thanks. Your honesty is refreshing. If only we all had sufficient time to investigate the truth.

>>66964

And not one mention of the evidence gathered by Dr Judy Wood. The documentary is based upon David Ray Griffin’s book of disinformation.

Re. David Ray Griffin: “Dr Wood's book has been out [since 2010]. Do you ever hear this guy write or talk about her evidence. You know he likes to write about 9/11 he has at least 10 books about it.” - Andrew Johnson checktheevidence.com

David Ray Griffin believes in global government!

“I think now, err, and many people think now, the nation-state is obsolete.”

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

>>68537

Sadly, it is definitely disinformation.

The 'litmus test' is support of the irrefutable evidence gathered by Dr Judy Wood.

>>67179

>>68550

>>68855

Have you read her book?

Where Did the Towers Go?

Chapter 7

D2. Proof of Concept

There is no evidence that thermite, thermate, super thermite, or nano-enhanced thermite have ever been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition. Thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.

There is no proof of concept for the thermite hypothesis. (Page 124)

F. The Kitchen Sink

Some may find it tempting to propose the idea that multiple methods of destruction were used, assuming that may have been a “fail-safe” plan in case one or more methods failed. There is also the false assumption that if one promotes “everything including the kitchen sink” as the method of destruction, they’re bound to be correct. However, when the physical requirements are considered, the complexity of implementing multiple methods, even if possible, would only add difficulty with no benefit. For example, consider thermite plus explosives. As discussed in the previous section, the ignition and timing of thermite is a challenge. Also, the ignition and timing of explosives (bombs) in the building is a challenge. Coordinating the timing of two such events would greatly increase the complexity, if not render it impossible. Even if it were possible, the fact remains that the physical evidence contradicts the use of thermite and/or “bombs in the building.” (Page 126)

H. Conclusions

2) The thermite model has essentially the same problems as the Conventional Controlled Demolition one. These are actually compounded by the presence of so much paper, a substance that could not conceivably have survived the intensely high temperatures created by thermite.

In short, neither the conventional controlled demolition nor the bombs in the building model offers a sufficient basis for explaining all the evidence. (Page 127)

>>68855

>>66472

>pouring out the side of the building

>>68855

Picture 2 is good.

Steel structured buildings do not collapse as a result of mechanical load failure caused by damage from fire.

>>73331

>not alu because that doesn't glow like that

Next you’ll be saying that molten aluminum is silvery at all temperatures.