Thread by @Farrier105

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared Since no one involved in this thread has even skimmed the report described in the Tweet that resulted in this exchange, I downloaded it and am in the process of reviewing it and also have Judy Wood's book opened, which I haven't read in several years. Here we go...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared In the main section of the report, we see this:

"2. The debris pile of WTC 7 was contained mostly inside the building’s footprint. Furthermore, it did not have large pieces of concrete flooring or intact structural framing
that would be expected in a building collapse"

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared This reminds me of some of Judy Wood's descriptions of the Tower debris, and I'll get to that, but one of the photos they used was one of hers from building 7 and it relates to the next paragraph:

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared "3. According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1.8)..."

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared This photo is the same as in Woods, page 248, the reddish, rusted, holed piece of a flange or beam from WT7. Rapid oxidation of metal was found all through the debris and among late model cars parked near the World Trade Center.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared The engineers doing the computer simulation did not come to any conclusion about what caused the oxidation, but did state: "Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation..."

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared I never liked the thermite/thermate theory and still don't for any of the buildings as I can't conceive of how it would be used for such a purpose. It has to be something else. When you combine that with the unusual rusting of the support beams and connectors, it matches...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...the rapid rusting found throughout the crime scene, in the parked vehicles, the those support beams that didn't turn to dust, and the pulverized concrete also described in the body of the report, there is evidence that corresponds to the Woods findings.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared I have contacted Dr. Woods through her Web site, including a link to the PDF of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks report prepared for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. It will take some time for her to go through it, if she chooses to do so, but there are few...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...others who could do better at analyzing it. I hope she decides to take it on.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared And now we proceed into the Qui Tam law suit filed by Dr. Wood 09/12/2007 alleging fraud under the statute known as the Information Quality Act under the designation as a Qui Tam Plaintiff as Dr. Wood sued on behalf of both herself and the United States of America.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York. There were numerous defendants, with the first listed being Applied Research Associates, Inc. in response to what was termed a fraudulent investigation into the 911 attacks on World Trade Center by the...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...National Institute of Standards and Technology. The wording of paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 in this lawsuit put the criticism of my one sentence response to Mr. Beck's tweet in a different light, starting with the notion that there can be no other solution to the destruction of..

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared World Trade Center Bldg. 7 but Dr. Wood's conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon. This lawsuit was done on behalf of Dr. Wood by her attorneys and it is reasonable to conclude that Dr. Wood read the attorneys' legal filings in her case.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared Wood caused to be published in or about the month of October 2006, her theory that the events of 9/11/01 that resulted in the utter, complete and total annihilation of the World Trade Center Complex, including WTC 1 and 2 as well as all other buildings having a WTC prefix,

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF WTC 7 was brought
about by use of directed energy weapons. (END OF QUOTE)

So, here we see, Dr. Wood's legal filing set WTC 7 apart as a "possible exception" to a Directed Energy Weapon destroying WTC 7.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared This was included in Paragraph 19 of the legal filing, a PDF of which is located below:

drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/…

This part of the lawsuit speaks for itself when considering this exchange about WTC Bldg. 7.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared If it was okay for Dr. Wood to permit her attorneys to document that WTC 7 was a "possible exception" to her "theory" about Directed Energy Weapons, and we will see in another paragraph Dr. Wood's attorneys did refer to this as her "theory, to posit that WTC7 was a "possible...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...exception," I don't see how it was a "nefarious agenda" on my part to posit the same possibility that WTC 7 was lost by another causal agent than what caused WTC 1 and 2 to be lost.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared Now, as to whether any of Dr. Wood's writings about the 911 attacks in NYC constitute a theory, her own attorney's referred to her writings as a "theory" in Paragraph 19 of the legal filing and refer to "belief" in another.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared "10. Upon information and belief, DEW are and remain highly classified, secret instrumentalities of the military apparatus of the Armed Forces of the United States of America."

A belief is not a factual, empirical, or scientific statement. The "belief" in this paragraph (10)..

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ..refers to DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) being classified, secret instrumentalities (weapons)" of the military. By using the word belief, the attorneys made Dr. Wood's position seem less than factual when her work, reflected by the book "Where Did the Towers Go?" is tied to...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared factual, observable evidence. This was likely caused by the attorneys realizing that Dr. Wood's writing about DEW was her effort to abstract from the forensic evidence exactly what could have caused the damage resulting from the attack. DEW was her answer, but she did not...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...have a known weapon to which she could point and be able to demonstrate could cause that damage. There was no testimony from a designer, builder, or operator of that weapon that could very its physical existence and capabilities, nor were there any documents to verify...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ...the existence of such a weapon. This is likely why the noun "belief" was used by the attorneys and most likely approved by Dr. Wood. So, there are times when it is not unacceptable to reference her position as being a "theory" or "belief."

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared Now, as to the impossibility of more than one causation of the destruction of the World Trade Center. The legal filing of Dr. Wood explicitly states that "the buildings known as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center Complex, World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2...

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared ..."were destroyed based, in whole OR IN SUBSTANTIAL PART upon the use of Directed Energy Weapons (hereinafter generally referred to as DEW)."

Even in Dr. Wood's own legal filing, the Twin Towers COULD have been destroyed ONLY "in SUBSTANTIAL PART" by DEW, not just ONLY DEW.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared Now, when I finally get done reading the recent report about which Mr. Beck tweeted on 4/23/2020, I'll take a look at what was likely the scope of the research which will probably have to be "reverse engineered" from the report. It appears limited so far.

@geronimo100 @DonMcKenzie @ai_jared @threadreaderapp Unroll, if you please.