Back in mid-September, expat blogged about Judy Wood's bizarre suggestion that there was so little débris at the World Trade Center site that the contractors had to keep themselves busy by needlessly trucking soil back and forth. I liked this point:
[S]he states that the upper 80%, approximately, of each tower was dustified. It seems to me that if that were the case, the load on the lower ~20% would have been instantly alleviated, and that portion of the towers should have been preserved undamaged. Since that demonstrably did not happen, I think it's a very serious problem for her idea.I made the same point in a brief post to Wood's FooBoo page. I didn't keep a record of the date or text of it, but it would have been quite soon after expat's bloggery. Well -- today I find this:
Abe here: Although I appreciate your interest in this very important topic, and your attempt to share what you feel is relevant or helpful information, I have removed your post for promoting false statements on this page. Dr. Judy Wood's observation that the top majority of the Twin Towers were transformed to fine dust in midair is absolutely correct. She has never claimed that his process happened "instantly" like you claimed, and she also never claimed that the dust "did not fall to the ground". The vast majority of the Twin Towers were transformed to fine dust in midair within a matter of seconds, and if we take into consideration the well-documented "lathering up" process, we see that the process technically took even longer. Please spend some time correcting your misunderstandings rather than spreading misunderstandings and false statements on this page.Wow. Sorry I spoke, Abe.
This page is for discussing the conclusive body of empirical evidence from 9/11 and for showing our support for Dr. Judy Wood, so off-topic posts, false statements, rumors, theories, spam, and disrespect are not allowed on this page. We must present and discuss the empirical evidence from 9/11 as accurately and precisely as possible, so that others will view this important evidence with serious consideration. This is not a warning, but please still refrain from posting off-topic information, false statements, rumors, theories, spam, and/or disrespect in the future.
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY2 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology
Of course, Dr Rodriguez is a long way from refuting the point. He is admitting that the dustification process happened in a fraction of the total time it took each tower to disappear. Therefore, as expat and I say, the load on the "undustified" part of each tower would have been relieved.
I am far from the only victim of Rodriguez's intolerance. He dealt out the exact same treatment (on behalf of Judy Wood, I assume) to the following contributors:
Mark Jonas
Alex Bratcher
Barry O'Daniels
Richard Kelly
David Kaas
Maurice Herald
Ian Hilpus
Stephen Gadsun
Micah Zeidman
Pop O'hAodha [sic]
Kevin Hartin
Karen Boudriault
2 comments:
She never claimed that the dust didn't fall to the ground? Perhaps not but I recall her talking about most of it going up into the atmosphere and covering the entire Eastern Seaboard or something to that effect. I also recall her saying dump trucks were hauling dirt in and and back out again for months to make it look like they were doing something.
It looks like Rodriquez caught you on a technicality rather than allowing himself to see holes in Wood's hypothesis.
From the famous interview with Greg Jenkins:
GJ: No, but it didn’t collapse in on its footprint either.
JW: True. Why didn’t it?
GJ: Because it didn’t. Where did it collapse? It collapsed in a radius six times its footprint.
JW: Six times its footprint?
GJ: Yes.
JW: I think if you want to count its material it’s probably like… a million times its footprint. It went in the upper atmosphere. You know, where do you stop counting it? Is it a mile away—the dust…?
[[...later..]]
GJ: So…what’s going down? Is there any debris falling?
JW: I don’t see anything that’s really falling there.
GJ: You don’t see any debris falling from the building?
JW: I see a round snowball. I call this a snowball.
GJ: Okay, so there’s no debris falling in that picture.
JW: I didn’t say no debris.
GJ: How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?
JW: I see some… I don’t have a magnifying glass. Sorry!
GJ: Oh, it’s that small you can’t tell what’s falling from the picture?
JW: Below this point here (points to bottom of the snowball). I don’t really see much difference. It looks like the building is in good health. There’s a little bit of cloud of haze there, but… I don’t see any major material and the building is still completely intact from this point down, at that moment, below the snowball.
GJ: So you really don’t see any falling debris there?
JW: Are you asking these questions for sincere, honest purposes?
GJ: I really am. This is sincere. I see falling debris in that picture and I’m wondering, I just can’t fathom why you don’t see falling debris in that picture. It’s hard for me to understand. Because maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
JW: I’m not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some… pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it’s not a significant volume of material.
===============
I rest my case.
Post a Comment