Should be interesting.

Seems like a fair offer by Ace...hmmm.
John might want to have his own cameras there too. <_<

strange guy this ace baker...he made a song about judy wood ,now calling her a fraud

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html

I think, much like me, he was initially misled by Wood, and now sees her as a fraud. Whether she is doing this intentionally or not, I don't know, but her DEW theory is bad science at minimum, and a fraud at worst.

I agree. With evidence of high explosives abound I believe DEWs is a reach.

Woohoo! I love it!

Being rich has its perks.

Go Ace, go!

Think it has anything to do with the recent criticism
Ace has gotten?

I don't care. I'd love to see the high quality video
and the Hutchison effect demonstrated.

who would have access to it do you think guys...

i hope it pulls a result its sure tempting especially with the housing market the way it is, i hope someone is choking hard on their mortgage right now......hell there might even be blood in the storage room in a few days...... :D

ive always been torn between DEW and nukes/HE i always come back to the tritium levels never been a good explanation for it but the government felt they had to explain it by saying it was from the exit signs in the planes...and there were not any planes as we know.....

Hydrogen bomb? Tritium produces water when it comes into contact with oxygen. Many situated below the explosions said they became drenched in falling condensation.

Quest said...

"QUOTE (spooked911 @ Aug 20 2008, 12:41 AM)
I think, much like me, he was initially misled by Wood, and now sees her as a fraud. Whether she is doing this intentionally or not, I don't know, but her DEW theory is bad science at minimum, and a fraud at worst.


I agree. With evidence of high explosives abound I believe DEWs is a reach. "


I do not think her "DEW theory is bad science". She has not even stated an hypothesis, much less a theory. All bascially that she has been doing is gathering and cataloging data and there is nothing fraudulent about that. That is part of the early scientific process. I like that scientific method much better than I like Dr. Jones "scientific method."

As for "evidence of high explosives abound", I think there is some "evidence" of "high explosives" (thermate, RDX traditional explosives), but no matter how much of this evidence abounds, that does not make it able to account for a large part of the data at Ground Zero. All alternative "hypotheses" must be explored, and no matter how far out some ideas seem, they are not "a reach".

When there is no freedom to explore all alternative hypotheses, there is where you find fraud not truth.

IT'S ONNNNNN!!!!!


I got sent this message written by John Hutchison:

>OK GOING BY MEMORY I SAID TO ACE........... HI ACE HOBBIT FANTASTIC IF
YOU
>CAN MAKE THAT CANADIAN DOLLARS AND FOR 150.000 WHAT ILL DO IS TEACH
YOU HOW
>TO RUN IT AND YOU CAN HAVE IT AND YOU CAN DO YOUR OWN ANTIGRAVITY IT
SAVES
>ME THE HASSLE OF PUTTING IT ON EBAY AGAIN I MIGHT EVEN THROW IN THE
GUN
>COLLECTION IT ALL YOURS APPOVED THREW A LAWYER PROPER LEGALEES
>.................. MORE OR LESS THAT WHAT I POSTED USING MY BLOGGER
ACCOUNT

What else or who else should we be offering a bounty for...

I have thought of offering a reward for personally shot footage from 911 that has never been seen, or edited or tampered with...surely there is some tourist from nebraska or some such that is sitting on a vid without a plane, I just know it is out there somewhere.

I will toss some money into the pot if there are others willing to help make it an offer too good to resist.

Hey Dachsie, I say "reach" because it takes explosive energy to throw sections of steel beams hundreds of feet up and away from the towers. How do DEWs do THAT?

911 Eyewitness - Huge steel sections ejected more than 600 feet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hblla0DYmZQ&feature=related

Also you have evidence of demolition charges going off 10-20 floors below the "collapse line".

Explosive Squibs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgNu826Ne20
911 Eyewitness - Explosive Squibs and Force
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq1gpC7QqeM&feature=related

Pyrolclastic Flow Result Of Controlled Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etzjfll0dA0&feature=related

Evidence of extreme heat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM&NR=1

Seismic data indicates high velocity explosives used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDqIZZR_nn8

Then there is the sound of the explosions themselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsoWbX6hCYk&feature=related

And here we have the opnion of a military EXPERT who believes a nuke of some type was used in the basement to destroy the central core along with demo charges to produce the "plausible" floor-by-floor collapse.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm



So here you have all this evidence indicating explosives of some type. It seem the 2 things that people hang onto regarding DEWs is the concrete turning to powder and the disappearing spire yet both of the items can be a result of explosive force and heat resulting from a nuke of some type which could have been placed in the subasement.

Is it possible DEWs could have been used? I think it's interesting how the engines in some of the nearby cars and trucks were melted but then again I have read at least in a few sources that certain types of radioctive energy could produce similar results in that it goes after dense objects in particular. The intense heat could also rapidly heat and cause the moisture in the concrete to expand while being simultaneously hit with the shackwave of multiple explosions thereby reducing it to fine powder.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

Whereas DEWs satisfy SOME aspects of the towers destruction, explosive demo charges along with nuke(s) satisfy ALL aspects.

Sorry, KT. I didn't mean to derail this thread. Back on track.

How about $100,000 to anyone that can prove:

* That a Boeing 767-200 can travel at 500 MPH at 700 ft. of altitude.
* That a structure of any height made of any material can collapse to 1/100th it's original height in less than 15 seconds using only gravity.
* That any amount of airline grade fuel burning for any amount of time can melt any amount of construction grade steel in any environment.
* That any amount of airline quality aluminum/plastic can penetrate an equal or greater amount of structural quality steel (and/or concrete) without decelerating.
* That a Boeing 757-200 can collide with the ground (or a building for that matter) at any speed, at any angle without leaving behind visual evidence of the plane.

I'll add more as they come to me.

- Joshua

edit: How about $100,000 to anyone that can prove that all of the alleged hijackers are still alive, or at least that they could not have been on a plane on 9/11 for any reason.

'Squibs' that is what happens when you have hundreds of thousands of pounds of dusts being shot out a hole.

and the evidence of heat is false.
How can hydraulic machines pick up molten metal ?
It dosn't happen.

Molecular Disassociation.

ACE BAKER seems like a perp.
These two challenges are completely contradicting themselves.
Why is he going after Judy Wood ??
Why is he so rich ?
he seems a little TOO good at video manipulation.

Interesting move on Mr. Bakers part.

It may be some sort of damage control or that Mr. Baker actually have some honest intent.

Time will tell and when it will, make sure you have your head screwed on tight.

D.Duck

This looks to be a game of bluff. I very much doubt that Ace has any chance of paying out such a sum, and if he had, he wouldn't be offering it.

It is sad to see him attacking Dr Wood. I do not agree with all her conclusions, but I totally support her spirit of enquiry. Who else besides her is talking about toasted cars? Who else is talking about why paper didn't burn? Who else keeps reminding us that the debris pile is way, way too small for a conventional demolition, let alone a collapse? Did anyone else notice, aften seven years, that Hurricane Erin changed its path on the day of 9/11?

Judy Wood is what Steven Jones is not, a genuine pioneer of 9/11 research. True, her style is unusual and her website is a little cluttered, but I say give her credit for guts and persistence.

Not really, it depends what you want to prove.

D.Duck

The Chopper 5 Challenge is to a mainstream media network.

$100,000 is peanuts to those folk. It will not be accepted and any employee who tries to respond will lose their job. Mr. Baker knows this.

If there is one thing Killtown and company have firmly established it is the utter evil corruption of the mainstream U.S. meida in regard to 9-11 and the close collusion of the U.S. government in all U.S. mainstream media. We have also exposed the ownership of the mainstream media and how it reaches to the top of the Illuminati organizational structure and that there are only about 5 or 6 world media conglomerates. Read "The Media Monopoly" by Bagdikian.


The Repeat the Hutchison Effect challenge seems reasonable to be. The "Hutchison Effect" sounds like a very very established scientific phenomenon, but if it is not repeatable, it ain't science at all.

I suspect there are quite a few details ( ifs, ands and buts ) to the actual challenge rules that would have to be worked out if the challenge were to be accepted.


I have no reason to believe that Ace Baker does not have the money. I would hope Mr. Hutchison and Dr. Wood would take up this challenge, as Dr. Wood probably needs some money to continue her work. Even though Dr. Wood is not very far along in the scientific process, she has already made many great waves and somebody at the top does not like her work. I pray for her. Honest scientific truth seeking is courageous and dangerours business.


I do not like Ace Baker's criticsim of Dr. Wood. I really would question the details of all of these statements...

"Judy Wood is also a fraud. Wood claims that a weaponized version of the Hutchison Effect was used to destroy the twin towers. In trying to discredit me, and rehabiliate the Hutchison Effect, Judy Wood has issued demonstrably false claims about me, e.g. calling me a "plagiarist" with respect to my music writing. "


Ace Baker made some "fraudulent" claims about how he conducted his experiments about how the H. Effect was fake - able. Andrew Johnson has elaborated to some extent on that. I think the main misrepresenation Baker made had to do with Baker saying he had procured some Tesla Coils to do his tests, but he did not. Anyway, there was something false or fraudulent about the way Baker represented his video fakery tests for the H. Effect. I do not object to Baker trying to show how certain of H's experiments could be easily video-faked. So Baker needs to be careful about calling a person "a fraud." Hutchison did not personally produce the videos of his H.Effect. It is possible that the H. Effect could be a very real phenomenon, but I have to admit that it is sort of a concept in "limbo" scientifically speaking and is not well established in the literature.

I would doubt that Dr. Wood would put out "demonstrably false claims" about anyone. Dissing other people has never been her style. I do not believe she would actually make any "claim" without a factual basis.

If Baker's music and lyrics are extremely close to another work of music of someone else's, I wonder why Baker has not been sued by the original artist. Plagiarism is pretty easy to establish, at least at first outside the legal proceedings.

Martin Luther King grossly plagiarized his masters thesis at Boston College, I think that is where he got that degree, but the establishment at the College were commanded from on high to let his paper be accepted because MLK was a "chosen one" of the establishment to play his role.

It just seems totally out of character for Dr. Wood to claim Baker was plagiarizing. Maybe she asked some pointed questions in these matters, but "claims"? Not.

what about a fund to have a real professor of forensics look over the fakery footage from the original archives available and dvd's with direct from archive footage.

how about a 10.000 dollar fundie to get good quality work done, in terms of biggest bang for the buck tis the way to go.

all the members of this forum thats 6.50 each.
(lets call it $6.66 and call it "the number of the beast is up" fundie....not insurmountable someone should write the e-mail and post it to all members.

we should DO something......

just noticed a member numbered 2700 so its only 3.33 even better......that is not a lot to get some REAL bluster free first class research is it?.

KT how many members now?

I totally agree with this, Excised.

Maybe I should contact the makers of the Dutch television program "zembla" and try to convince them to make another episode about 911. They made a program about 911 a couple of years ago. This was the same program where Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko explained that WTC 7 was demolished by experts. This time I would like them to take all the fakery footage (from direct archive footage) to some forensic experts and ask them what they think about it.
I really think we have a chance that they will make another program about 911 because last time they admitted there were still many unsolved problems about 911.

What do you guys think?

"Dutch television program "zembla" "

Is that TV show on a big "mainstream" television network, or is it a show that is sort of a local "public access TV" production type show?

What is the name of TV network and who is it owned by. Remember, every TV network in the world is ultimately owned by 6 ( maybe 5 now ) conglomerates.

The answer to that question will determine whether it is worthwhile to try to get another "911" show produced.

Dachsie,

It is a mainstream television network and is called VARA/NPS.
It is not a commercial network but is owned by the state.
Doesn't the fact that they aired a tv show where an expert refutes a part of the official theory at least show they were trying to be objective? I certainly hope so and I could at least give it try. Or do you think it was more like the BBC docu about building 7 where they gave the impression of being objective but in reality are not? This is of course also a possibility

SparkOfLife wrote

Quest writes
1. Explosives can do that and this happened 10-20 floors BELOW the "collapse" line.

2. Pyroclastic flow and burnt cars around the periphery of the WTC isn't evidence of extreme heat? Stop the video below at 38:00 and look at the cars and the wall behind the cars and you will see OVERWHELMING evidence of extreme heat.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

Dr Babs wrote

1. I mean heat as evidenced in the pyroclastic flow that resulted in the demolition charges used to bring the buildings down, not kerosene fires barely hot enough to roast marshmellows with. Did anyone bother watching this video at 38:00? It's quite evident these cars and the wall behind it were exposed to extreme heat.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

2. Dr Babs, I know someone that was about 2 blocks away from ground zero when the buildings collapsed and he told me, "you should have felt the heat". No, his clothes weren't burnt off nor was his hair but he was 2 blocks away and he STILL felt the heat from the "collapses". And you were near ground zero 3 days later and felt no heat? I'm not sure what that proves in regard to my friend's experience.

3. Again, I don't even need thermal imaging to prove there was extreme heat at the WTC during the destruction of then towers. You can dismiss the thermal imaging if you wish but you cannot dismiss your own eyes. Again, watch the above video at 38:00 and tell me the cars aren't cooked as well as the wall behind the cars.

Where's the heat?

That is the question.

Stop this video at 38:00 and then tell me the cars and the wall behind it are't cooked.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

the only way to find out is ask but if its anything like the soviet bradcasting service of the united kingdoms of england (bbc) it will be a non event and might be counter productive....but who knows.

thats why i think a raise here is a good idea we get to decide where the money goes and who does the research.

Of couse, now that people are trying to look at the video the perps and Google are shutting it down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217

Quest said

"Stop this video at 38:00 and then tell me the cars and the wall behind it are't cooked.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4731051210315608217 "


Now, I am way out of my territory of knowledge here, but no one is saying there was not heat. This video talks about a "blast of heat." Dr. Wood says the cars were "toasted", a term which implies heat. She would have chosen a term that did not imply heat if she wanted to convey another idea. She observes that the cars were toasted in strange kinds of ways, though. I think she mentions that engine blocks were completely obliterated by this form of energy when adjacent parts of the car were unscathed. There was a selectivity of the toasting and the heat. So we are talking about heat that acts in a different way. Also a "blast of heat" sounds very temporary and fleeting to me, and Dr. Jones and company seem to consistently push the idea of strong lingering heat.

Energy is as I understand it "heat." But energy that is generated from non-heat sources may be the new kind of heat generation we are talking about with these "directed energy" classification of weapons. Perhaps somehow places that contain "energy", like hurricanes, can be "harvested" of their energy by "nontraditional" methods, methods that exist and probably have been kept very secret for a long time. Think of the implication of this kind of technology where you do not need fossil fuels or other raw material to generate energy (heat). It is world changing, world controlling knowledge.

I cannot tell by looking at a picture of something whether it does or does not look "cooked". If you mean cooked in the standard way, why would there be selectivity in the cooking as Dr. Wood suggests?

Dachsie, do me a favor and watch the aobove video, if and when the 911 perps and Google LET us watch it, and see if your questions don't change. I believe you WILL see the cars and wall I mentiuoned, IF, you get to see the video.

I will make a few comments, but probably need to discuss with Quest his posts in a separate thread in an appropriate forum.

____________________________
I wonder why Quest's posting is shown to be a posting by Dr. Babs when it was Quest's, and Quest is the one who edited that posting?


DrBabs
Posted: Aug 20 2008, 03:14 PM
This post has been edited by Quest on Aug 20 2008, 04:54 PM

__________________________________________

Dachsie replies to DutchSkeptics post

A "state owned" television network does not sound like a vehicle for independent investigative journalism productions about 9-11. Whatever the state's agenda is will determine what if any real 9-11 truth gets televised. State owned TV sounds like socialism to me. We have moved a long way toward that "nationalization" of television in the USA too. Not good. You cannot have freedom and vigorous search for truth about 9-11 when the state's "party line" must be followed. That is why we no longer have TV shows in USA that show objective findings of true First Amendment investigative journalism - because it is a monopoly of 5 or 6 companies (all with interlocking directorates) running the whole show.

I did a little bit of searching about VARA/NPS but could only find this and it's
Dutch to me.

http://mysocialnetwork.nl/blogs/mysocialne...ve/2007/06.aspx

• 'Banken en organisaties doen dubieuze beleggingen'
HILVERSUM - Banken en een aantal organisaties voor goede doelen investeren in bedrijven die niet bij hun overtuiging aansluiten. Dat blijkt zondag uit een onderzoek van Oxfam/Novib dat zondagavond aan de orde komt in het het Vara/NPS programma Zembla....(read more)
Geplaatst zondag 10 juni 2007 11:29 van mijnKranten.nl | (Comments Off)


"Doesn't the fact that they aired a tv show where an expert refutes a part of the official theory at least show they were trying to be objective?

No, it does not show they were trying to be objective. DutchSkeptic, propaganda techniques are very sophisticated and very twisted. They may throw a little objectivity in the show to make people believe there is objectivity, but that is only done because people then tend to believe the whole content of the show.

I do not think you have much of a chance of getting anything on that national TV network that is about the truth of 9-11. Here is parts of the USA we have something called "local public access TV" and unpaid people from the community get to make and air their own "creations" of TV programming for a small fee. The local city government (the taxpayers of the city) pays for the studio and equipment and all of this is done to uphold free speech - the First Amendment. The show producers are just ordinary people from the community and they are allowed very free reign on what they can put on TV. If you have something like that in Hollad, that would be your best bet. Otherwise, a privately produced video disseminated either free on the Internet or sold through Internet would be best bet.

_____________________________

I really have a lot of reading to do before I should even post about Dr. Wood's work or about heat or energy or anything. I end up confusing and making things worse.

Dr. Wood talks about "field effects" and that is NOT the same thing as "energy source."

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

This site gives a series of writings and photos to better explain all of this.

The Hutchison Effect uses field effects on a smaller scale to produce phenomena parallel to what resulted from field effects on 9-11.

So we need to get a better idea about "field effects" if we want good discussion to happen on this subject.

__________

I was wrong about the word toasted. Seems when Dr. Wood refers to cars as "toasted" she does not use the term to imply heat. Toasted here means "the cars are toast" it's history" or destroyed, or "totalled". See her site for Dirt 1 for this explanation.

___________________________

Dachsie, that was a mistake on my part when trying to cut/paste a specific part of a post I am responding to. Unfortunately with admin rights if I am not paying attention, which happens on occasion, I can make a mistake like that.

My apologies to Dr Babs.

How does explosive demo charges along with nukes explain
the months/years long fuming at Ground Zero?

Heeey! You took out my post! It's an understandable mistake,
but is there any way you can put it back? I'm very focused on
this subject, and I didn't expect my posting to get dumped.

:-)

Yeah, the voice-over says the cars were damaged by
an intense blast of heat, but I wonder what evidence
he has for that?

I have heard that among the eye-witness accounts there are some that reported the dust cloud to actually feel cool.

One last thing directly related to thread topic.

Ace Baker is up to something. None of us know exactly what.

One thing we can be certain of, his "challenges" cannot be taken at face value.

He may be issuing the challenges to evoke a reponse from those he has issued the challenge to. Then he will use that response to paint the other party in whatever light he finds advantageous to his purposes.

It is unclear exactly to whom the H. Effect challenge was actually issued. We do not know what communications he sent nor to whom they were sent by him.

In other words, he may not be actually wanting anyone to accept his challenge. He can get a lot of milliage and propaganda benefit from just issuing the so called challenge.

He is taking up people's time and sort of trying to get them to spend attention and time on him and his effort. Stealing time for subversive purposes is no different, in my opinion, that stealing tangible assets.

All we minority truthers have is time and energy -- basically no money.

Lastly, generally it is wise not to be involved in any offer of money from someone from whom you would not want to be compromised or used by or someone who may bring dishonor to 9-11 truth efforts. You have to be very careful who you accept things from. Everything has a price.

I think John should accept the challenge. But have the money held by a neutral third-party. If Ace is sincere, then John will make some needed rent money. If he's not sincere then he'll be exposed once and for all. (Cuz I'm pretty sure John can win this bet.)