Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

So, jammonius, what kind of directed-energy weapon was it (Laser, microwave, neutral particle, charged particle...)?

And where was it? Ground? Air? Low orbit? High orbit?

Did you finally define your claim and I just missed it? Or are you still arguing for something you can't even define?
 
jammonius said:
Greetings Alferd Packer

Your 7 word question remains unanswered by any authorized investigation as it relates to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has answered it -- DEW -- and has vetted that answer via NIST, via the US Directed Energy Directorate and tried to put SAIC and ARA on the spot, via legal process, to get them to answer it.

No one here seems much interested in following those leads;

SAIC
ARA
DEPS
DED

But, just as your question was concise, so to is the answer. It is set forth within the above acrynyms.

As the board now has its answer to the quintessential question, I will sign off here. It has been a useful endeavor. Your question obviously entails understanding that a presumed smack from a jetliner, a bit of kerosene (about enough to fill an average size backyard swimming pool) and office content did not amount to sufficient energy to do this:

[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg[/qimg]
There are no steel beams where one would assume hundreds or thousands should be; but there is dust.



Show the above picture and ask your question at

SAIC
ARA
DEPS
DED

bye for now
Click to expand...

Maybe NIST can be added to that list. I see they are well up in atomic clock technology which has to do with microwaves and the vibration of atoms. Not a million miles removed from the principles of DEW.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
 
jammonius said:
As the board now has its answer to the quintessential question, I will sign off here. It has been a useful endeavor. Your question obviously entails understanding that a presumed smack from a jetliner, a bit of kerosene (about enough to fill an average size backyard swimming pool) and office content did not amount to sufficient energy to do this
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhhh I'll have to smack my high school physics teacher for telling us all about that nonsense about potential energy.
 
bill smith said:
Maybe NIST can be added to that list. I see they are well up in atomic clock technology which has to do with microwaves and the vibration of atoms. Not a million miles removed from the principles of DEW.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
Click to expand...

In that they wouldboth involve physics yes, they are not that far removed. Of course by this reasoning a Swiss watchmaker could design a strip mine drag line.
 
bill smith said:
Maybe NIST can be added to that list. I see they are well up in atomic clock technology which has to do with microwaves and the vibration of atoms. Not a million miles removed from the principles of DEW.
Click to expand...


You're right. It's about 10 million miles removed.
 
jammonius said:
Hey bill,

We should be honored. They're coming out of the woodworks (no pun intended!). We must be hitting a raw nerve or something. I guess they realize Jenkins and Mackey won't do.

Well, bill, new challengers are welcome!

Bring it on, posters;)
Click to expand...

You sound suspiciously like the mad old Jerry Leaphart, Attorney at Law in Conneticut and Dr Judy acolite. Buddy of Andrew Johnson and CB brooklyn. Is that you Jam? Are you the compulsive spammer who was banned from WiredNewYork forum using the username JerryL? Got you ass handed to you there before getting banned. Not before conceding you where wrong though hey.
 
sts60 said:
So, jammonius, what kind of directed-energy weapon was it (Laser, microwave, neutral particle, charged particle...)?

And where was it? Ground? Air? Low orbit? High orbit?

Did you finally define your claim and I just missed it? Or are you still arguing for something you can't even define?
Click to expand...

I recall jammonius saying that answering those things would be "playing 20 questions", which he refuses to do; rather, we should go out and research DEW to figure those things out for ourselves. I've personally tried to do that with regards to DEWs turning rubble into hazardous waste, but other than conspiracy sites, I've only found pages about how some types of machines which produce DEWs contain and/or use toxic chemicals, rather than DEWs turning material that they strike toxic. So, jammonius, could you help me out with some search terms or URLS about DEWs turning material that they strike toxic?
 
Matthew Cline said:
I recall jammonius saying that answering those things would be "playing 20 questions", which he refuses to do; rather, we should go out and research DEW to figure those things out for ourselves. I've personally tried to do that with regards to DEWs turning rubble into hazardous waste, but other than conspiracy sites, I've only found pages about how some types of machines which produce DEWs contain and/or use toxic chemicals, rather than DEWs turning material that they strike toxic. So, jammonius, could you help me out with some search terms or URLS about DEWs turning material that they strike toxic?
Click to expand...

Unless the supposed DEW disassociated the iron atoms into constituent protons, neutrons and electrons (which would have unleashed an amount of energy that would make Nagasaki look like a warm day at the South Pole) or sent it all into another dimension, or transported it to the Bermuda Triangle (or for that matter directly to a steel recycler in China :D ) then there should have been a visible cloud of iron vapour which would have coated all cooler surfaces downwind with a layer of iron.

I don't recall any of that occuring, instead we get a dust cloud.........
 
jaydeehess said:
Unless the supposed DEW disassociated the iron atoms into constituent protons, neutrons and electrons (which would have unleashed an amount of energy that would make Nagasaki look like a warm day at the South Pole) or sent it all into another dimension, or transported it to the Bermuda Triangle (or for that matter directly to a steel recycler in China :D ) then there should have been a visible cloud of iron vapour which would have coated all cooler surfaces downwind with a layer of iron.

I don't recall any of that occuring, instead we get a dust cloud.........
Click to expand...

A pyroclastic one to boot :rolleyes:
 
I'm thinking maybe a cloud of iron vapor would be really, really, umm, hot, eh? Got any reports of people being scalded to death by iron vapor, or dying from breathing in iron vapors? :rolleyes:
 
jammonius said:
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles




Well, if by Twoofers' you mean those who have formally contested the false and fraudulent investigations that have thus far failed to determine what destroyed the WTC on 9/11/01, the photos in question ARE NOT NEW, and have already been presented as evidence.

Thus, instead of a need to "look forawrd" you have but to focus on the the public record of what has already been done.

Let me give you an example:

Dr. Judy Wood has had most of the photos that are said to be "newly" released on her website for years. Moreover, she analyzed many of them in connection with her formal challenge to NIST and its fraudulent investigation years ago.

Here's one of the photos said to be newly released:

[qimg]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47275000/jpg/_47275772_008709671-1.jpg[/qimg]

That photo can be found at:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

See Figures 34 and 35 respectively.

In addition, Dr. Wood put NIST on notice of the meaning and the significance of the photo with one that is cropped slightly differently back in March, 2007:

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Miraskill/woodfraud.jpg[/qimg]

Note the descriptive language for Figure 66 from Dr. Wood's Request for Correction, filed with NIST and available as a public record along with her full submittal, and NIST's various responses.

These are public records available at:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

See:

Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal

More than a few of what is said to be "newly released" can be found in the Wood submittals and many more can be found at her website.

All this new attention being drawn to photographs that have previously been all but suppressed (except for those who actually examined Wood's website) -- which is one way to characterize the designation they are "newly released" -- could, at long last, shatter the common myth of what happened on 9/11/01.

You cannot look at bubbler, the name Dr. Wood gave to the above iconic image, and conclude that the near instantaneous pulverization of steel and of concrete, the turning of steel beams to dust as they fall, is the result of a kerosene based fire.

More than a few of the vast number of people who are finally seeing these images will grasp that the common myth of what happened to the WTC on 9/11/01 is false.

Whether they are compelled by their consciences to do something about it remains to be seen.

If this post leads to a lengthy discussion centering on photo interpretation, analysis and so on, so be it.

Permit me to suggest any such discussion can be done without name-calling, put downs and useless playground banter.

After all, we enter into such discussion from the perspective that the investgatory apparatus of the USA DID NOT do a valid or definitive investigation of what happened on 9/11/01, hence there is no authroritative finding that anyone can turn to resolve the quesiton of what happned on 9/11/01.

blessings
Click to expand...

Seriously. Any minute now it will be explained.
 
is the result of a kerosene based fire.
Click to expand...

There was very little kerosene based fire.
The fires in the towers was ignited by the spreading of thousands of gallons of kerosene over several vertically adjacent floors. Immediately following the crashes the extent of the office fires was that there were large area fires on several floors. That is a condition usually taking hours to develop. The fires were office contents based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom