Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[jammonius]

Split from Almost 3,000 new photos released today of the WTC Collapse.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

I look forward to the Twoofers' finding non existent "Smoking Guns" in these photos.

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:

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:

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

 

[A W Smith]

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

It wont, Judy has already been debunked

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

Her lawsuit was already thrown out of court, and her "suggestions" that a proper investigation was not done is rightfully so ignored. As it should be. Listen jammonius. Judy is a brain injured has been. She was in a coma for seven years and no longer shares the same reality we do. There is no device that can focus that amount of energy into a "dustification " beam and destroy objects on that scale. Not even a mile high microwave oven with a 150 yard long metal fork in it. You point to static images and frame captures that are misleading. When you watch videos it is clear there are no "space beams". Nothings being "blown up". There is not a single piece of steel in the rubble pile which shows an edge or end that was "dustified" All steel shows clean breaks where there were weldments or bolts. You lose. Argument over. Good day to you sir.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jammonious, you've had your head handed to you before. You seriously think you can bring refuted junk back to life just because you took a little time off?

Before you resurrect your already failed arguments about "Directed Energy Weapons" (DEW; see link, he brings it up on the first page), read Ryan Mackey's post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Then let me remind you of your ignominous bow-out after your claims were firmly put to bed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115033&page=16

You have fun now. Try to do something original, please; it gets tiresome to just bump old posts to reply to you truthers.

 

[bill smith]

It wont, Judy has already been debunkedHer lawsuit was already thrown out of court, and her "suggestions" that a proper investigation was not done is rightfully so ignored. As it should be. Listen jammonius. Judy is a brain injured has been. She was in a coma for seven years and no longer shares the same reality we do. There is no device that can focus that amount of energy into a "dustification " beam and destroy objects on that scale. Not even a mile high microwave oven with a 150 yard long metal fork in it. You point to static images and frame captures that are misleading. When you watch videos it is clear there are no "space beams". Nothings being "blown up". There is not a single piece of steel in the rubble pile which shows an edge or end that was "dustified" All steel shows clean breaks where there were weldments or bolts. You lose. Argument over. Good day to you sir.

I have said it many times. In 9/11 NOTHING including Judy Wood is ever off the table. You debunkers may SAY that is the case but that has no weight or meaning.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I have said it many times. In 9/11 NOTHING including Judy Wood is ever off the table. You debunkers may SAY that is the case but that has no weight or meaning.

Oh, I forgot, there isn't a single conspiracy about 9/11 that you don't buy into, contradictions be damned

 

[bill smith]

Oh, I forgot, there isn't a single conspiracy about 9/11 that you don't buy into, contradictions be damned

I think these photos will breathe life back into the ' dustifiction' argument if that's what you mean. You surely didn't think it had gone away did you ?

 

[roger]

There is no device that can focus that amount of energy into a "dustification " beam and destroy objects on that scale. Not even a mile high microwave oven with a 150 yard long metal fork in it.

I've never really paid much attention to her, and so this is the first time I've ever seen her. I feel for the interviewer - at first he is very calmly talking with her to help her see her errors - like any professor with a student that got a point wrong. By about 20 minutes in you can see this look cross his face - this woman is insane. She doesn't see anything falling. My favorite point in the video was probably when he said "The conservation of energy is not a distraction".

 

[Jackanory]

There is no 'dustification' arguement. Every genuine photograph released shows what happens when buildings collapse. If loony tunes want to interpret that differently then fill ya boots.

Rumour has it that OBL has now joined the truth movement and is about to release a new video in which he denies any involvement in 911 and that he believes it was an inside job. He is desperately trying to clear his name and get those ugly callsigns off his back in Afganistan. He has also pertitioned the US supreme atourney general for the release of his innocent comrade KSM.

OBL is now also citing video and photographic evidence of 911 in which he also blames some dancing Jews, ray beams and the FDNY. He has been on a world jolly, done his research and is now concidering joining Dick Gages band of merry gentlemen to tour Japan giving interviews.

Or he could continue to admit his guilt and KSM could take it on the chin.

 

[jammonius]

It wont, Judy has already been debunked

That is a curious turn of phrase "debunk." It actually stands for next to nothing in terms of meaning. It is merely a "dirty trick" designed to mislead and to change the subject. Your post does not address the subject.

This is not a thread on the OUTCOME of her lawsuit. A case that lasted for 3 years and wasn't finally disposed of until the US Supreme Court denied her request to appeal there in January of this year. Her case provides, however, a significant base of 9/11 information that will almost certainly go the same route as these newly released photos. I.e., someday, msm will discover Dr. Wood's case and its substance.

In connection with this thread, your debunking claim is wickedly false and misleading.

Here you have right in front of your face an assertion made on February 10th that signficant new photographs are being released. The implication is that they are photos never seen before in public.

How have you debunked the fact that the photos were known, were and are largely found on Dr. Wood's website and were included in her challenge to NIST together with analysis?

The ABC article that accompanied the release of the photos said this:

"The photos are "absolutely core to understanding the visual phenomena of what was happening," said Jan Ramirez, chief curator at the National September 11 Memorial &Museum."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9796098

The release of the photos at this time validates Dr. Wood's efforts, work, findings and conclusions.

Her lawsuit was already thrown out of court, and her "suggestions" that a proper investigation was not done is rightfully so ignored. As it should be.

Yet another non sequitor and curious turn of phrase. What, in fact, are you talking about? Are you talking about the fact that NIST admitted to her that they did not investigate the phase of destruction shown in the "newly released" photo and many of the rest of them?

This is not a question of a new investigation, this, instead, is merely a recognition that NIST admitted to Wood that NIST did not investigate and therefore cannot say, let alone contradict Wood's assertions.

Wait a minute. You do realize that NIST, by virtue of limiting its 10,000pgs of fraud to the time period of BEFORE the Towers were destroyed has rendered those 10,000pgs completely and totally useless for purposes of explaining why and how the Towers were destroyed, don't you?

Please demonstrate the degree of denial with which you are afflicted.

There is no device that can focus that amount of energy into a "dustification " beam and destroy objects on that scale. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#

Before I go an look at your google video, which I admit I have not done, would you kindly summarize what proposition you claim your video is seeking to establish?

Is it seeking to establish that kerosene can cause the pulverization and immediate dustification of steel and of concrete as shown or what?

After you respond, I will then view your video and comment as necessary.

Not even a mile high microwave oven with a 150 yard long metal fork in it.

You point to static images and frame captures that are misleading. When you watch videos it is clear there are no "space beams". Nothings being "blown up". There is not a single piece of steel in the rubble pile which shows an edge or end that was "dustified" All steel shows clean breaks where there were weldments or bolts. You lose. Argument over. Good day to you sir.

The above does not prove anything and has nothing whatever to do with Dr. Wood's assertions.

By the way, by what claim of right does a poster of a comment get to declare victory? And, who are you trying to convince? Yourself, maybe?

Certainly, you recognize that your post says nothing whatever about the substance of what is true and what false, what is real and what is unreal. Rather, your post represents your own sense of insecurity, such that you have a need for the "thrill of victory" presumably because you have a outsized fear of the "agony of defeat."

The issue is not winning or losing. Rather, the issue is the posting of information that can be taken into consideration by those who might see the thread and the exchange contained in it.

Unless and until what happened on 9/11/01 is explained accurately and then, after that, those who did it are identified and apprehended, the only "winners" are those who got away with mass murder and a heist of $trillions. All the rest of humanity has lost. And, all the rest of humanity remains vulnerable to other and more deadly false flag ops.

Since 9/11, there have been several more false flag ops, including the 2001 Anthrax attack, the Underwear bomber, the 2007 attempt to steal a nuke, and the 2008 financial collapse, to name some.

By the way, is it your understanding that no nukes were successfully stolen in 2007? That is my understanding at the moment.

 

[HannibalGroup]

I think these photos will breathe life back into the ' dustifiction' argument if that's what you mean. You surely didn't think it had gone away did you ?

"Dustifiction"

I'm sure your misspelling was unintentional - but you nailed it.

 

[HannibalGroup]

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:

On another board it was pointed out to you that the photo is not the same one 'cropped slightly differently' - they are two entirely different photos. You fled. Now you show up here (again) offering the same false info.

Can you not tell the truth about anything?

 

[jammonius]

Jammonious, you've had your head handed to you before. You seriously think you can bring refuted junk back to life just because you took a little time off?

Before you resurrect your already failed arguments about "Directed Energy Weapons" (DEW; see link, he brings it up on the first page), read Ryan Mackey's post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Then let me remind you of your ignominous bow-out after your claims were firmly put to bed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115033&page=16

You have fun now. Try to do something original, please; it gets tiresome to just bump old posts to reply to you truthers.

Your first post in reply is a dirty trick, noteworthy for its falsity and its duplicity.

Claims of refutation are not the same as refutation. Mackey has not refuted a damn thing because he does not address either what Wood has claimed or shown why and how the Twin Towers were destroyed. It appears Mackey thinks kerosene did it.

And, note the second dirty trick you used: You accused me of using "old posts" even as YOU made mention of two old threads and then, not only that, but falsely summarized what the old threads contained.

That is rich.

 

[JimBenArm]

"Dirty tricks"? Oh, I get it!
You think you're Woods & Bernstein, and we're part of the Nixon campaign!
How very 1970's of you!

How about fast-forwarding to the 2010's, dude? The 70s sucked, much like your delusional arguments.

 

[jammonius]

I've never really paid much attention to her,

And therein lies your logical flaw. You don't know what you're talking about in connection with Dr. Wood, absent taking a look at her comprehensive information. She has set up her site with a "cliff notes" section for first time visitors.

Try it.

and so this is the first time I've ever seen her. I feel for the interviewer - at first he is very calmly talking with her to help her see her errors - like any professor with a student that got a point wrong. By about 20 minutes in you can see this look cross his face - this woman is insane. She doesn't see anything falling. My favorite point in the video was probably when he said "The conservation of energy is not a distraction".

That video was not done for the purpose of understanding her. That video was done in order to put her in a bad light. And, that is the key to understanding videos of that nature. I.e., the lighting and the microphone induced alterations of sound. Video=sight and sound. It is inherently deceptive.

By the way, Dr. Wood's Request for Correction, referenced and linked in an earlier post, contains a detailed section on the Conservation of Energy, including calculations. It is a distraction to discuss that issue in a video made for common understanding. It was not a distraction to point out to NIST that it was engaging in science fraud.

I disagree with your characterization of the interviewer. I think he looks, dazed, confused and worried about his own inability to refute.

By hey, video is just a form of media. It is not the reality of either Dr. Wood, the interviewer, let alone her detailed and comprehensive work. For that, you have to examine what she has done.

 

[HannibalGroup]

It is not the reality of either Dr. Wood, the interviewer, let alone her detailed and comprehensive work. For that, you have to examine what she has done.

Reality and Dr. Wood are strangers.

 

[jammonius]

There is no 'dustification' arguement. Every genuine photograph released shows what happens when buildings collapse. If loony tunes want to interpret that differently then fill ya boots.

Rumour has it that OBL has now joined the truth movement and is about to release a new video in which he denies any involvement in 911 and that he believes it was an inside job. He is desperately trying to clear his name and get those ugly callsigns off his back in Afganistan. He has also pertitioned the US supreme atourney general for the release of his innocent comrade KSM.

OBL is now also citing video and photographic evidence of 911 in which he also blames some dancing Jews, ray beams and the FDNY. He has been on a world jolly, done his research and is now concidering joining Dick Gages band of merry gentlemen to tour Japan giving interviews.

Or he could continue to admit his guilt and KSM could take it on the chin.

Let's start by assuming there's some argument in the above, separate and apart from the use of useless taunts.

The problem is that the post does not and cannot point to any actual, definitive investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers that does any actual analysis of whatever "genuine photograph [may have been] released..."

It may be true that genuine photos "shows what happens when buildings [are destroyed]" but the only official analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers that you will find on the NIST website is that provided by Dr. Wood, and linked above.

NIST itself did no such analysis of the "genuine photographs" it had in its possession, including those Dr. Wood provided to NIST.

It would be helpful here if posters at least recognized and owned up to the fact that they cannot rely on any official investigation to support either their claims or to refute Dr. Wood.

You have NIST's 10,000pgs of meaningless science fraud that does not address the actual mode or timeframe of destruction of the Twin Towers. And you have Dr. Wood's legal challenge, that lasted for 3 years and resulted in a furious legal fight against her, waged by a lot of law firms against her and that took them 3 years to succeed in thwarting her case. Meanwhile, an abundant record of her evidence was created and will, undoubtedly, be of signficance, perhaps as early as the KSM trial.

By the way, for what it's worth, OBL denied involvement in 9/11 right after it happened. That denial shouldn't have been necessary as it should have been clear to any rational person that what was seen to have happened had a lot more to do with the numerous "military exercises" that simulated hijackings, among other things, than it did with someone said to have been located in a cave in Afghanistan, where the word "remote" understates the amount of distance away from what happened OBL was.

 

[HannibalGroup]

It may be true that genuine photos "shows what happens when buildings [are destroyed]" but the only official analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers that you will find on the NIST website is that provided by Dr. Wood, and linked above.

The photos were not provided to NIST by Judy Wood. They were provided by the guy who took them: NYPD Det. Greg Semendinger.

Please get your facts straight.

I should note that, while I feel Judy Woods' theories to be tripe - one cannot blame her. She was the victim of an accident that put her in a coma for quite some time. Her mind is obviously scrambled. It is sad that she is being taken advantage of by ghouls like Morgan Reynolds and unscrupulous leeches like Jerry Leaphart. It's no better than taking advantage of the mentally ill.

 

[Jackanory]

Her case provides, however, a significant base of 9/11 information that will almost certainly go the same route as these newly released photos. I.e., someday, msm will discover Dr. Wood's case and its substance.

The release of the photos at this time validates Dr. Wood's efforts, work, findings and conclusions.

This is not a question of a new investigation, this, instead, is merely a recognition that NIST admitted to Wood that NIST did not investigate and therefore cannot say, let alone contradict Wood's assertions.


Please demonstrate the degree of denial with which you are afflicted. PLEASE DO THE SAME FOR US

Unless and until what happened on 9/11/01 is explained accurately and then, after that, those who did it are identified and apprehended,


All above, despite being pulled from hat, is irrelevent.

KSM's admitance of guilt and the information he supplied invalidates all your brown noseing of Dr Judy's 'conclusions'. KSM has and will continue to give key evidence detailing the entire nature of the planning and execution of 911

Please explain why all your evidence should overide the confessions of OBL, KSM and more.

Please explain why OBL and KSM continue to state that they carried out 911 and why they would do this and not resort to jumping on the truther band wagon to get themselves free.

Please explain why no terrorist organisation agrees with the 911 truth movement.

Please explain why KSM's defence team are simply sitting on their hands and doing nothing to convince him to plead not guilty.

Please explain why KSM's defence team have not been unindated with truther evidence that gets KSM set free.

If you believe so strongly in your views then may i suggest that you start petitioning the prosecution and defence teams before KSM's trial begins. Unless of course you believe that these law firms are 'in on it' too?

 

[JimBenArm]

I think I discovered the substance of Judy Woods' case. It was on the bottom of my shoe. Found it after walking the dog this morning.

 

[bill smith]

Reality and Dr. Wood are strangers.

What is it about Judy Wood that makes you guys skip and jump so ? A person would think that you were scared stiff of her. lol