Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[dtugg]

Is it true that Judy Wood was in a coma for several years?

 

[WildCat]

Is it true that Judy Wood was in a coma for several years?

The question is "is she really out of her coma?"

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

You must be a blind fool Jammonius:

 

[TruthersLie]

Well the FOOL part is correct.

I love arguments from ignorance, arrogance, incredulity and a lack of critical thinking skillz. Damn it must be da google's fault.

 

[twinstead]

I'm just amazed at how much steel dust looks like drywall dust. That NWO is a crafty bunch!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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

In short, you are saying that you don't know.

No wonder you are leaving the thread.

Buh Bye.

Don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on your way out.

 

[Myriad]

Steel does become more brittle at very low temperatures, right? Clearly we should be looking for signs of a freeze ray instead of signs of a heat ray.

We'll get to the bottom of this in no time. Which of those alphabet soup initials is the freeze ray project? (Is it SAIC for Steel Atomization by Intense Cold, or DEPS for Depressed Enthalpy to Pulverize Steel?)

Also, this bypasses the power requirements problem that everyone's been harping on. If the weapon is space-based, then guess what? Space already has an endless supply of cold! All that's needed is the technology to concentrate the cold of space into a beam and fire it at a surface target.

Once the building is sufficiently chilled, all it would take would be for a mischievous anthropomorphic animal to give it a very tiny tap with a very tiny hammer, and a network of cracks should suddenly form that shatters the whole thing into tiny pieces. I've seen this happen in cartoons many times.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

I'm just amazed at how much steel dust looks like drywall dust. That NWO is a crafty bunch!

It wasn't really steel, just drywall painted to look like steel. Sometimes our evilness gets in the way of our craftiness.

 

[jaydeehess]

What form of energy will "dustify" steel?

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.

To say that J.W has answered the question Alferd asked is incorrect. To simply say it was DEW is so utterly non-specific it is useless.

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.

You have been asked many times to show that anyone has managed to use directed energy of sone type to, not melt, but cause a dry and relatively cool disruption of the bonds holding steel molecules in their lattice. ("dust"ification not melting or extremely rapid oxidation)

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:

Which assumes, as a starting postion, that the final result was a dustification of the steel in the towers.
First of all if such were the case then the dust samples collected would have contained a huge amount of steel 'dust. It did not. Purportedly it did contain iron microspheres but that requires that the steel be heated to the molten stage and cooled in the air. If this is the type of 'dustification' referred to then one would have seen the steel go white hot and glow like a light bulb. There would not be a 'dust' plume created but rather a plume of white hot iron vapor. It would have raised the ambient temperature of lower Manhattan as that heat was transfered to the air. It would have resulted in the fallout of extremely hot , still molten, iron, coating all objects in the vicinity with a crust of iron that was essentially welded onto the vehicles and road signs in the area. It would have severely burned anyone it touched if it did not kill them outright when inhaled.

However, it does not appear that J.W. intends such a molten vaporization but rather the cold disassociation of the iron, in very small particles of 500 micrometers or less, from the original macrosized steel object. In this case one would not see spheres of iron but rather irregularily shaped particles.
these have not been shown to be a major constituent of the dust on scene.

[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.

Where is your evidence that this dust in this picture contains as a major constituent enough iron to account for even 100,000 tons (about half the total steel in the towers) of steel?

Show the above picture and ask your question at

SAIC
ARA
DEPS
DED

It simply fails to answer the question posed.
The question was consise. It was simple and contained no qualifiers. Your answer however is inconsise and loaded with conspiratorial qualifiers of the Les Nessman, 'think about it' style.
In fact your reply is more of an appeal to others here to look for the answer to the question in the organizations you refer to rather than to actually answer the question.
Be specific. What research done by any of the above indicates that there exists a directed energy beam that could cause the type of cold disassociation of steel which has been called 'dustification?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Is it true that Judy Wood was in a coma for several years?

I think it was only for a short time. (a couple of days or so) IIRC she was struck by a car while riding her bike in las Vegas. She had no ID on her so she was in the Hositial as "Jane Doe." which is the internet handle she uses occaisionally.

 

[Jackanory]

She had no ID on her so she was in the Hositial as "Jane Doe."

Or was it "Jane Doh"?

or was it "Jane Dew"?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Dr. Wood has answered it -- DEW

Is this DEW an electromagnetic energy then?

 

[JimBenArm]

No, it's a drink made by Pepsi!

I prefer Diet Dew, myself.

 

[CORed]

twinstead,

Let's assume for the moment that your attempt to level both sides in this discussion, making them equivalent, is a proper thing to do. Even assuming you've succeeded in doing that, for purpose of this discussion, that does not bode well for those who support the common myth.

The fact is, there is no official, valid explanation for what happened on 9/11. The absence of a reliable explanation of the event is an astonishing fact and one that lends itself quite well to the assertion that 9/11 was a false flag op. It is a fact that what happened has not been explained.

It is also a fact that the common myth explanation requires a complete and total breakdown of almost all known countermeasures; the ability of a few people in caves to outwit the entire military apparatus of the United States; the ability to pilot and navigate, from over the horizon, widebody jetliners based on a few hours training in puddle jumpers; just to name only a very few of the mind-boggling factors we are required to accept as a given in the common myth. The complete and total suspension of disbelief and of critical thinking is required to accept a myth that has not ever been shown by an authoritative investigation to be true.

That state of affairs should not be acceptable in a democratic, educated society.

Moreover, we remain vulnerable to other and more deadly attacks on us in the absence of awareness of what happened, followed by a proper determination of who did this to us.

At present, we do not have an official accounting of either what happened or of who did it. We are not likely to make progress determining who did this to us until we figure out what happened.

I am here searching for common ground. The desire to defend the common myth is understandable. Most of us want to think we can believe that 19 Arabs with boxcutters did this because that is neat, simple and gives us an enemy we can understand.

The problem is, that explanation does not make sense and has not ever been proven to be true.

I looked hard for a statement in this post that wasn't an outright lie. I found none.

 

[CORed]

Who built the orbital DEW?

Da Joos

Who funded it's research and construction?

Da Joos

Who put it into orbit?

Da Joos

What was it's purpose?

To destroy the WTC, of course

Who operates it today?

Da Joos

Why haven't any astronomers seen the damned thing?

Because it has a Cloak of Invisibility. You think a Cloak of Invisibility is a problem for people who can build beam weapons capable of bringing down the WTC buildings and dustifying steel?

 

[CORed]

Time and elbow grease. That's about it.

Well a grinding wheel will do it. But not fast.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Because it has a Cloak of Invisibility. You think a Cloak of Invisibility is a problem for people who can build beam weapons capable of bringing down the WTC buildings and dustifying steel?

shouldn't that answer be: Because der Joos.

 

[jhunter1163]

Every time anyone mentions Judy Wood, I hear Madonna in my head singing "dustify my love..."

 

[carmenjonze]

jammonius, don't you have any empathy for Judy Wood other than just accepting the crazy stories she spins? She's been fired from her job. She can't get another job anywhere. Pretty much every professional in her field has some impression she's mentally ill. How she will support herself remains a mystery to me, although I would like to know. Fighting with us here on JREF won't do anything for the fact that she is unable to make an income now. What do you think is going on with your one-man war to win respect for Dr. Wood?]

Or who does he think is going to pay him for his valiant defense?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

hokulele,

You are engaging in the conduct of a classic scoundrel, you know the Ben Johnson quote, right? Shame on you for your mock indignation. You don't have any more or any less right to claim empathy for the victims of 9/11 than I do and I won't allow you to make that claim.

By dressing yourself in sympathy for the victims you are using them to try to dodge coming to grips with what happened to them. After all, what happened to them has never been properly explained, and that is the point that is being made here.

So, no, indeed. You don't represent victims and you are not more sympathetic to them than I am and calling attention to the false explanations about what was done to them is, in fact, the right and proper thing to do.

How dare you engage in mock sympathy. That is a cheap, nasty trick.

This is hysterical coming from a would-be terrorist enabler.

The antics of you and your fellow truthers in the real world could only have the effect (if they have any effect at all) of aiding Al-Queada.

If there is another successful attack, you will have blood on your hands.