Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

PookztA said:
From the NIST FAQ you just linked me too, which I looked at several times:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
Click to expand...

Abe, you need to go back and look at this several more times. This was the intitial debris that fell AHEAD of the collapse zone. Proving free fall did not occur for the towers.

How much energy would be required for any of Woods' claims to be true? Have you ever tried to calculate this? Because Woods didn't when directly asked this. It's on the level of the energy output of the entire earth. I'm sorry Abe, but this simply one of those fringe theories that is way beyond any scientifically factual evidence. Such as alien reptile. You have to look introspectively as to why you would give it any creedence.
 
Looking introspectively would be a scary prospect for most truthers. The likelyhood of finding nothing but an empty void scares them into never going there...;)
 
sylvan8798 said:
Looking introspectively would be a scary prospect for most truthers. The likelyhood of finding nothing but an empty void scares them into never going there...;)
Click to expand...

Well they might notice that they put way too much stock into the notion that if it can be imagined then it must be possible, AND have been created already.
By such reasoning we should be zipping around this galaxy in Starships, perhaps named after US aircraft carriers, at FTL speeds.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well they might notice that they put way too much stock into the notion that if it can be imagined then it must be possible, AND have been created already.
By such reasoning we should be zipping around this galaxy in Starships, perhaps named after US aircraft carriers, at FTL speeds.
Click to expand...
Or even better: ...................ludicrous speed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0




:)
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
Looking introspectively would be a scary prospect for most truthers. The likelyhood of finding nothing but an empty void scares them into never going there...;)
Click to expand...


A number of people throughout history have offered their comments on "staring into the abyss". I'd say that this sort of thing keeps conspiracy theorists from any kind of introspection, but that would require that they possess a level of self-awareness not in evidence.
 
PookztA said:
First of all, she never says anything about "space beams". That is a rumor.
Click to expand...


I know the PookztA is banned but this needs straightening out.

I've often seen it written that JW never mentions "spacebeams".

Way back in 2006 Jim Fetzer hosted an internet radio show called Non-Random Thoughts.

On November 11 Fetzer interviews Judy Wood on the show and she postulates that a directed energy weapon destroyed the WTC complex. Fetzer wonders whether the DEW was concealed in WTC7? Jim is aghast when Judy corrects him by insisting that rather, the weapon was in "geostationary" orbit. Later, during a call-in section on the show, none other than our old friend Troy phones in and asked Judy to clarify.....


Troy: Were you saying that from outer space they were sending in
lasers to cut a few buildings? I understand you right?

Fetzer: That looks as though that is the most probable explanation given
the data that Judy has been examining.

Troy: Lasers? You said lasers from space?

Judy: No, no I'm saying energy, an energy beam, a beam of energy.

Fetzer: I used the phrase laser.....

Troy: Energy beams or lasers from space?

Judy: Yes.
Click to expand...


Let's be honest. The Sane Train doesn't stop at Judy Junction.


Compus
 
OK, so now I know (beams from space). Geez, all those pages and jammonius couldn't answer that simple question. Now, if he could only answer "what kind of beams", then he'd have actually defined his claim!
 
sts60 said:
OK, so now I know (beams from space). Geez, all those pages and jammonius couldn't answer that simple question. Now, if he could only answer "what kind of beams", then he'd have actually defined his claim!
Click to expand...

The problem with defining it is then a truther has to defend the claim...

Its much easier to defend a claim when the claim is some imaginary, sooper dooper seekrit, star trek weapon that only exists in the Defense Departments wettest dreams....and the minds of truthers.....
 
Well the truthers have a head start on this technology:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Infinite_Improbability_Drive

It might be why their meetings never get bigger than about 100 people.....if too many of them gather in one place they would reach critical improbability and disappear in a puff of smoke. This might be why there seems to less of them about than there used to be....that or they are cutting access to the Internet at their "homes" as it makes them too excited.
 
newton3376 said:
The problem with defining it is then a truther has to defend the claim...

Its much easier to defend a claim when the claim is some imaginary, sooper dooper seekrit, star trek weapon that only exists in the Defense Departments wettest dreams....and the minds of truthers.....
Click to expand...

It is also easier if one is ambiguous about where said weapon might have resided.

In the space-a-beams commentary JW is suggesting that they could have been in geostationary orbit. She is not committing to that since that would require her to defend that claim. If all she is doing is suggesting that it was in orbit (and a specifically a geostationary orbit) then she will feel absolutly no compulsdion to defend such. This way when a debunker rolls out all the myriad problems with such a device all she has to do is say that it is not what she is claiming, only one possibility.
It requires that the debunkers do much more actual work than she does. She comes up with possibilities and suggestions and leaves it up to debunkers to do the actual research.

Despite her degree in engineering thee is precious little in the way of calculation or technical research in anything she has written on the subject of 9/11. Her "research" is mostly photos of the WTC in the aftermath of 9/11, IIRC.
 
jaydeehess said:
Despite her degree in engineering thee is precious little in the way of calculation or technical research in anything she has written on the subject of 9/11. Her "research" is mostly photos of the WTC in the aftermath of 9/11, IIRC.
Click to expand...


She does do a little calculation in certain regards. She still compares the seismic records of the aftermath of the demolition of the Kingdome with the seismic records of the WTC destruction. I am no seismologist but the little I do know points to one or two flaws in her thinking here too. For instance, in the same interview I reference above she compares the seismic record of the WTC attacks/collapses with the record of a small earthquake that hit the area around that time. She then opines that the WTC record "must have been filtered" due to the differences of the seismographs of the two events. Fetzer has to put her straight that these were different types of events and that the graphs would therefore possibly indicate as much.

Her reasoning is that because the Kingdome demolition involved much less mass falling to earth than that of the collapse of the towers the seismic records should have indicated that fact. Because the record showed a greater richter scale reading for the Kingdome than when either tower fell then that proves most of the mass of the towers was "dustified" and "wafted away". She also asserts that as the underlying geological strata in Seattle was more like "jello" (when compared to the rigid Manhattan bedrock) this even further dampened the seismicity of the Kingdome demo. I think she has this arse-backwards here, isn't it the case that Judys jello would amplify seismic effects?

Compus
 
Just out of curiousity (and I admit I'm too lazy to search right now), has any of the Wooders ever explained what the motive behind 9/11 would be if they do have these futurist technologies?

If they have these magic DEWs they probably no longer require oil.
 
rambaldi said:
Just out of curiousity (and I admit I'm too lazy to search right now), has any of the Wooders ever explained what the motive behind 9/11 would be if they do have these futurist technologies?

If they have these magic DEWs they probably no longer require oil.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Truther, much less a no-planer or ... is there a term for those who think DEWs brought down the towers? Anyhow, if some new energy source were discovered that matched the parameters of what would have to have powered the "dustification" of the towers, it wouldn't necessarily be something that could be used to fuel cars/trucks/etc. I think the more pertinent question is, if the conspirators have a weapon like that, why would they need to do all this in secret? With a weapon like that, they could openly take over the world in full-on Evil Overlord style, complete with maniacal laughter and the obligatory Persian cat.
 
Matthew Cline said:
I'm not a Truther, much less a no-planer or ... is there a term for those who think DEWs brought down the towers? Anyhow, if some new energy source were discovered that matched the parameters of what would have to have powered the "dustification" of the towers, it wouldn't necessarily be something that could be used to fuel cars/trucks/etc. I think the more pertinent question is, if the conspirators have a weapon like that, why would they need to do all this in secret? With a weapon like that, they could openly take over the world in full-on Evil Overlord style, complete with maniacal laughter and the obligatory Persian cat.
Click to expand...

We should call them 'DEWeys':p
 
Matthew Cline said:
I'm not a Truther, much less a no-planer or ... is there a term for those who think DEWs brought down the towers? Anyhow, if some new energy source were discovered that matched the parameters of what would have to have powered the "dustification" of the towers, it wouldn't necessarily be something that could be used to fuel cars/trucks/etc. I think the more pertinent question is, if the conspirators have a weapon like that, why would they need to do all this in secret? With a weapon like that, they could openly take over the world in full-on Evil Overlord style, complete with maniacal laughter and the obligatory Persian cat.
Click to expand...

It might help if one wished to turn rural Pakistan and Afghanistan into a level, dusty plain and then inform those in rural Yemen and N.Korea etc. that they too can obtain such a terrain if they wish it.
 
CompusMentus said:
She does do a little calculation in certain regards. She still compares the seismic records of the aftermath of the demolition of the Kingdome with the seismic records of the WTC destruction. I am no seismologist but the little I do know points to one or two flaws in her thinking here too. For instance, in the same interview I reference above she compares the seismic record of the WTC attacks/collapses with the record of a small earthquake that hit the area around that time. She then opines that the WTC record "must have been filtered" due to the differences of the seismographs of the two events. Fetzer has to put her straight that these were different types of events and that the graphs would therefore possibly indicate as much.
Click to expand...

Very true. An explosion looks very different than an earthquake. Explosions contain much more in the way of higher freq. components than do earthquakes. I was shown this several decades ago when I covered for a seismic tech who was heading off on holidays. I got to change the photographic paper everyday in the dark and cold of the vault.

Her reasoning is that because the Kingdome demolition involved much less mass falling to earth than that of the collapse of the towers the seismic records should have indicated that fact. Because the record showed a greater richter scale reading for the Kingdome than when either tower fell then that proves most of the mass of the towers was "dustified" and "wafted away". She also asserts that as the underlying geological strata in Seattle was more like "jello" (when compared to the rigid Manhattan bedrock) this even further dampened the seismicity of the Kingdome demo. I think she has this arse-backwards here, isn't it the case that Judys jello would amplify seismic effects?

Compus
Click to expand...

That depends on what one is looking at. An earthquake in a wet soil area will be 'amplified' in that it will cause greater destruction due to settling as that 'jello' is vibrated by the quake. If you are looking at a seismic reading though it might actually attenuate the amplitude of the waves.
the greatest coupling is in areas of hard rock which is where seismic vaults get placed. In theabove mentioned time that I was changing the charts I noticed one day that when I developed them that the readings were off the charts as if we had been hit by a large , hours long quake. I thought I had broken something. A call to EMR-Canada laid my fears to rest. What I was seeing was hurricane driven waves crashing on the shores of Newfoundland(locally known as "The Rock") despite the fact that I was 1000 miles north of Nfld.
 
jaydeehess said:
That depends on what one is looking at. An earthquake in a wet soil area will be 'amplified' in that it will cause greater destruction due to settling as that 'jello' is vibrated by the quake. If you are looking at a seismic reading though it might actually attenuate the amplitude of the waves.
Click to expand...


So JW might be right in stating the strata underlying the Kingdome may/should have "dampened" down the associated seismic effects? I wonder what other variables in the environment may have affected the record of the event? I am fairly sure that things are not as cut and dried as Judy makes out.

BTW your work described above is fascinating to me . After I posted last night the subject re-kindled an old interest of mine in earthquakes and vulcanology etc. I may even embark on a short course in the subjects in the summer as a filler until I tackle physics head-on in October.

Thanks.

Compus
 
CompusMentus said:
So JW might be right in stating the strata underlying the Kingdome may/should have "dampened" down the associated seismic effects? I wonder what other variables in the environment may have affected the record of the event? I am fairly sure that things are not as cut and dried as Judy makes out.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The tower's upper portions fell onto a rubble pile and some of the energy of that falling mass went into compressing this loose material. Constituents of the rubble were bent and twisted by the mass being added to the pile, air was being expelled (did the Kingdome have several levels of basements?) AND although the foundation was coupled to bedrock, the earth surrounding the foundation was clay and anything that impacted the ground outside the foundation (by even a few inches) was hitting the same type of soil she claims the Kingdome was constructed on.

as an aside, It is interesting that the CT crowd likes to use the seismic readings for the towers to determine a short collapse time but when one points out that the seismic readings for WTC 7 indicate a 16+ second collapse they fall silent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom