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

[jammonius]

Thanks, alienentity. The image depicting the processes is obviously of poor Paint quality, but I figured I'd match Abe's amount of effort in this whole 911 business.

Well, well, a post from someone identifying as AaronMHatch. That is of interest to me. I have seen that you took it upon yourself to comment upon the proof of claim by Dr. Judy Wood that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11. Mention was made of your discussion of Abe in an earlier post in this thread, post # 183. See also post # 181

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6342781&postcount=183

Your commentary that seeks, in part, to ally yourself with logic is of interest. Logic is not partial to any one side. Rather, it is a guide to discussion that is best used as a way to double check the accuracy of one's own claims and certainly not as a weapon that one seeks to use against another.

In the main, your attempt to claim 'you are more logical than Dr. Wood' fails and fails utterly. You would have been better off doing a logical assessment of what few publicly funded attempts there were to explain what happened on 9/11. You did not choose to assess NIST's NCSTAR1 report that thought that it was 'ok' to curtail its investigation into why and how the Twin Towers were destroyed by cutting off investigation, analysis and even discussion at the point in time of when "collapse was initiated."

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6342781&postcount=181

The logical fallacy and fraud in doing that should have, but apparently did not cause so much as a single comment from you, let alone a webpage.

That is telling.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well, well, a post from someone identifying as AaronMHatch. That is of interest to me. I have seen that you took it upon yourself to comment upon the proof of claim by Dr. Judy Wood that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11. Mention was made of your discussion of Abe in an earlier post in this thread, post # 183. See also post # 181

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6342781&postcount=183

Your commentary that seeks, in part, to ally yourself with logic is of interest. Logic is not partial to any one side. Rather, it is a guide to discussion that is best used as a way to double check the accuracy of one's own claims and certainly not as a weapon that one seeks to use against another.

In the main, your attempt to claim 'you are more logical than Dr. Wood' fails and fails utterly. You would have been better off doing a logical assessment of what few publicly funded attempts there were to explain what happened on 9/11. You did not choose to assess NIST's NCSTAR1 report that thought that it was 'ok' to curtail its investigation into why and how the Twin Towers were destroyed by cutting off investigation, analysis and even discussion at the point in time of when "collapse was initiated."

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6342781&postcount=181

The logical fallacy and fraud in doing that should have, but apparently did not cause so much as a single comment from you, let alone a webpage.

That is telling.

You know what else is telling? That your DEW theory is **** because it doesn't exist.

 

[jammonius]

You know what else is telling? That your DEW theory is **** because it doesn't exist.

I am not quite sure what to make of the "DEW don't exist" mantra. It is fundamentally very akin to the "1000s of eyewitness" mantra in that both are demonstrably false, but that matters not to those who wish to believe they are true.

Data doesn't matter for purposes of belief. This we know.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf">http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

"Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons"

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I am not quite sure what to make of the "DEW don't exist" mantra. It is fundamentally very akin to the "1000s of eyewitness" mantra in that both are demonstrably false, but that matters not to those who wish to believe they are true.

Data doesn't matter for purposes of belief. This we know.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf">http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

"Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons"

DEW's DON'T EXIST:

www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

I don't think you've read the document about DEW's, Jammy. It clearly says that your version of a DEW can't exist because there's not enough current technology to actually build one. Given that the declassified document was presented in 2007, it shows that even in 2001 that DEW's couldn't have been built then.

So why are you constantly persuring this DEW Theory when you know that the truth is they don't exist? You're turning nothing into something, kind of like your buddy, Dylan Avery.

 

[Oystein]

DEW's DON'T EXIST:
...

Sorry if I step in. but you should not shout things that are plain wrong. Of course DEW do exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

And we know quite a bit about their capabilities and capacities:

- They heat their targets
- The most powerful of them are approaching a power output of a few Megawatts
- They are mostly in their testing phase, or already phased out
- The amount of energy that they can direct at a target is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in a small jar of chocolate spread
- They are 5 orders of magnitude removed from the kind of power and energy released by either some 1.000 gallons of burning jet fuel, or the collapse of a 110-story building

 

[AaronMic22]

Well, well, a post from someone identifying as AaronMHatch.

I responded to you earlier in post #202.

In the main, your attempt to claim 'you are more logical than Dr. Wood' fails and fails utterly.

Do you use single quotes to signify putting words in someone's mouth? My article assessed Abe's ability to use logic, not Wood's. That's why I said this:

This article does not intend to debunk Wood's allegations

You would have been better off doing a logical assessment of what few publicly funded attempts there were to explain what happened on 9/11. You did not choose to assess NIST's NCSTAR1 report that thought that it was 'ok' to curtail its investigation into why and how the Twin Towers were destroyed by cutting off investigation, analysis and even discussion at the point in time of when "collapse was initiated."

Why would I explain something that's been done many times before?

The logical fallacy and fraud in doing that should have, but apparently did not cause so much as a single comment from you, let alone a webpage.

Are you saying it's a logical fallacy to not explain, for example, how gravity works when writing a paper on precipation in the Pacific Northwest? Are you saying that I'm supposed to prove within my article how 911 was not a laser job when explaining the mindset of a truther? And if so, which logical fallacy is that?

As for it being a fraud.. hmm. It seems more like kitten hoarding or grand theft cranium in your world. But if you want to classify a logical, well argued article as a 'fraud', that's fine. By that definition, I love frauds. I'm a fraudulator extrordinare!

That is telling.

Of what? That I'm wrong, therefore lasers turned the towers to dust and created a bunch of circular holes in buildings around Ground Zero that led a medical student to post across the internet about it without responding to questions?

Remember, Abe did the following, he

1. Has disregarded someone's response as not answering the question
2. Has disregarded someone's response as not being logical
3. Has made further points that build off of someone else's response
4. Has repeatedly asked the same question
5. Has ignored responses entirely

 

[excaza]

Do you use single quotes to signify putting words in someone's mouth? My article assessed Abe's ability to use logic, not Wood's. That's why I said this:

I already pointed that out to Jammy, it was ignored.

Sounds similar to:

Remember, Abe did the following, he

1. Has disregarded someone's response as not answering the question
2. Has disregarded someone's response as not being logical
3. Has made further points that build off of someone else's response
4. Has repeatedly asked the same question
5. Has ignored responses entirely

 

[excaza]

Seriously, there's no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with Jammy. Pretty much every question you ask will be dismissed as a "gotcha" question because he can't answer it. The only time he'll answer a question is when he can dump a 1000+ character word salad about how The Man is going to kill us all and he's the only one that can see through the secrecy. Totally off his rocker and has the educational equivalent of a preschooler.

 

[jammonius]

I responded to you earlier in post #202.

Yes, you did indeed respond. For ready reference, here is the link to your article:

http://www.aaronmhatch.com/projects/abe/abe.html

Do you use single quotes to signify putting words in someone's mouth? My article assessed Abe's ability to use logic, not Wood's. That's why I said this:

You know, I am inclined to acknowledge here that I may not have much in the way of argument with you. As you say, you are not assessing Dr. Wood's use of logic, and I will take you at your word.

Why would I explain something that's been done many times before?

I do not think the above is a logical statement at all. I think it's a wickedly presumptuous fallacy, set up on the basis of assumptions that are not proven. But, once again, if you do not engage in discussion of Dr. Wood then so be it.

Are you saying it's a logical fallacy to not explain, for example, how gravity works when writing a paper on precipation in the Pacific Northwest? Are you saying that I'm supposed to prove within my article how 911 was not a laser job when explaining the mindset of a truther? And if so, which logical fallacy is that?

What? In the universe of questions that you could ask, why did you ask those? What interest are you seeking to advance; and, is there any claim you are trying to make? Pray tell.

As for it being a fraud.. hmm. It seems more like kitten hoarding or grand theft cranium in your world. But if you want to classify a logical, well argued article as a 'fraud', that's fine. By that definition, I love frauds. I'm a fraudulator extrordinare!

It seems clear we really have little to discuss and that is fine.

Of what? That I'm wrong, therefore lasers turned the towers to dust and created a bunch of circular holes in buildings around Ground Zero that led a medical student to post across the internet about it without responding to questions?

Please restate the criteria that mandated that Abe answer any questions at all, let alone those you might have posed. Thanks in advance.

Remember, Abe did the following, he

1. Has disregarded someone's response as not answering the question
2. Has disregarded someone's response as not being logical
3. Has made further points that build off of someone else's response
4. Has repeatedly asked the same question
5. Has ignored responses entirely

OK, I will remember that it is claimed that Abe did the above.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good God, people. Beam weapons have been refuted already. More than once. If this fantasy had any legs, it would've been apparent in the discussions we've had for 4-some years now.

Let this thread slip back into obscurity. Or merge it with the first link I posted above. But let's not beat this stupid idea back into the ground yet again. Just because someone digs up a corpse and waves it around frantically doesn't mean that person's resurrected the dead.

 

[AaronMic22]

What? In the universe of questions that you could ask, why did you ask those?

Let's separate my questions:

1.

Are you saying it's a logical fallacy to not explain, for example, how gravity works when writing a paper on precipation in the Pacific Northwest?

You suggested that I should have included an assessment of the public investigations into 911 in my article. I assumed this from the following quote of your's:

You did not choose to assess NIST's NCSTAR1 report

snip...

The logical fallacy and fraud in doing that should have, but apparently did not cause so much as a single comment from you, let alone a webpage.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are asking me to prove what has already been proven in order to make an accusation toward Abe. I'm using the understanding that the public investigations have discussed the presence of airplanes crashing into the towers and have given sufficient evidence for such.

Therefore, it was unnecessary for me to include these proofs in my article. Because of this, what you are asking me to do is akin to me having to prove laws of physics in order to discuss physics. Do you realize how monotonous and pointless this would be after a while? It'd be like defining every word we use before engaging in conversation... not necessary.

My second question:

2.

Are you saying that I'm supposed to prove within my article how 911 was not a laser job when explaining the mindset of a truther?

Well?

And, the final one:

3.

And if so, which logical fallacy is that?

Is it that silly to ask you to name the logical fallacy you're accusing me of? I expect an answer to this question before I respond again to you. You know, since you're accusing me of it.

Please restate the criteria that mandated that Abe answer any questions at all, let alone those you might have posed. Thanks in advance.

That's part of the criteria for engaging in and resolving an argument. One must communicate in a give and take manner. One cannot simply posit questions and statements and not be expected to respond to the other side.

OK, I will remember that it is claimed that Abe did the above.

Why remember? I can post some here:

http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/911-free-energy

In Abe's original post, he asked us to explain a host of bullet points. Throughout the thread, he was responded to a number of times. If you continue reading, you'll realize that instead of engaging us in our responses, he simply posts the exact same bullet points again.

Take a look.

What interest are you seeking to advance; and, is there any claim you are trying to make? Pray tell.

My interest is in finding out exactly what you have a problem with in my article.

My claim is that my article is sound.

 

[jammonius]

Let's separate my questions:

1.

You suggested that I should have included an assessment of the public investigations into 911 in my article. I assumed this from the following quote of your's:



If I'm understanding you correctly, you are asking me to prove what has already been proven in order to make an accusation toward Abe. I'm using the understanding that the public investigations have discussed the presence of airplanes crashing into the towers and have given sufficient evidence for such.

Therefore, it was unnecessary for me to include these proofs in my article. Because of this, what you are asking me to do is akin to me having to prove laws of physics in order to discuss physics. Do you realize how monotonous and pointless this would be after a while? It'd be like defining every word we use before engaging in conversation... not necessary.

My second question:

2.

Well?

And, the final one:

3.

Is it that silly to ask you to name the logical fallacy you're accusing me of? I expect an answer to this question before I respond again to you. You know, since you're accusing me of it.





That's part of the criteria for engaging in and resolving an argument. One must communicate in a give and take manner. One cannot simply posit questions and statements and not be expected to respond to the other side.



Why remember? I can post some here:

http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/911-free-energy

In Abe's original post, he asked us to explain a host of bullet points. Throughout the thread, he was responded to a number of times. If you continue reading, you'll realize that instead of engaging us in our responses, he simply posts the exact same bullet points again.

Take a look.



My interest is in finding out exactly what you have a problem with in my article.

My claim is that my article is sound.

Thank you for the above post. I wish that more posters around here would approach posting in the manner you have done.

I here assert that your article is not sound, based on the following assumption that you have relied on, as per your qouted post. You say:

"I'm using the understanding that the public investigations have discussed the presence of airplanes crashing into the towers and have given sufficient evidence for such."

That assumption is utterly unreasonable and unreasoning. At a minimum, you would need to identify the "public investigations" you rely on and reference the elements within them that substantiate your blatant use of assumption. Furthermore, in linking us to this particular thread, the issue here, in this thread, centers upon the proof put forward by Dr. Judy Wood that directed energy weaponry are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11; not the issue that NO PLANES were involved in that destruction and in that psyop.

I here assert that there are numerous threads within this forum that provide, in the aggregate, proof that NO PLANES hit the WTC on 9/11; that the claims to the contrary are false, fraudulent, unproven and/or unreliably determined. However, that is not the issue here.

In short, while I respect your posting style and, by and large, agree with your approach to proof of claims, I do not think the article under discussion is sound and your further explanations of it seem to demonstrate its weaknesses rather than its strengths.

all the best

 

[Sabretooth]

I here assert that your article is not sound, based on the following assumption that you have relied on, as per your qouted post. You say:

"I'm using the understanding that the public investigations have discussed the presence of airplanes crashing into the towers and have given sufficient evidence for such."

That assumption is utterly unreasonable and unreasoning. At a minimum, you would need to identify the "public investigations" you rely on and reference the elements within them that substantiate your blatant use of assumption. Furthermore, in linking us to this particular thread, the issue here, in this thread, centers upon the proof put forward by Dr. Judy Wood that directed energy weaponry are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11; not the issue that NO PLANES were involved in that destruction and in that psyop.

But Jammy...you are completely discounting the dozens, hundreds, thousands of scientists, engineers, and physicists...not to mention the hundreds of thousands of real eye witnesses...that are all in agreement of what happened on 9/11 and instead you are loading up your theory on the fantastical opinion of a single crackpot in Judy Wood.

Don't you find it at all shady that her accusations are impossible to reproduce in the real world?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's an interview with Judy Wood & Dr. Greg Jenkins:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf

GJ: Well, thank you. I guess the first question is: you have come up with some ideas regarding space-based weapons and the demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, and I was wondering if you could give us an overview of the proposed types of weapons that could be used for such a thing.

JW: Uh… We haven’t got into listing them yet—Just Energy Weapons.

GJ: In what form?

JW: (stuttering hesitantly) Uh… I don’t think we even need to define it.

<snip>

GJ: What kinds of energy beams?

JW: Well let’s see… you put something in your microwave oven and leave it on there extra long and see what happens to it.

GJ: That’s food. That’s not metal.

GJ: If you put metal in a microwave it will reflect off of it.

JW: Hey! I’ve been trying a fork in there. I know you’re not supposed to, but I wanted someone else to do it, to see what happens.

It goes on & on & the hilarity hardly stops. Judy Wood is a total whacko!

 

[SanityGap]

But Jammy...you are completely discounting ignoring the dozens, hundreds, thousands of scientists, engineers, and physicists...not to mention the hundreds of thousands of real eye witnesses...that are all in agreement of what happened on 9/11 and instead you are loading up your theory on the fantastical opinion of a single crackpot in Judy Wood.

Don't you find it at all shady that her accusations are impossible to reproduce in the real world?

Fixed.

 

[Sabretooth]

Fixed.

 

[Sabretooth]

Jammy,

WTF does she keep trying to compare the WTC collapse to the King Dome CD?

I know you're not stupid, Jam. I'm sure that you can spot the complete irrelevance.

 

[djlunacee]

Jammy,

WTF does she keep trying to compare the WTC collapse to the King Dome CD?

I know you're not stupid, Jam. I'm sure that you can spot the complete irrelevance.

No, he can't. remember the all 43 videos thread? Especially the dismal attempt at refuting the radar data with a you tube video of a flight sim using a 747 and not a 767? To Jammonious if it suits his needs, apples=oranges.

The fact that this DEW theory just at face value is as flimsy as a wet paper towel matters not, there is just some PSYCHOlogical need in truthers to have the factors leading up to a historic event to be just as grand as the event itself.

I have only been here a short period of time, however when pressed for evidence to support this theory, not one of the no planers I have seen can put together anything logical, rational or sane.

Any direct questions are met with "I don't play 20 questions" or "I don't play gotcha games", next to mini nukes, DEW is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. I can not believe that there are factions of the truth movement that believe this junk.

Direct questions for Jammonious, or any other supporter of the DEW theory:

What was the deployment method of the energy beam? What is the range of a weapon this grand? Where was it fired from? Was this weapon used on the Pentagon as well?

 

[SanityGap]

I would like to know how in FSM's name did the whole planet miss this thing being launched? Does anyone think that this sort of thing is not monitored by the likes of China and Russia? It must be huge given the power requirements. That would mean a massive launch vehicle, which apparently no one spotted.
Jammy, have you considered bring cloaking devices into your life
Here's some help in what to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device

 

[djlunacee]

I would like to know how in FSM's name did the whole planet miss this thing being launched? Does anyone think that this sort of thing is not monitored by the likes of China and Russia? It must be huge given the power requirements. That would mean a massive launch vehicle, which apparently no one spotted.
Jammy, have you considered bring cloaking devices into your life
Here's some help in what to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device

I asked him the same question in another thread, he dodged....I really don't expect any answers....