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

[Oystein]

You remember that space station we're building?

R.Mackey has covered that a long time ago in his famous smack-down on space-based DEW nonsense:

There is no orbit, other than geostationary, that would put one battlestation above of NYC during both plane crashes and/or during both twin tower collapses.
The space station is not geostationary.

It follows that you'd need not one but (at least) two such battlestations. But we're building only one space station.

 

[Bell]

Or, you can take a look a prior threads in this forum where the issue of destruction of the Twin Towers by DEW has been proven.

Jerry Leaphart, you haven't been able to proof the existence of DEWs let alone they destroyed the WTC. How nuts must you be to believe in no-planes and DEWs? Does your family still visit you?

 

[jammonius]

R.Mackey has covered that a long time ago in his famous smack-down on space-based DEW nonsense:

There is no orbit, other than geostationary, that would put one battlestation above of NYC during both plane crashes and/or during both twin tower collapses.
The space station is not geostationary.

It follows that you'd need not one but (at least) two such battlestations. But we're building only one space station.

Removed breaches of Rule 12 and Rule 0. Keep it civil and address the arguments rather than attacking the arguer.

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

 

[jammonius]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

The issue is the MIC and their ability to make, deploy and use secret weapons and to engage in controlling psyop manuvers. Their ability to do those things, in secret, under wraps and based on coercion, threats, some subtle, some implied and some clear, direct and palpable, all in the interest of putting untold $$$ into their coffers, is the most urgent emergency we are facing.

I'm suggesting acknowledgment of the issue, discussion about it and the posting of hints, clues and revelations, such as can be posted.

DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 as has been demonstrated and proven by Dr. Judy Wood. No other claim about what happened on 9/11 has been proven, most especially the common storyline of the event that stands as both unproven and ridiculous on its face.

The common storyline exists solely as a matter of propaganda and of the well known psyop effect of wanting to believe in illusion, all as was planned by the MIC in the PSYOP that was perpetrated.



Good luck

 

[djlunacee]

Earth to Djulnacee. You have no standing to tell me how I wish to prove my claims. I take responsibility for the claims I make and for the manner in which I go about proving them. If you disagree with my claims, say so, say why, say how, say something. And, above all else, answer your own questions.



Your quoted statement is absurd on its face. You haven't got any standing to say what answers are needed for a claim I might make. Instead, you could make a claim yourself if you've got a claim to make. You could attempt to refute claims I have made, but you do not do so. That is why my claims stand as unrefuted. You do not refute. Questions are not refutation. Questions, as you pose them, are rhetorical. You are seeking a cheap substitution for the rigors of refutation.

I will not ever let you get away that trickery. Not now, not ever.



You, on the other hand, do fool people, including yourself, with rhetorical tricks. Stop it.



In the above may the signs, ever so slight they may be, of dawning recognition. Good luck in making further progress towards proper dialogue. Hint: Don't ask questions, make claims that refute.



Never ending, never satisfactory and that is precisely why rhetorical questioning is a 'gotcha game' that adds nothing of substance to the dialogue.

I knew you were getting close to a point of recognition.

That you could post the above, on the one hand, and still express exasperation that I do not play such games, on the other, stands, then, as a bit of a contradiction. Deal with it.



Your ending rhetorical flourish is a bit silly when considered in light of the dawning recognition that preceded it.

Ok, you asked for it:

Do better

It hurts to get called out I see. YOU made the assertion tha a magical energy beam destroyed, no dustified the WTC. I asked questions on the logistics of such a weapon, and you brand it as rhetoric? I am advancing the conversation by asking these questions of YOUR statement. You an the other hand choose to engage in silly, if not cowardice acts of shifting and dodging, because you simply can not answer these questions as they cut straight to the heart of your delusion. As you can see every other poster here, as well as the readers, I am sure, are not buying your snake oil. For those that do not feel like reading his essay of a post, to basically sum it up, here it is:

Me: ask direct questions regarding a theory of a direct energy weapon destroying the WTC, in order to find out how you reached these conclusions.

Jammo: I won't answer those cause I don't play gotcha games, you just have to prove me wrong

Me: Its your theory, support it

Jammo: Blah, Blah, Blah, Your just spitting rhetoric, do better


Enough Jammonious, bottom line is this, it is your contention, your theory, your stance. Why do you refuse to support it? You can't, because when you start to even think of answering the questions I asked, you will then start to realize that the whole you have dug for yourself is one you can not get out of.
Yes, I make the claim I am right, and you are wrong. Now, live up to your standards, and prove me incorrect.

 

[jammonius]

It hurts to get called out I see. YOU made the assertion tha a magical energy beam destroyed, no dustified the WTC. I asked questions on the logistics of such a weapon, and you brand it as rhetoric?

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. You do realize, don't you that the above quoted paragraph, ending in a seeming question is rhetorical, right? If you do not acknowledge the above as being rhetorical, then please feel free to let me know so that we can proceed with that discussion.

I here claim that your quoted paragraph is rhetorical because its real intent is to assert or deny something; namely, that DEW exist or do not exist and/or, more to the point, that DEW did or did not, could or could not have destroyed the WTC complex.

If you need assistance in understanding the meaning of rhetorical questions, see;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

I am advancing the conversation by asking these questions of YOUR statement.

In your mind you may think you are advancing the the conversation. However, rhetoric lacks balance because it is a means of taking advantage of the stage where the conversation can be said to be. Rhetorical questions are almost always assumption laden and allow for assertions to be made, passively, without proof. Thus, in the very literal meaning of dialogue, rhetoric, when allowed to be used as a control device does not advance the conversation.

You an the other hand choose to engage in silly, if not cowardice acts of shifting and dodging, because you simply can not answer these questions as they cut straight to the heart of your delusion.

In the above, you may be coming a bit closer to admitting you engage in rhetoric. You say "you simply can not answer these questions as they cut straight to the heart of your delusion." A real clue that a question is rhetorical is the awareness that it cannot be answered. Indeed, that is why rhetorical questions are not questions at all. They are, instead, passive assertions. You have formed the opinion that it is impossible for DEW to have destroyed the WTC, let us say. Instead of saying so, saying why, saying how, etc., you choose to engage in rhetoric.

Look, straight up: If you make a claim DEW did not destroy the WTC complex and say why, I will engage in refutation.

If you make a rhetorical claim or question, you are on your own.

Do you understand?

As you can see every other poster here, as well as the readers, I am sure, are not buying your snake oil. For those that do not feel like reading his essay of a post, to basically sum it up, here it is:

Me: ask direct questions regarding a theory of a direct energy weapon destroying the WTC, in order to find out how you reached these conclusions.

Jammo: I won't answer those cause I don't play gotcha games, you just have to prove me wrong

Me: Its your theory, support it

Jammo: Blah, Blah, Blah, Your just spitting rhetoric, do better


Enough Jammonious, bottom line is this, it is your contention, your theory, your stance. Why do you refuse to support it? You can't, because when you start to even think of answering the questions I asked, you will then start to realize that the whole you have dug for yourself is one you can not get out of.
Yes, I make the claim I am right, and you are wrong. Now, live up to your standards, and prove me incorrect.

Your ending rhetorical flourishes are becoming worse, rather than better, I fear.

OK, let's put this way:

Try not to do any worse.

 

[Oystein]

Edited by LashL: 

To remove quote of moderated content.

Many things can be said about this utterly irrational paragraph.
- No one has refuted "one single thing concerning proof that DEW destroyed the WTC" because no such proof has been forwarded by you or anybody else.
- R. Mackey has responded to the claim that DEW were used. This claim has been made by you and Dr. Wood. Logic dictates that thes DEW were somewhere. Here is the complete list of possible locations: a) Space b) air c) ground d) sea. The argument about orbits covers a). Its conclusion serves to all but rule out a). Nothing more and nothing less can be said here. There is no assumption going into the orbits-argument other than that the laws of physic apply. A reasonable assumption to most. AFAIK, you, jammonius, have not yetr subscribed to it.
- R. Mackey has "reference to any observed data, data point, event, fact or circumstance arising out of the destructive interval associated with the WTC complex on 9/11" plenty of times in his arguments. This is in stark contrast to you, jammonius. Your DEW theory has yet failed to make any suchg reference. This is mainly due to the fact that you categorically rule out making any claim whatsoever about the nature of the DEW that were allegedly used that day. You are extremely careful to not make a claim about their position, to not make a claim about their technology, to not make a claim about their power, to not make a claim about their energy capacitires, to not make a claim about their physical effects on buildings.

That, my dear jammonius, is rich.

Who can you cite?
Citations are a near mandatory thing in scientific arguments.

 

[Oystein]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members (excluding those familiy members of pysoped victims on psyoped planes),

The issue is the MIC and their ability to make, deploy and use secret weapons and to engage in controlling psyop manuvers. Their ability to do those things, in secret, outside the laws of physics, under wraps and based on coercion, threats, some subtle, some implied and some clear, direct and palpable, all in the interest of putting untold $$$ into their coffers, is the most urgent emergency we are irrational delusion I am facing.

I'm suggesting acknowledgment of the issue, discussion about it and the posting of hints, clues and revelations, inventions, fantasies, and delusions, such as can be posted.

DEW, according to my delusion, destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 as but that has not been demonstrated and proven by Dr. Judy Wood. No other claim about what happened on 9/11 has been proven has been understood by us, most especially the common storyline of the event that stands as both unproven and ridiculous on its face.

The common DEW storyline exists solely as a matter of propaganda and of the well known psyop effect of wanting to believe in illusion, all as was planned by the MIC Dr. Judy Wood and myself in the PSYOP that was perpetrated.



Wish me Good luck

By strike-outs and additions in COLOR="Teal" I put some sense in that quote.

You're welcome

 

[Oystein]

Greetings Oystein,

...gotcha games...

Let me focus on that phrase (which, by the way, is a rhetorical device of yours thats old, very old).

The "gotcha" is right: Every time I respond to you, I do indeed "get ya". The sharper your replies, the clearer your message: "Oystein, yo got me again! It starts to hurt! Please let me be!". You realise, don't you, that I own you. It has dawned on you how far these "5 orders of magnitude" really are removed from all reality.

You are attacking the arguer, not the argument, when you shout "gotcha game!" and "20 questions!" and "rhetorics!". You must realize that each time Jammo Pawlow gives us his knee-jerk rhetorics, his "double-check for accuracy", then every poster and every lurker is laughing at you, because you make it plain for all to see that, once over, we "gotcha".











But: It is not a game.

 

[Oystein]

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam7.html

I quote

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.

This is akin to the following:

Two men are found dead. Thousands of people have seen muggers put knives into the men, and seen them bleed to death. There are 43 videos that captured the attack. The coroner found stab wounds. The knives were found, still sticking in the bodies.

Enter Dr. Judy Wood: "What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of vehicles that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional knives and can be directed.

However, we make no claim about the type of vehicle: Whether it was a car, a truck, a train, a bulldozer, a ship, a plane or a spacecraft. Nor do we claim to know what direction it came from and where it went afterwards. Nor do we claim to know how fast it travelled or who was directing it.

But we do assert that our theory is the only proven one! No other claim about what happened has been proven, most especially the common storyline of the event that stands as both unproven and ridiculous on its face.


Lurkers, posters, family members of victims, please post uop anything you can!"

No, jammonius, that's not irony.
It is satire.

 

[X]

That's a nice link, Oystein.

Allow me to paraphrase it thus: "We know it was a directed energy weapon, but we know absolutely nothing about how such a weapon would be deployed or how it works or where it is."

It's like saying you know a murder victim was shot (despite video, confessional, eyewitness and physical evidence proving he was stabbed), but that you don't know if he was shot from a handgun, a cannon, an arqebus, a bow and arrow, large caliber, small caliber, airsoft, paintball, bb, etc etc.


How can these people seriously think they have any credibility at all?
Not only do they refuse outright to support their assertions, but they readily admit to having no knowledge at all about the thing they claim did it!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh damn, that is quite the smackdown of Judy Woods!! Thanks for sharing that.

Yes, quite. A few other folks also published some different calcs and refutations here (if someone's got the links to them, feel free to provide), but the point is that a beam weapon is simply not a possibility. It doesn't matter what sorts of excuses any of the deluded advocates make.

 

[djlunacee]

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. You do realize, don't you that the above quoted paragraph, ending in a seeming question is rhetorical, right? If you do not acknowledge the above as being rhetorical, then please feel free to let me know so that we can proceed with that discussion.

I here claim that your quoted paragraph is rhetorical because its real intent is to assert or deny something; namely, that DEW exist or do not exist and/or, more to the point, that DEW did or did not, could or could not have destroyed the WTC complex.

If you need assistance in understanding the meaning of rhetorical questions, see;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question



In your mind you may think you are advancing the the conversation. However, rhetoric lacks balance because it is a means of taking advantage of the stage where the conversation can be said to be. Rhetorical questions are almost always assumption laden and allow for assertions to be made, passively, without proof. Thus, in the very literal meaning of dialogue, rhetoric, when allowed to be used as a control device does not advance the conversation.



In the above, you may be coming a bit closer to admitting you engage in rhetoric. You say "you simply can not answer these questions as they cut straight to the heart of your delusion." A real clue that a question is rhetorical is the awareness that it cannot be answered. Indeed, that is why rhetorical questions are not questions at all. They are, instead, passive assertions. You have formed the opinion that it is impossible for DEW to have destroyed the WTC, let us say. Instead of saying so, saying why, saying how, etc., you choose to engage in rhetoric.

Look, straight up: If you make a claim DEW did not destroy the WTC complex and say why, I will engage in refutation.

If you make a rhetorical claim or question, you are on your own.

Do you understand?



Your ending rhetorical flourishes are becoming worse, rather than better, I fear.

OK, let's put this way:

Try not to do any worse.

Jammonious, its not a matter of me doing better, it is a matter of you supporting your claim, period. As Oystein and X have shown, you can't, and your blatant refusal to is akin to cowardice, your word salads are simply intellectual impotence, and it is now obvious to the readers, lurkers, and posters that you cling to for your attention that you ar nothing more than a mere fraud.

Simply put, if you ar not willing to show the work that made you arrive at the conclusion that a DEW dustified the WTC, then why should anyone believe you?

You ask everyone to do better, it starts with the man in the mirror.

 

[leftysergeant]

If there were the slightest bit of truth behind whacky old Judy's crap about "dustified steel" then the dust should have contained at least 50% iron sphereules. As I recall, there was almost more wood fiber and glass.

 

[sts60]

Yes, quite. A few other folks also published some different calcs and refutations here (if someone's got the links to them, feel free to provide), but the point is that a beam weapon is simply not a possibility. It doesn't matter what sorts of excuses any of the deluded advocates make.

Here ya go:
Myself,
myriad ,
R. Mackey,
BenBurch.

It doesn't matter, really. The poor crazy woman can't even define her claim, and the handful of poor crazy people on this forum parroting her claims certainly can't either. Which doesn't matter, either, since the vast majority of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered anyway.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Here ya go:
Myself,
myriad ,
R. Mackey,
BenBurch.

It doesn't matter, really. The poor crazy woman can't even define her claim, and the handful of poor crazy people on this forum parroting her claims certainly can't either. Which doesn't matter, either, since the vast majority of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered anyway.

Aha! Excellent, thank you!

 

[jammonius]

Here ya go:
Myself,
myriad ,
R. Mackey,
BenBurch.

It doesn't matter, really. The poor crazy woman can't even define her claim, and the handful of poor crazy people on this forum parroting her claims certainly can't either. Which doesn't matter, either, since the vast majority of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered anyway.

The above is classic propaganda. It consists in a presumed list of worthies who disagree with the proof provided by Dr. Judy Wood that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11.

It ignores the plain as day fact that in so far as public records are concerned, the proof of the DEW proposition is one of the very few that has been actually posted into the public record for all to see. In fact, the DEW proof of concept sits astride the NIST NCSTAR 1 document, that, by comparison openly admits to Dr. Wood that it [NIST] did not even investigate the actual destruction of the WTC complex. Accordingly, NIST cannot be used as a means of refuting Dr. Wood's analysis and findings.

Why the list of 'presumed' but not 'proven' worthies should matter for purposes of refutation is simply not stated by STS60. Certainly, none of those worthies can be said to have refuted Dr. Wood, by any stretch of the imagination. There is no indication that any of them even reviewed the observable data; and, to the extent that they want to be thought of as doing so, they demonstrate, instead, the opposite.

The above quote concludes with a claim that is utterly false, propagandistic and completely untenable. The post states, but neither proves nor sources, that:

"... the vast majority of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered anyway..."

That assertion is a) observably false; and, b) cannot be reliably confirmed.

As to a), the towers can be seen as disentigrating before our very eyes during the 10second +/- destructive interval. In fact, the false claim of STS60 contains a continuation of the major blunder committed by many of Dr. Wood's self-proclaimed critics; namely, their criticims are completely devoid of any reference to the observed data -- the destructive event.

The one difference here is that NIST had the obligation to be truthful, to some extent, at least. So, accordingly, NIST ADMITTED that it did not investigate the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood's critics do not do so either; yet, they are often hard pressed to admit it. Instead, their criticisms consist in assumption riddled exercises in obfuscation, sprinkled here and there with numbers that do not make sense, cannot be explained, justified, confirmed, let alone related to anything observed in the destruction of the WTC complex. Whole presumed studies of Dr. Wood's DEW claims fail to reference one single element of the destruction of the WTC complex. Exercises like that are obfuscatory, writ large and bogus writ small.
It is absurd in the uttermost to declare, on the one hand, that most of the steel was recovered while being ignorant of the destructive episode that was seen to have occurred, on the other.

As to b), there are no official tabulations of steel, either that was recovered, destroyed, or handled in any other way. The entire "steel" issue is shrouded in pure propaganda, at a minimum, fraud and deception, as a matter of fact.

For instance, a poll of posters, lurkers and victims family members around here would likely result in many expressing their 'belief' that China bought WTC steel. That claim is absurd on its face. More to the point, it cannot be and has not ever been reliably sourced. There is no valid proof of either that claim or any other associated with WTC steel.

Perhaps the worst piece of propaganda associated with it is that significant parts of it were used to build a US Navy vessel, the new USS New York. Well, if they used WTC steel in that vessel, they better not have put it in the hull as the residual effects of DEW destruction might render that steel highly suspect for any structural purpose.

STS 60, you need to post at a higher level of quality. The post quoted above is insipid.

 

[AaronMic22]

So many words - so much time wasted.

 

[triforcharity]

The above quote concludes with a claim that is utterly false, propagandistic and completely untenable. The post states, but neither proves nor sources, that:

"... the vast majority of the steel from the WTC buildings was recovered anyway..."

The contractor that lead the Fresh Kills operation, Phillips and Jordan, out of Florida, disagrees.

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf

35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)

So, what were you saying?

That assertion is a) observably false; and, b) cannot be reliably confirmed.
As to b), there are no official tabulations of steel, either that was recovered, destroyed, or handled in any other way. The entire "steel" issue is shrouded in pure propaganda, at a minimum, fraud and deception, as a matter of fact.

35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)

What were you saying?

 

[jammonius]

The contractor that lead the Fresh Kills operation, Phillips and Jordan, out of Florida, disagrees.

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf



So, what were you saying?





What were you saying?

Your source is a mere 4 page piece of pure propaganda puffery. It's purpose is hard to fathom, other than, perhaps as either advertising, at best, or, more likely and unfortunately true, a furtherance of the 9/11 deception.

But, let me here double check for accuracy:

Do you claim your 4 page document is an authoritative accounting of what steel was recovered?

The document, in addition to saying what you say it says, also mentions the following in its mere 4 pages:

"Phillips and Jordan officially took over management of the Staten Island Landfill Operation on October 2nd. At that time there were about 137,000 tons of debris already stockpiled at the site that had not been inspected. That number grew to around 170,000 tons by the third week of October. By the eighth of November, under P&J’s management, the number was down to less then 1,400 tons.
The first thing the P&J team did when they took over the site was to make life easier for the agents. The debris was being laid out on the ground, and the agents (about 2,000 of them working 24/7) would have to rake through the debris looking for body parts, personal effects, and evidence at their feet. We brought in Picking Stations, which placed the debris at waist level on conveyor belts. This immediately cut down on the fatigue level and increased productivity."

It does not appear the firm was engaged in a forensic operation at all; rather, they were engaged in a cleaning operation where the issue of steel was merely a part and parcel of the commingling of debris resulting from the annihilation of the WTC complex.

As is often the case in 9/11 debunking, assumptions are incorporated into what little analysis takes place and then propaganda is willingly used as proof of important concepts.

You and other posters need to be cautioned about use of propaganda to prove your 9/11 claims. Doing so is dangerous, deceptive and highly counterproductive to the public good. You may remain fooled as long as you like; believe whatever you want. But, by all means, please do not seek to further your beliefs by use of deceptive, emotionally tinged, propaganda. You do not want to fool yourself AND others, do you?