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

[GlennB]

Here's an example of 'propaganda' or, more accurately, an example of deceptive analysis that has not got anything at all to do with what happened on 9/11, prepared by one R.Mackey:

Concerning things that did happen ... you believe that DEW was used on 9/11. Could you point me to a summary of your beliefs? For example, did the 'beam' strike vertically or horizontally? What was the nature of the beam in terms of the electro-magnetic spectrum? Was it electro-magnetic at all?

Things like that.

Cheers

 

[jammonius]

Let's see. R. Mackey
...uses, as frame of reference, text book physics (the laws of this universe)
...defines his terms very clearly
...makes very precise assumptions about the physical properties of the objects and processes he considers
...presents this all in highly structured approach that is easy to grasp (no word salad!) and very approachable to specific critique
...is open about the limitations of his methods
...arrives at conclusions by independent reasoning
...but checks plausibility against previously published science.

You, on the other hand,
...claim exemption from the requirement to abide by the laws of physics
...make it clear that you will NOT define your terms ("DEW")
...refuse to commit to any specific assumptions
...toss us verbose word salads, largely void of information
...claim to be in possession of the only and absolute truth
...and handwave any and all critique and opposing results published by others


One of you acts like a scientist, and the other like a lawyer.

I'll leave it to posters, lurkers and family members to figure out who is who.

R.Mackey does not do a darn thing that has any relevance at all, or relationship to, what happened to the WTC complex. R.Mackey has, instead, wasted time on a stupid wild goose chase of his own choosing. R.Mackey can chase after basic physics all R.Mackey would like.

But, R.Mackey cannot claim to have posted anything at all concerning the proof put forward by Dr. Judy Wood that DEW destroyed the WTC complex and R.Mackey does not even try to do so.

 

[jammonius]

Concerning things that did happen ... you believe that DEW was used on 9/11. Could you point me to a summary of your beliefs? For example, did the 'beam' strike vertically or horizontally? What was the nature of the beam in terms of the electro-magnetic spectrum? Was it electro-magnetic at all?

Things like that.

Cheers

Greetings GlennB,

You are off on the wrong foot. You miss the point badly. I do not post up concerning beliefs. I have frequently said that people can choose to believe whatever they want to believe for as long as they can believe it.

It is pointless, in my view, to have a 'belief-centered' discussion. To be blunt, I do not care what you believe and I do not post on the basis of what I believe.

I post solely on the basis of what the data and the information shows. I make claims and I defend them when they are sought to be refuted by counter-claims put up by others.

I make claims and I defend them against counterclaims.

That should not be difficult to understand. I hope you understand.

Your post is a subtle variation on the rhetorical theme that is so popular here. If you want to make a claim, do it and I will respond. I do not answer posters' rhetoric and I do not permit posters to make claims via the lazy substitute method of using rhetorical devices to do that.

I you have a claim about DEW or not DEW, do please make your claim. If you have information about the type of DEW that exist, do please share the information. Be forthcoming, rather than withholding.

Come on, spit it out. You can do it!

 

[carlitos]

One of you acts like a scientist, and the other like a lawyer.

I think that you nailed it here. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't create "reasonable doubt" about the laws of nature. I wouldn't waste my time on these fantasies, since they aren't even definable.

 

[Sabretooth]

Jammers -

I CLAIM that Boeing 767's, heavily laden with jet fuel, crashed into the twin towers of WTC on 9/11/01.

Your theory is a bit weak. For starters, you have used generalization, coupled with non-specific quantification. Can you consider doing better and posting up a more specific claim?

Bolding mine. That single sentence makes you a hypocrite. Your assertion of the MIC making/using a DEW has never been clarified nor quanitified. The fact remains that I have evidence and physics to back up my claim and all you have is Judy and fantasy. The level of sophistication and power in a DEW needed to destroy the WTC does not exist in the real world. All you have are “generalizations”, “non-specific quantity”, and an insane woman posing as a doctor.

They jet fuel ignited uncontrollable and unfightable fires that weakened the steel supports of the buildings.

[cut]…You can google NIST NCSTAR 1. 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.

Are you suggesting that the NCSTAR1 proves a DEW was used? You’ll have to find that quoted section for me.

Once the fires caused enough failure in the structure, the towers collapsed which ultimately killed nearly 3000 innocent people, fireman, policeman, and passengers.

The above doesn't even sound like a proper finding; and, instead, sounds like (and is) pure propaganda, worthy of a psyop and a victim of a psyop. I wish you a speedy recovery, where the time marker is from this post forward. Wake up!

It doesn’t? Are you implying that fire cannot sufficiently destroy the structural integrity of a building? That only a DEW dreamed up by ILM is capable of such damage? If a weapon of such power and accuracy really existed, WTF would the USA be hiding it? The holder of such a weapon would rule the world and have no opposition what-so-ever. Seriously. If the USA owned such a weapon, there would be no need to attack its own soil to start a war for oil or whatever it is you think they did it for. They would’ve only needed to point the Death Ray at downtown Baghdad and light the place up. The entire planet would be in fear…but instead you think the USA only wanted to scare its own citizens?

MY PROOF lies within the documented records, eye-witnesses, ear-witnesses, flight records, radar data, seismic records, and general physics.

I'm glad you know where your proof lies. (pun intended) I hope you will find it within yourself to post up your proofs. If you rely on dumb debunker websites as your sources, you are going to be in for a rude awakening with respect to each and every post you might make as I will refute those claims handily. Debunker websites are utterly unconvincing and universally poorly constructed.

Handwave noted. You can pretend to refute facts and evidence all you want. The only one you are fooling is yourself.

I CONTEND that your theory of no-planes and the existance of large scale DEW's has no merit.

Your contention is so noted. Please post up your specific rebuttal and I will gladly engage with you, post for post, as and when I can.

I already posted my rebuttal…you handwaved it away, remember? You want me to prove the official version of 9/11 while you dodge questions about your fantasy? Your crap about a DEW has no merit, and you cannot prove otherwise. The official version of 9/11 is readily available for you to read, I’m not going to waste my time. Nobody but you and Judy believes the DEW nonsense and neither one of you can support it with real-world physics and facts.

MY PROOF lies within the lack of any documented physical capability to produce such a DEW.

The above claim is not supportable. For starters, the DEW claim starts with the observed destructive interlude. As you may know, that destructive interlude has never been analyzed with published findings, submitted to the proper governmental authorities, by anyone at all, other than by Dr. Judy Wood.

You cannot prove the lack of physical capability to produce such a DEW on the one hand in light of the actual destruction that was documented on the other. Your claim puts you in a distinctly disadvantaged position. Were I you, I'd rethink the nature of the claim you seek to make and the manner in which you intend to prove it.

I see. So because you and Judy cannot prove the existence of a DEW capable of destroying the WTC, it must mean it’s real? That is the most illogical argument in the history of the world.

I ASK, politely, that you explain how you have come to the conclusion that a DEW was used on 9/11/01...

I answer politely that this has been done six ways to Sunday. It is no secret that I have asserted, posted, linked and stated that Dr. Judy Wood has proven that DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 and I have shown where the proof is to be found, namely, the NIST website.

Neither you or Judy have proven jacks***. All Judy has is some George Lucas inspired fantasy…and you bought into it. Don’t feel bad about being duped, Jammy. It happens.

one that could produce the energy necessary to completely destroy two large buildings...one that, to date, has never been known to exist.

You are making an illogical assertion. Two large buildings WERE completely destroyed, each in a matter of approximately 11 seconds, plus or minus a few seconds, depending upon how one looks at the observed data. Because the buildings were thusly destroyed, it follows the energy to destroy them existed in conjunction with the weaponry used.

The most likely explanation as to why people tend to become confused about the energy issue, and then emotionally caught up in the conundrum of their own making, is that people simply do not wish to acknowledge DEW destroyed the WTC.

I don’t know how much more clearly I can say this…but large scale DEW’s do not exist, Jammers. If they did, they would not be used to attack our own citizens. Period. There is no logistical sense in doing so. I’m sorry that you cannot readily see this fact.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility

 

[GlennB]

I post solely on the basis of what the data and the information shows. I make claims and I defend them when they are sought to be refuted by counter-claims put up by others.

I make claims and I defend them against counterclaims.

So, in which plane does the evidence show that DEW struck the Towers? Vertical or horizontal?

 

[twinstead]

I finally get some of Jammonius's thought process. He falsely believes that the WTC buildings were completely destroyed in 11 seconds, so that means that even though he can't describe the weapons that would accomplish that, the fact it happened means that such weapons exist and have enough power to destroy the WTC. Both of them. At different times.

Well Jamm, in the opinion of most rational people, a mechanism for how the WTC buildings collapsed HAS been described, in fairly good detail, so you don't need to dream up imaginary weapons.

You're welcome.

 

[excaza]

I finally get some of Jammonius's thought process.

That would frighten me.

 

[Oystein]

...R.Mackey has, instead, wasted time on a stupid wild goose chase of his own choosing. R.Mackey can chase after basic physics all R.Mackey would like.

Aaaahahahaha!!! I found your wild goose: Basic physics is your wild goose that you will not ever touch! Hahahaha!! Gotcha!!!

...concerning the proof delusions put forward by Dr. Judy Wood that DEW XYZ destroyed the WTC complex...

Hahaha! Fixed that for you!

 

[Oystein]

I finally get some of Jammonius's thought process. He falsely believes that the WTC buildings were completely destroyed in 11 seconds...

You apparently have no idea how insande the ideas are that jammomius believes.

 

[jammonius]

So, in which plane does the evidence show that DEW struck the Towers? Vertical or horizontal?

You are not making a claim. You are continuing to engage in rhetoric wherein and whereby you express a concern and expect me to answer your concern, probably to your satisfaction that can probably never be attained.

Glenn, I mean this sincerely:

I do not play 20 question type games ever. If you have a concern about the direction of DEW, then by all means stop beatiing around the bush and state your claim. For instance, in asking whether the DEW used on 9/11 was horizontal or vertical, you impart that you know a bit about DEW; namely, that they can function horizontally or vertically. If you know something about DEW, then post what you know in the form of a claim about DEW.

In a thread running concurrently with this one, a lot of DEW information as it relates to two MIC giants, SAIC and ARA, has been posted. I have also referenced the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) and the AFRL/Directed Energy Directorate. DEW are said, albeit cryptically, to be found in space, in the air, at high altitude, medium, low, on the ground and at sea.

If, as I suspect, you know something about DEW, then please post what you can. Once again, I do not participate in 20 guestion gaming, so you may as well post a claim. Right now, you are about the only poster here who is focused on DEW assertions. That is good. We just need you to be a little more forthcoming in stating what you know and can say.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let's see. R. Mackey
...uses, as frame of reference, text book physics (the laws of this universe)
...defines his terms very clearly
...makes very precise assumptions about the physical properties of the objects and processes he considers
...presents this all in highly structured approach that is easy to grasp (no word salad!) and very approachable to specific critique
...is open about the limitations of his methods
...arrives at conclusions by independent reasoning
...but checks plausibility against previously published science.

You, on the other hand,
...claim exemption from the requirement to abide by the laws of physics
...make it clear that you will NOT define your terms ("DEW")
...refuse to commit to any specific assumptions
...toss us verbose word salads, largely void of information
...claim to be in possession of the only and absolute truth
...and handwave any and all critique and opposing results published by others


One of you acts like a scientist, and the other like a lawyer.

I'll leave it to posters, lurkers and family members to figure out who is who.

Not that I'm about to defend lawyers, but I think it's fair to say that a good lawyer would have respect for knowledge and think critically about an argument instead of rejecting it out of hand. What little I've seen of scientific knowledge being presented in court cases - very little, I will admit - is that such arguments are never dismissed or handwaved away, but rather are treated respectfully and used to argue various contexts of a case rather than the particulars of a logical, scientific argument itself.

That is in stark contrast to what Jam is doing. He doesn't even understand Ryan's argument; furthermore, he's not even trying to.

I wouldn't say that he's acting like a lawyer. He's simply acting like a standard conspiracy peddler. A good lawyer would be above that sort of cheap tactic.

 

[Bell]

I wouldn't say that he's acting like a lawyer. He's simply acting like a standard conspiracy peddler. A good lawyer would be above that sort of cheap tactic.

Who says Jerry "Jammy" Leaphart is a good lawyer?

Meet Jerry V. Leaphart
Dr. Wood Files Request For Correction Against NIST

From left to right: Jammy Leaphart, Dewy Wood, Andrew Johnson

 

[excaza]

You are not making a claim. You are continuing to engage in rhetoric

talking to yourself again, jammy?

 

[jammonius]

This thread can probably benefit from having a link to what Dr. Wood has had to say about the 'energy' issue. In sharp contrast to, say, the likes of R.Mackey, what Dr.Wood has to say about energy is related specifically to the observed data of the <11second annihilation of the Twin Towers.

See: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html#energy

Excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

Conservation of Momentum:

The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.


p = mv where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity.


If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.


(m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.


If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.
So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

____________________________________

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

(m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

(m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.


Conservation of Energy:

In elastic collisions, the sum of kinetic energy before a collision must equal the sum of kinetic energy after the collision. Conservation of kinetic energy is given by the following formula:

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (1/2)(m1 * v21)f + (1/2)(m2 * v22)f + (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports)


where (Pulverize) is the energy required to pulverize a floor and (Fail Floor Supports) is the energy required to fail the next floor.

If (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports), there well be no momentum transfer.


In reality, (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i < (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

So, for conservation of energy, we must assume there is some additional energy such that,

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i + (Additional Energy) = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

where (Additional Energy) is the additional amount of energy needed to have the outcome we observed on 9/11/01.

Top

Appendix B: Assuming elastic collisions:

Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

(m1 * v1)i = (m2 * v2)f

If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x


For those who lay claim to something R.Mackay may have posted, please provide relevant excerpts for discussion of claims being made about R.Mackey.

For instance, in reference to the link I provided to one of Mackey's postings, I said that it contained not one single reference to observed data on 9/11. No one has commented on that claim or made any other specific reference to something they think Mackey has adequately demonstrated.

So, if we're going to do "Mackey", let's get on with it.

 

[Sabretooth]

You are not making a claim. You are continuing to engage in rhetoric wherein and whereby you express a concern and expect me to answer your concern, probably to your satisfaction that can probably never be attained.

Glenn, I mean this sincerely:

I do not play 20 question type games ever. If you have a concern about the direction of DEW, then by all means stop beatiing around the bush and state your claim. For instance, in asking whether the DEW used on 9/11 was horizontal or vertical, you impart that you know a bit about DEW; namely, that they can function horizontally or vertically. If you know something about DEW, then post what you know in the form of a claim about DEW.

In a thread running concurrently with this one, a lot of DEW information as it relates to two MIC giants, SAIC and ARA, has been posted. I have also referenced the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) and the AFRL/Directed Energy Directorate. DEW are said, albeit cryptically, to be found in space, in the air, at high altitude, medium, low, on the ground and at sea.

If, as I suspect, you know something about DEW, then please post what you can. Once again, I do not participate in 20 guestion gaming, so you may as well post a claim. Right now, you are about the only poster here who is focused on DEW assertions. That is good. We just need you to be a little more forthcoming in stating what you know and can say.

A simple "I don't know" will suffice, Jammers.

Because that's all this crap is from you...a whole bunch of "I don't know's". You don't know if DEW's exist, you don't know how they work, you don't know how they are transmitted, and you don't know that they were used on 9/11 or at any other time in history for that matter.

You and Judy are both full of "I don't know's". Unless you two can start answering questions, this theory is dead in the water, as is the NPT.

 

[excaza]

This thread can probably benefit from having a link to what Dr. Wood has had to say about the 'energy' issue. In sharp contrast to, say, the likes of R.Mackey, what Dr.Wood has to say about energy is related specifically to the observed data of the <11second annihilation of the Twin Towers.

The towers were brought down by an orbital billiard ball cannon?

What does this have to do with lasers?

 

[GlennB]

So, in which plane does the evidence show that DEW struck the Towers? Vertical or horizontal?

You are not making a claim.

No I'm not making a claim, I'm asking you to support your claim. You earlier stated that you make posts according to the evidence. What evidence do you have that indicates the direction of the DEW beam at WTC? All I'm asking here is what is your evidence?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This thread can probably benefit from having a link to what Dr. Wood has had to say about the 'energy' issue. In sharp contrast to, say, the likes of R.Mackey, what Dr.Wood has to say about energy is related specifically to the observed data of the <11second annihilation of the Twin Towers.

See: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html#energy

Excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

Conservation of Momentum:

The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.


p = mv where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity.


If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.


(m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.


If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.
So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

So Dr Judy Wood is completely unaware that velocities are vectors, and jammonius is so clueless that he failed to notice her mistake.

The second fact comes as no surprise, but Dr Wood was presumably more competent prior to her mental illness.

Pulverization implies a splitting of the initial masses into an extremely large number of separate masses m_k, each with its own velocity v_k. The correct equation for that situation would be

[latex]
\[ (m_1 v_1)_i + (m_2 v_2)_i = \sum_k (m_k v_k)_f \]
[/latex]

Even with (m₁)_i = 0 and (v₂)_i = 0, there are infinitely many solutions to that vector equation. If Dr Wood were correct, and there were no solutions involving nonzero final velocities, then it would be impossible to pulverize a stationary stick of dynamite by setting it off.

 

[jammonius]

No I'm not making a claim, I'm asking you to support your claim. You earlier stated that you make posts according to the evidence. What evidence do you have that indicates the direction of the DEW beam at WTC? All I'm asking here is what is your evidence?

I support my claims as I see fit to support them. If you want to refute my claim(s), then have at it. However, your questions do not refute. A question is merely a request of some sort. Usually, in posting, the questions posed are rhetorical in the sense that they are meant as a subsitute for a claim and where the lazy intent is to have the answerer of the question make the claim for the person asking the question.

GlennB, I am not going to make your claim for you by answering your questions.

I don't know why you fail to grasp that I do not play '20 questions' games with posters; however, I do not play '20 questions' games with posters.

Ever