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

[jammonius]

The towers did not fall at free-fall speed. That has been debunked already. the collapses took about 20 seconds each. Throw all the billiard balls you want, they hit nothing.



That was done by a chemical reaction. We discuss that in other places all over this forum. The steel was heated in an acid environment. The curling is a natural result of that.



Stop snivelling. When the paramedics arrive to pick up a still-living shooting victim, the cops can just follow the ambulance to the emergency room. Forensdics be damned, you save lives FIRST, always, without exception.

I am trained as an arson investigator. Until a fire is out, you fight it and preserve evidence if it is not in the way of saving lives and property. The steel at GZ was in the way and anybody just measuring stuff would have been as well. Stop demanding the equivalent of checking the oil change tags on a car that was driven into a school bus by a drunk driver before clearing the street and treating victims.

There was a rescue operation going on at GZ and what you want them to have done was not in the public interest.

It would help a lot if you had some clue what the rest of the world does for a living.



She has presented no such proof. Nobody with any education or experience in relevant fields sees anything like evidence in her blather.



Well, DUH!

It wasn't done in a kerosene fire, and nobody with an IQ over 90 says that it was. It was done in an enclosed Class A fire with all manner of noxious stuff burning around it, including staggering amounts of material that would contribute sulphuric acid or other sulphurous compounds. Pay attention to what the experienced fire fighters have been posting here.

It should have been a clear warning sign that Judy was losing her marbles when she started ranting about the "toasted cars."

Not one of the claims posted above is sourced, confirmed or in any way, shape, form or fashion, substantiated.

Lefty, your claims, consisting in your opinion, serve no purpose other than that of saying what your opinion is. That may be fine for you and for those who come at this from a perspective of 'belief' and, in particular, what they might want to believe.

However, you do not refute anything that I have posted at all. Not in the least.

I am not interested in pursuing a discussion based on belief. If you do not choose to substantiate your posts and continue merely to post up opinion, fine, do so all you like.

Such posts do not merit, let alone require a response from me and none will be provided.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

Not one of the claims posted above is sourced, confirmed or in any way, shape, form or fashion, substantiated.

It's confirmed! How do I know? FDNY Firefighters of course & I'm a firefighter!

Lefty, your claims, consisting in your opinion, serve no purpose other than that of saying what your opinion is. That may be fine for you and for those who come at this from a perspective of 'belief' and, in particular, what they might want to believe.

I think Lefty would like to say: "You got any evidence to prove me wrong?" Well we know you don't Jammy, so stop whining like a little kid.

However, you do not refute anything that I have posted at all. Not in the least.

We only refute stupidity!

I am not interested in pursuing a discussion based on belief. If you do not choose to substantiate your posts and continue merely to post up opinion, fine, do so all you like.

We're not interested in pursuing in a discussion where the claimaint (yourself) makes baseless & false statements without any evidence to prove anything.

Such posts do not merit, let alone require a response from me and none will be provided.

Your credibilty, alone, merits nothing!

 

[jammonius]

Chewy,

Once again, you post up an opinion, without any substantiation. Let's assume you are a firefighter. What of it? What evidence do you claim supports your ability to say, as you did, as follows?

Not one of the claims posted above is sourced, confirmed or in any way, shape, form or fashion, substantiated.

It's confirmed! How do I know? FDNY Firefighters of course & I'm a firefighter!

In fact, Chewy, your claim stands in direct contradiction to that which I posted in post # 375, which is sourced to the named editor of a fire fighting publication. That is a confirmed source, having some professional stature and based on the actual event of 9/11, and the coverup it entailed.

Recall this:

"Bill Manning Condemns the "Half-Baked Farce"

Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning highlighted concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. 4

Feel free to join the 'opiniion' brigade and/or the 'belief' squad if you like. I, on the other hand, will continue to post factual information, properly sourced.

 

[jammonius]

No.

You'd be steering into a deeply untenable position with this stubborn insistence on declaring a plainly false rendition of simply physics and math "true, correct and valid", if you weren't in a deeply untenable position already.

Namely: This insistence on obvious falsehoods is plain to see by every poster, lurker or even family member. Anybody with at least 11th-grade high school physics to their credit.
It is plain that Dr. Judy Wood does not master basic physics, and it is even plainer that you don't even understand what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about.
Yet you declare yourself "true, correct and valid".
By valid extrapolation, we must assume that every time you state anything at all, the possibility ais very real, that you have not double-checked it for accuracy, and are liable to make false claims and merely declare them "true, correct and valid".
It follows that no poster, lurker or family member will believe anything you say (as if anybody did so far ).

Oystein,

Last call for your 'gotcha game' on the BBE Example. As usual, you are still not putting the BBE in its proper context, let alone considering that multipage element of proof put forward by Dr. Wood.

If you do not want to do that, then, in that event, you will have demonstrated that you are not in the least bit interested in accurate physics, rather, you are merely interested in playing 'gotcha' -- with yourself.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

Chewy,

Once again, you post up an opinion, without any substantiation. Let's assume you are a firefighter. What of it? What evidence do you claim supports your ability to say, as you did, as follows?

I am a firefighter, I assume nothing for which I am. What of it? Let's put it this way so you can understand: I'm a firefighter & you're not! That the fires inside all 3 buildings caused the steel to soften & that the weight above caused the buildings to creak & groan then evidently collapsed under their own weight. Without the assistance of explosives of any kind!



In fact, Chewy, your claim stands in direct contradiction to that which I posted in post # 378, which is sourced to the named editor of a fire fighting publication. That is a confirmed source, having some professional stature and based on the actual event of 9/11, and the coverup it entailed.

It never was confirmed, it would have to go through a peer review board of the FDNY to determine the confirmation. So far no confrimation by the FDNY or peer review from them can confirm Bill Manning's statements to be true.

<snipped because it's not peer reviewed by the FDNY>

Feel free to join the 'opiniion' brigade and/or the 'belief' squad if you like. I, on the other hand, will continue to post factual information, properly sourced.

If you post "factual" information, then mind if I ask that you provide circumstantual evidence & sources along with your alleged "factual" information?

 

[twinstead]

Chewy,

Once again, you post up an opinion, without any substantiation. Let's assume you are a firefighter. What of it? What evidence do you claim supports your ability to say, as you did, as follows?



In fact, Chewy, your claim stands in direct contradiction to that which I posted in post # 378, which is sourced to the named editor of a fire fighting publication. That is a confirmed source, having some professional stature and based on the actual event of 9/11, and the coverup it entailed.

Recall this:

"Bill Manning Condemns the "Half-Baked Farce"

Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning highlighted concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. 4

Feel free to join the 'opiniion' brigade and/or the 'belief' squad if you like. I, on the other hand, will continue to post factual information, properly sourced.

Does Bill Manning think there were no planes on 9-11? Does Bill Manning think that 9-11 was an inside job? If you are trying to prove both, it would probably help if the sources you used actually support your position.

 

[jammonius]

Ah yes, thanks. That really is one shocker of a 'paper' eh? Long time since anybody quoted the billiard balls nonsense.

The above claim is neither sourced, nor substantiated. It is false.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jammy got that Bill Manning post from here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

That statement from Bill Manning is as old as the CTs themselves. About 9 yrs! So 9 yrs of nothing!

 

[jammonius]

Does Bill Manning think there were no planes on 9-11? Does Bill Manning think that 9-11 was an inside job? If you are trying to prove both, it would probably help if the sources you used actually support your position.

Twinstead,

Your post is an example of what happens when the thread goes off on a 'gotcha game' tear. You have reverted to the form of merely asking rhetorically what you do not wish to say in the form of your own statement, claim or assertion.

Sheesh, Twinstead,

you know what...

 

[jammonius]

Jammy got that Bill Manning post from here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

That statement from Bill Manning is as old as the CTs themselves. About 9 yrs! So 9 yrs of nothing!

I posted the link to the source in the original posting of it, Chewy. Your post is not a substantive reply. Your post does not refute the fact that GZ was handled so as to cover up what had happened. Something that served to thwart the ability of most to determine what happened.

Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood made the determination that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex and did so brilliantly.

Do better

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The only problem with Jammy is that none of his "factual" information was ever peer reviewed or sourced by experts outside the 9/11 TM's standards.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I posted the link to the source in the original posting of it, Chewy. Your post is not a substantive reply. Your post does not refute the fact that GZ was handled so as to cover up what had happened. Something that served to thwart the ability of most to determine what happened.

Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood made the determination that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex and did so brilliantly.

Do better

And your posts show nothing but words! You have yet to show anyone any kind of evidence that you have.

In fact you're the one that's covering up information. You try to weasel your way out of the limelight & hide in the shadows. You're hiding information that could prove that 9/11 was a cover-up. So in Government style, you're in a conspiracy to hide the truth. Therefore the only conclussion is that you're a Government Agent.

Dr. Judy Wood wasn't peer reviewed by any of her peers.

I did do better, you're covering up facts & information, which is in itself, a fully blown conspiracy.

 

[jammonius]

Ah yes, thanks. That really is one shocker of a 'paper' eh? Long time since anybody quoted the billiard balls nonsense.

Earth to Glenn,

I quoted the BBE yesterday. Your statement is false on two accounts:

1--The BBE is a good explanatory piece, supported by visual evidence. It is not nonsense.

2--I quoted it yesterday, thus your "long time" declaration is false.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Earth to Glenn,

I quoted the BBE yesterday. Your statement is false on two accounts:

1--The BBE is a good explanatory piece, supported by visual evidence. It is not nonsense.

2--I quoted it yesterday, thus your "long time" declaration is false.

Glenn, better watch out, Jammy's a Governemnt Agent hiding the evidence that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". Better tell NWO Kitty to come take a look ASAP.

 

[jammonius]

And your posts show nothing but words! You have yet to show anyone any kind of evidence that you have.

False. See thread.

In fact you're the one that's covering up information. You try to weasel your way out of the limelight & hide in the shadows. You're hiding information that could prove that 9/11 was a cover-up. So in Government style, you're in a conspiracy to hide the truth. Therefore the only conclussion is that you're a Government Agent.

Dr. Judy Wood wasn't peer reviewed by any of her peers.

The science community has been paralzyed and/or cowed and/or coerced into acceptance of the common storyline of 9/11. As a psyop of a high order, it was not and still remains impossible to treat 9/11 in a context that is not subject to control, coercion, deception and manipulation.

If you do not know this or if you choose to disregard it, then it is you and you alone who is engaging in cover-up.

I did do better, you're covering up facts & information, which is in itself, a fully blown conspiracy.

That is false.

 

[jammonius]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

Here is a link to the pdf downloads of the FEMA 403 study:


http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study (a.k.a. FEMA 403) was first released in May 2002.

If you order a CD of the Study from FEMA's site, you'll receive the Second Printing of FEMA 403, from September of 2002, not the May 2002 version.

I post this because FEMA 403, NIST NCSTAR 1 and Dr. JUDY WOOD are about the only determinations of what destroyed the Twin Towers of the WTC complex that you'll find posted to a governmental website, as far as I can determine.

Those three are it.

And, among them, Dr. Judy Wood's is the only one that analyzes and determines what destroyed the WTC complex.

Deal with it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, your claims, consisting in your opinion, serve no purpose other than that of saying what your opinion is. That may be fine for you and for those who come at this from a perspective of 'belief' and, in particular, what they might want to believe.

Common sense is a steel-toed boot to your crotch. The law in just about any state prohibits law enforcement from interfering with fire fighting operations unless there is a direct and immediate threat to human life. I know this as a fire fighter. You are not. You know nothing about fire fighting operations. Stop puffing up your ego and expectiong us to kiss your butt.

I am not interested in pursuing a discussion based on belief. If you do not choose to substantiate your posts and continue merely to post up opinion, fine, do so all you like.

You and whacky old Judy are just pulling stuff out of your underwear. You have not demonstrated the existance of a DEW capable of doing anything to a skyscraper. Now description of the device or the sort of energy it delivers. Stop hand-waving this stuff and state what form of energy is delivered by your wonder weapon or admit that you have no bloody clue how it could be done. (Which is, of course, to admit that you are a charlatan.)

Callingit an "energy weapon says nothing. You need top name a type of energy.

But hand-waving and squaking DEW just leaves us with no possible conclusion than that you and Judy have no bleeding clue what sort of weapon could do the job.

And if you don't know what sort of energy can do it, how the hell would FEMA or NIST yhave tested for it?

Do think a bit before you respond.

 

[GlennB]

Earth to Glenn,

I quoted the BBE yesterday. Your statement is false on two accounts:

1--The BBE is a good explanatory piece, supported by visual evidence. It is not nonsense.

The BBE fails because (among other reasons) it treats each collision as a 1:1 event where only the floor above is causing the collapse of the subsequent floor. Like billiard balls in a line, each cannoning into the next. This omits the effect of gravity in a vertical collapse. In reality the debris accumulates, so it's 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 and so on. Crudely speaking, of course.

It also fails for reasons given by Wood. She takes the collapse time of WTC1 from the first reaction on the seismological record. Yet the NIST passage she quotes and the photos she uses show that that timing relates to the first substantial debris to hit the ground. Not the primary collapse zone.

To illustrate:

Judy Wood has absolutely no clue, jammonius.

2--I quoted it yesterday, thus your "long time" declaration is false.

Er, no. The linguistic construction I used there is perfectly normal. If somebody served me jellied eels I might reasonably say "That was great. It's a long time since I had jellied eels"

 

[jammonius]

Not only that, a lot of it seems to have to have been plagarised from HERE.


You would think that Dr. Judy, what with all her much self-trumpeted qualifications and all, could have managed those calculations without the help of a Wiki page huh?

Ho *********** Hum :=]

Compus

Well wait a minute, Compus, let me here double check for accuracy of understanding. Did the wiki page on momentum contain the same error some are attributing to Dr. Wood?

Just checking

 

[jammonius]

OK, posters, now we see that physics mistakes are being made all over the place. Meanwhile, Dr. Judy Wood is the only one to have published a true and detailed proof of what destroyed the WTC complex.

Ek=1/2mv wasn't there I take it, right Compus?