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

[CompusMentus]

Dr. Judy Wood: Pseudoscience Detection.

Lurkers and Posters! Ladies and Gentlemen!

Dr. Judy Wood has long claimed that the WTC complex was destroyed by a directed energy weapon (DEW) on 9/11. With a big nod to Brian Dunning's work (SEE HERE) I have applied some related reasoning to the Judy Wood DEW theory.


1. Qualifications of the DEW theory

To hold valid, a theory must (at the least) be testable, evidentially supported and falsifiable. How does the DEW theory score on these minimum requirements?

(a) Is the DEW Theory testable? NO! By it's very nature the DEW theory is untestable. No specifics of the weapon used are provided by Wood. Neither have any details of the energy needs when arming such a weapon or even where the weapon was exactly based been supplied.

(b) Is the DEW Theory evidentially supported? NO! No such weapon capable of destroying the WTC complex in such a manner has ever been shown to exist.

(c) Is the DEW Theory falsifiabe? NO! But whether Wood would admit to the falsification of the DEW theory is a matter of conjecture. Going by her past record I would submit to a negative on this count. If someone can show me to be wrong I would welcome it. I'm not holding out any hope.

So, merely on the 3 factors outlined above, the DEW theory is not dynamic, tentative, or correctable. On that score it doesn't even qualify as a theory! A bad start!

----------------------------------------------------

2. Announcement of the DEW Theory

Were the DEW claims first announced through through scientific channels?

NO!

The claim was first announced through the medium of the Internet so not subjeced to the correct rigours and scrutiny of any recognised or unbiased peer review process. It was not published in any scientific journal. What was the reason for this? Why haven't the proponents of the DEW theory gone through the usual, recognised, legitimate channels?

----------------------------------------------------

3. Is the DEW theory based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy"?

YES!

Wood has claimed that the energy needed to supply the DEW may have originated/been derived from unspecified "field effects" emanating from Hurricane Erin (500 miles of the US coast in the Atlantic) And Wood has also claimed that the effects of the energy were similar or identical to the "Hutchison Effect", an unsubstantiated effect propounded by Canadian John Hutchison a proven, fraudulent huckster. (SEE HERE)

----------------------------------------------------

4. Does the DEW Theory seem far fetched?

YES!

The DEW theory is based on claims that it was situated on a platform in "geostationary orbit in space". This weapon produced an "energy beam" which destroyed (or using a term coined by Wood, "dustified") in a matter of seconds, hundreds of thousands of tons of the steel used to constuct the WTC. When questioned about the specifics of the platform, weapon, energy requirements, or even the type of energy used in the "space beam" Wood is unwilling (or unable) to elaborate.

----------------------------------------------------

5. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?

NO! (The Occam's Razor test shows us that the simpler explanation is usually more likely to be true)

The DEW Theory would involve the use of unknown, largely undefined technology, the complicity of many polititians in the US government and many of it's departments and agencies, the US millitary, NASA, the FBI, NIST, NYPD, FDNY, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, the New York Coroners Office, commercial airline corporations, federal aviation authorites, local and national air traffic control agencies, the US justice system, even victim family members. The list is huge and seemingly endless.

Rather, it is overwhelmingly accepted that hijacked commecial jets crashed into each of the twin towers. The towers were severely damaged. The impacts also caused the ignition of large, untackled fires which further weakened the buildings so much they collapsed and caused the destruction of, and severe damage to, surrounding buildings. The impacts were photographed and witnessed by many people. Exhaustive investigations by various agencies ie the 9/11 Commission, NIST, the FBI and the FAA, produced insurmountable evidence proving, beyond doubt, the above. Subsequent voluntary confessions by Islamic extremists and convictions in US courts adds further weight to it all.

----------------------------------------------------

6. Is the quality of data supporting the DEW Theory good?

NO! The only "data" supporting the claim (of DEW deployment/use at the WTC) seems to be Wood's (highly subjective) visual analysis and interpretation of photographs of the 9/11 event and it's aftermath.

----------------------------------------------------

So there we have it Folks. Judy Woods DEW theory. As they say, out for a duck.

Any comments, corrections or criticism would be very welcome. :=]


Compus

 

[jammonius]

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.

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:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1feefall.jpg[/qimg]

Judy Wood has absolutely no clue, jammonius.



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"

Well, well, well, posting up of visual information. Thank you for that, GleenB. Could you but realize it, your photo actually provides proof of DEW. You will note that a steel perimeter beam is being dustified, as articulated by Dr. Wood, as it falls.

Look at it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, well, well, posting up of visual information. Thank you for that, GleenB. Could you but realize it, your photo actually provides proof of DEW. You will note that a steel perimeter beam is being dustified, as articulated by Dr. Wood, as it falls.

Look at it.

Uhhh, have you or DOCTOR JUDY WOODS ever seen anything collpase ever?

Dustified, jesus....

 

[djlunacee]

Well, well, well, posting up of visual information. Thank you for that, GleenB. Could you but realize it, your photo actually provides proof of DEW. You will note that a steel perimeter beam is being dustified, as articulated by Dr. Wood, as it falls.

Look at it.

Yes, because we know there was no drywall, fiberglass, or any other materials in the building other than steel, no concrete floors that would continue to be pulverized from the mass above collapsing on top of it, that never happens in real life does it Jammy? Ranks right up there with such moronic statements as the plane should have bounced off of the building, and planes, trains, and city busses all sound the same.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers and Posters! Ladies and Gentlemen!

Dr. Judy Wood has long claimed that the WTC complex was destroyed by a directed energy weapon (DEW) on 9/11. With a big nod to Brian Dunning's work (SEE HERE) I have applied some related reasoning to the Judy Wood DEW theory.

I prefer to call it DEW proof, rather than DEW theory.

1. Qualifications of the DEW theory

To hold valid, a theory must (at the least) be testable, evidentially supported and falsifiable. How does the DEW theory score on these minimum requirements?

Your statement lacks context and is, therefore, incomplete, insufficient and invalid for purposes of assessing the DEW proof put forward by Dr. Wood.

Basically, the context here is that a determination of what destroyed the WTC complex has not ever been made and officially published in a governmental website (other than that of Dr. Wood), in part by design and deception and by willful destruction of evidence, as I have shown in posts within the last page or two of this thread. In particular, I have referenced the following proof of willful interference with the capacity to engage in forensic assessment of the WTC complex post 9/11:

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

Thus, by not identifying the context in which proof of what destroyed the WTC complex must be considered, your assessment is grossly insufficient.

(a) Is the DEW Theory testable? NO! By it's very nature the DEW theory is untestable. No specifics of the weapon used are provided by Wood. Neither have any details of the energy needs when arming such a weapon or even where the weapon was exactly based been supplied.

In the above about the only thing you accomplish is an announcement of your willingness to place an impossible proof demand onto a context where the issue is that of determining what destroyed the WTC cmplex on 9/11. Something that has not ever been reliably determined, other than by Dr. Wood.

Forensic evaluation of a prior event depends primarily upon assessment of the remains, the evidence, the trail, as it were, of the event. That is what Dr. Wood has done to a better and far more precise degree than did either of the other two published assessments: FEMA, then NIST.

(b) Is the DEW Theory evidentially supported? NO! No such weapon capable of destroying the WTC complex in such a manner has ever been shown to exist.

Your claim is assumption riddled. Let me mention a few assumptions that are incorporated into the above, without acknowledgement of the assumption, let alone testing of its validity to the present context:

1--The first sentence is an a priori declaration that is not supported. In fact, it stands in open contradiction to the ample and fully documented proof of concept undertaken and published by Dr. Wood. That declaration does not negate Dr. Wood's proof of concept in the least little bit, not one jot or iota.

2--It gets worse. The next posted assumption presumes but does not show what DEW testing has established, let alone whether and what degree proof of that nature would either add or detract from Dr. Wood's proof. It is a mere assumption and it is not valid.

(c) Is the DEW Theory falsifiabe? NO! But whether Wood would admit to the falsification of the DEW theory is a matter of conjecture. Going by her past record I would submit to a negative on this count. If someone can show me to be wrong I would welcome it. I'm not holding out any hope.

The above is a demonstration of one of several types of fallacies, easily spotted and easily recognized by our fallacy vigilantes.

For my part, it is only necessary to say that Compus has not stated anything in the above that can be considered relevant to the proof of DEW causality published by Dr. Wood.

So, merely on the 3 factors outlined above, the DEW theory is not dynamic, tentative, or correctable. On that score it doesn't even qualify as a theory! A bad start!

----------------------------------------------------

Your claim is utterly false and completely unsubstantiated, as I have shown.

2. Announcement of the DEW Theory

Were the DEW claims first announced through through scientific channels?

NO!

Let me state the assumption contained in the above rhetoric (posed as a question, but really intended as a statement. [Sheesh, stop the rhetoric already, Compus]

It assumes that announcement of DEW proof was mandated to be done via "scientific channels". That is not only an assumption, it is false on its face. The fact is, Dr. Wood published her proof at NIST, in addition to her website.

As such, her proof of what destroyed the WTC complex is one of a very few that has been posted to a governmental website.

Where it was published has not got a darn thing, in logic or in fact, to do with its validity.

Compus' rhetorical flourish is, therefore, not just an assumption, it is false as a matter of fact.

The claim was first announced through the medium of the Internet so not subjeced to the correct rigours and scrutiny of any recognised or unbiased peer review process.

Darn it all! Yet another assumption riddled statement. If there is one thing that clear thinking demands it is that the science community is hoplessly comprised to the core when it comes to 9/11. A lot of effort went into covering up what had happened on 9/11, all as more fully confirmed by the recent references to the way in which SAIC-controlled GZ was handled. Now comes Compus, with this completely fallacious display of naivete calling for "unbiased peer review". That sort of review is a big presumption when it comes to 9/11 and is not worthy of this thread, not at this late date.

Fool yourself for as long as you can, Compus, but that is about all you are doing with claims like that commented upon here.

It was not published in any scientific journal. What was the reason for this? Why haven't the proponents of the DEW theory gone through the usual, recognised, legitimate channels?

Once again a rhetorical flourish that incorporates dumb assumptions. Shame on you, Compus.

----------------------------------------------------

3. Is the DEW theory based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy"?

YES!

Wood has claimed that the energy needed to supply the DEW may have originated/been derived from unspecified "field effects" emanating from Hurricane Erin (500 miles of the US coast in the Atlantic) And Wood has also claimed that the effects of the energy were similar or identical to the "Hutchison Effect", an unsubstantiated effect propounded by Canadian John Hutchison a proven, fraudulent huckster. (SEE HERE)

----------------------------------------------------

Name calling is not a proper form of refutation. Thanks, however, for calling attention to Hurricane Erin. I think very few posters here knew that a category 3 hurricane was percolating off the Atlantic coast on 9/11. The Weather Channel hardly mentioned it, in very sharp contrast to the way it normally hypes any and all hurricanes that get within 1000miles of the US coast. Erin, stronger in many respects than was Katrina, was making a beeline for NYC, parked near Bermuda on 9/11, if I recall correctly.

In any event, Dr. Wood does a thorough job of placing Erin in its right context for 9/11 purposes. Posters are urged to check it out for themselves what Dr. Wood says about Hurricane Erin and how she relates it to the DEW proof of what destroyed the WTC complex:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

4. Does the DEW Theory seem far fetched?

YES!

The DEW theory is based on claims that it was situated on a platform in "geostationary orbit in space". This weapon produced an "energy beam" which destroyed (or using a term coined by Wood, "dustified") in a matter of seconds, hundreds of thousands of tons of the steel used to constuct the WTC. When questioned about the specifics of the platform, weapon, energy requirements, or even the type of energy used in the "space beam" Wood is unwilling (or unable) to elaborate.

----------------------------------------------------

The above is about as weak a 'strawperson' argument as ever I have seen. It has not got anything at all to do with the proof put forward by Dr. Wood. As such, it is a useless, deceptive opinion at most and is not worthy of being considered anything other than that. For one thing, it is a form of misrepresentation. Compus nowhere links us to places in Dr. Wood's proof of claim where the statements Compus attributes to Dr. Wood are even made.

That is not proper refutation and, accordingly, fails.

5. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?

NO! (The Occam's Razor test shows us that the simpler explanation is usually more likely to be true)

The DEW Theory would involve the use of unknown, largely undefined technology, the complicity of many polititians in the US government and many of it's departments and agencies, the US millitary, NASA, the FBI, NIST, NYPD, FDNY, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, the New York Coroners Office, commercial airline corporations, federal aviation authorites, local and national air traffic control agencies, the US justice system, even victim family members. The list is huge and seemingly endless.

The above is useless speculation and has not got anything to do with the proof put forward by Dr. Wood.

Rather, it is overwhelmingly accepted that hijacked commecial jets crashed into each of the twin towers. The towers were severely damaged. The impacts also caused the ignition of large, untackled fires which further weakened the buildings so much they collapsed and caused the destruction of, and severe damage to, surrounding buildings. The impacts were photographed and witnessed by many people. Exhaustive investigations by various agencies ie the 9/11 Commission, NIST, the FBI and the FAA, produced insurmountable evidence proving, beyond doubt, the above. Subsequent voluntary confessions by Islamic extremists and convictions in US courts adds further weight to it all.

----------------------------------------------------

The above should be read outloud so that one can actually hear how outlandish, childish and uninformed it sounds. It is a stupid conspiracy theory that has not ever been proven, shown to be feasible or followed up on, as if it were true.

For one thing, kerosene and gravity could not cause the annihilation of 289 stories of building, leaving a pile barely one story in height in most parts of GZ and no where as high as was the pile left by WTC 7, alone. Thus, 242 stories of skyscraper vanished, leaving, by and large, only dust.

Compus' description is noteworthy, in particular, for its failure to accurately, or even generally, to describe the event that Dr. Wood concerns herself with:

What destroyed the WTC complex.

Hint: You are not going to come close to finding out by repeating stupid propaganda from a psyop.

6. Is the quality of data supporting the DEW Theory good?

NO! The only "data" supporting the claim (of DEW deployment/use at the WTC) seems to be Wood's (highly subjective) visual analysis and interpretation of photographs of the 9/11 event and it's aftermath.

----------------------------------------------------

Minimization of significance of proof is a mere tactic. In sharp contrast, FEMA was prevented from investigation and NIST dodged the task entirely.

Thus, in point of fact, Dr. Wood is the only qualified person who has ever published an account of what destroyed the WTC to a proper governmental website. The only person, ever.

That is the quinessential issue here, posters. Dr. Wood has proven what destroyed the WTC complex.

Detractors can detract all they want; but, the record is clear.

So there we have it Folks. Judy Woods DEW theory. As they say, out for a duck.

Any comments, corrections or criticism would be very welcome. :=]


Compus

Your post has been commented upon and found totally lacking as an attempt to refute the proof put forward by Dr. Wood that DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

On that I stand.

 

[excaza]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Jammonius is either not interested in or not mentally capable of participating in a logical, reasonable debate. Anything contrary to what Mr. Lepheart believes is The Truth about 9/11 will be dismissed with a wave of his hands and some word salad.

It was amusing for a while, but now it's just sad.

 

[jammonius]

Yes, because we know there was no drywall, fiberglass, or any other materials in the building other than steel, no concrete floors that would continue to be pulverized from the mass above collapsing on top of it, that never happens in real life does it Jammy? Ranks right up there with such moronic statements as the plane should have bounced off of the building, and planes, trains, and city busses all sound the same.

The above is useless rhetoric. Djlunacee, if you've got a claim you want to make concerning what is seen in the photo, do please post your claim and stop relying on innuendo, derived from a rhetorical flourish.

Let me ask for sake of understanding, are you afraid to say the photo shows drywall, fiberglass, etc. because you know it's false or because you can't really make a valid assertion that that is what the photo shows, or is there some other reason why you are seeking to fool us with a rhetorical construct?

 

[Thunder]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Jammonius is either not interested in or not mentally capable of participating in a logical, reasonable debate. Anything contrary to what Mr. Lepheart believes is The Truth about 9/11 will be dismissed with a wave of his hands and some word salad.
.

i don't understand why folks keep talking to him. it just enables him to continue his dishonest and insane rants.

 

[jammonius]

Uhhh, have you or DOCTOR JUDY WOODS ever seen anything collpase ever?

Dustified, jesus....

More rhetoric. Posters here appear to be uniformly afraid to try to refute what Dr. Wood has shown. [PS: Dr. Wood, not Woods]

Your question does not merit an answer and it certainly will not be considered by me to even make a claim. You are, in my opinion, wasting time, showing an inability to refute and inadvertently admitting that Dr. Wood is right.

thanks

 

[excaza]

i don't understand why folks keep talking to him. it just enables him to continue his dishonest and insane rants.

See the line you cut out

 

[jammonius]

OK, posters, lurkers, victims family members,

It is quite clear that many posters are stuck at the first stage of truth; namely the stage of ridicule. And, it is not just any old ridicule, rather, it is the type that finds it necessary to use "mental" and "insane" as descriptors, rather than meaningful commentary on content.

Not only that, some go so far as to acknowledge they are repeat offenders. See post # 406, for instance.

That is rich in and of itself.

For what it's worth:

Do better

 

[The Big Dog]

More rhetoric. Posters here appear to be uniformly afraid to try to refute what Dr. Wood has shown.

Your question does not merit and answer and it certainly will not be considered by me to even make a claim. You are, in my opinion, wasting time, showing an inability to refute and inadvertently admitting that Dr. Wood is right.

thanks

Wait, your argument is that a collapsing building looks to you like it has been "dustified," and when I ask if you ever seen anything else collapse, that is your response?

Why should we care if you think it looks like it is being duustified, you are a worse scientist than Judy is, and she is a laughingstock.

Say, is Judy still in thrall with Hutchinson? man, judy really broke Ace's heart.

 

[excaza]

OK, posters, lurkers, victims family members,

It is quite clear that many posters are stuck at the first stage of truth; namely the stage of ridicule. And, it is not just any old ridicule, rather, it is the type that finds it necessary to use "mental" and "insane" as descriptors, rather than meaningful commentary on content.

Not only that, some go so far as to acknowledge they are repeat offenders. See post # 406, for instance.

That is rich in and of itself.

For what it's worth:

Do better

Your statement does not merit an answer and it certainly will not be considered by me to even make a claim. You are, in my opinion, wasting time, showing an inability to refute and inadvertently admitting that I am correct about your mental state.

 

[djlunacee]

The above is useless rhetoric. Djlunacee, if you've got a claim you want to make concerning what is seen in the photo, do please post your claim and stop relying on innuendo, derived from a rhetorical flourish.

Let me ask for sake of understanding, are you afraid to say the photo shows drywall, fiberglass, etc. because you know it's false or because you can't really make a valid assertion that that is what the photo shows, or is there some other reason why you are seeking to fool us with a rhetorical construct?

No Jammy, nothing in your ridiculous theory of steel being dustified scares me. The simple fact that you state it was steel that was dustified in mid-air with NO scientific basis, citation or support, lends you no credibility. The fact that you did not take any of the materials I listed into account and not showing why you dismissed the possibility of the dust being from these materials is alarming. Yet you ask Chewy to prove he is a Firefighter, should you not be held to the same standard? The aversion to answering the questions I asked earlier, that would further the discussion into DEW and its capabilities, is laughable at face value, and tragic beneath the surface. Call it rhetoric, doesn't mean it isn't the truth.

Do Better, Much Better.

 

[CompusMentus]

i don't understand why folks keep talking to him. it just enables him to continue his dishonest and insane rants.

I don't "talk" to him. I don't ignore what he writes but I never respond directly, I learned long ago that it's a pointless exercise, as has been proven above, and countless other times. Try it yourself, it seems to help.

I do though, like to have some fun picking apart Judy Wood's bizarre claims. And I must admit to have enjoyed many moments of amusement listening to her talking about them. Especially the Judy n Jim (Fetzer) shows from way back, when this all seemed so new.

As demonstrated above and other threads, jammonius can only lamely denounce and attack anything that counters Judys idiocy as "rhetoric" or "propaganda". Or that contrary evidence is "planted" as "part of the cover-up". Trutherville is a very lonely and a desolate place.

Compus

 

[GlennB]

Let me ask for sake of understanding, are you afraid to say the photo shows drywall, fiberglass, etc. because you know it's false or because you can't really make a valid assertion that that is what the photo shows, or is there some other reason why you are seeking to fool us with a rhetorical construct?

The outer walls of WTC1+2 were lined with drywall. Having been broken up and sent falling through the air it's perfectly normal to expect this to leave a trail of dust. Gypsum board is very fragile stuff. What's more, we know that those major major pieces of building impacted the ground. Dr Wood admits so. She concedes and uses the NIST figure for first impact. They were not "dustified".

Section of WTC1 wall:

Here is a very small section of the GZ debris field showing a huge amount of steel that is intact.

If you have any interest in learning then I can post a URL to the original (massive) overhead shot that was taken from. It's absolutely heaving with steel.

Here's more intact steel:

And people here can post you a hundred similar photos. Talk of "dustified" steel is a nonsense, jammonius. The steel fell, was eventually picked up and was carried away, that's all.

 

[Myriad]

I thanked you because few posters appear to be able to bring themselves to say they agree with anything Dr. Wood has determined; you know, consistent with being at the first stage in the process of recognition of truth. So, for you to come along and not be fully at that stage was worth a 'thanks' in my view. And, yes, alls I did was copy/paste it.

Some of the things Judy Wood says are true, and some are false.

When Judy Wood says momentum is conserved, I agree because it is true. By true, I mean that the outcomes of all experiments are consistent with momentum being conserved.

When Judy Wood says that a moving object colliding with a stationary object must always come to a stop, I disagree because it is not true. By not true, I mean that the outcomes of experiments are not consistent with moving objects colliding with stationary objects always coming to a stop.

That is the process by which I recognize truth. There is no other stage of it.

Since the entire "billiard ball" argument in the main part of the cited Judy Wood paper is based on the premise that a moving upper block must come to a stop upon colliding with the lower, a premise that is in error because the physics argument supporting it is invalid, its conclusions are utterly invalid.

You know, Myriad, it occurs to me to point out that the disciplines of math and of physics have not acquitted themselves very well in connection with 9/11.

In truth, those disciplines should be outraged by the nature of the official explanation of the events and most especially by the obviously fraudulent investigatory outcomes, but, by and large the disciplines remain silent and cowed and unconcerned by what has transpired.

This is not a proud era for math and for physics, Myriad, and I wonder if, at some level or another, you recognize that those disciplines have failed us. You do not need to respond to this, but there it is, Myriad. Think about it. Don't respond, necessarily, just think it through.

You are not the first to regard mathematics and science, and those who practice those disciplines, as having failed in some way, by reaching conclusions you disagree with.

You're in some bad company there, is all I'll say.

Some people look for ways to claim that Dr. Wood has made an error so that the claim of invalidity can attach and/or be proclaimed. That is sad, really.

I have found errors that Dr. Wood has made, which makes her conclusions invalid. But she and those who use her work to support their ideas will not acknowledge or correct those errors, ensuring that the work will remain invalid and irrelevant. That is far sadder.

Looking for errors in another researcher's work is a normal part of discourse. All legitimate researchers expect this to occur, and (despite the unpleasant emotions that can result from being found in error) welcome the correction of their errors as a means of maintaining the relevance of their work and avoiding inadvertently propagating errors.

Tell me, Myriad, can you think of other examples of the effects, say, of 'group think' and/or of 'plitical correctness' and/or of 'dogma' upon science, especially in math and physics? There really are many of them, aren't there, where considerations of a political nature, or economic nature served to override the truthfulness of a given set of circumstances and where science was misused to help perpetrate a fraud.

No, I cannot think of any such examples in physics or math.

Momentum is not affected by considerations of a political nature.

Basically, Myriad, so it is with 9/11, could more but realize it.

I prefer to realize that which is real.

For goodness sake, Myriad. It is really to be hoped that you will find a way to apply the foregoing to the common storyline of 9/11 at some point or another. When and if you ever do, I should like to hope that you will find a way to let me know when that day of awakening comes for you. I really do.

Then we can rule the galaxy together as father and son?

I was building computer models of fire propagation in buildings when I was a sophomore in high school (and that was long before computers were part of any curriculum). I did my own calculations on the collapse of the towers on 9/12. I do not need NIST to know why and how the towers fell (though I appreciate the details they were able to fill in and the raw data they compiled).

In discussion of evolution on this forum, I have put forward the hypothesis that evolutionary processes are a form of intelligence, based on a synthesis of biochemistry, computing theory, cybernetics, and Wolfram "NKS." About 99% percent of the members here either disagree outright or regard the hypothesis as irrelevant for various reasons (unfalsifiability; a matter of mere semantics). That's because my evidence is not strong enough. But for my own use, I feel my hypothesis helps me to understand the world while being consistent with all available evidence. So, that's what I think.

The point is, the common storyline does not concern me. It happens that the common storyline on 9/11 agrees with my own conclusions. It's allowed to do that; I can't stop it. If it disagreed, I'd think it was wrong.

Your above quote is one of the more intriguing declarations that 'you are right and I am wrong' that I have encountered of late.

Let's let the information stand or fall on its own. Or, better still, and for purposes of information, it might someday occur to some to post up what they think would be better approaches to providing a proper explanation in a collaborative fashion, rather than continuation of the 'gotcha' mentality.

But, hey, some post to say gotcha; others post to advance the state of information concerning the destruction caused, but never adequately explained, on 9/11, without regard to who might be 'right' and who might be 'wrong' about some detail or another.

Put plaintly, Myriad, your posting style did not add much to the overall knowledge base as all you sought to do was make proclamations about being right and Wood being wrong. That is fine as far as it goes, one supposes, but it doesn't go very far at all.

v1f = 0 whenever v1i = 0 is wrong.

v1f = (m1 - m2)/(m1 + m2) * v1i, IF v2i = 0 AND the collision is ideally elastic, is right.

Momentum is not affected by considerations of a political nature. Nor by propriety, etiquette, feelings, opinion, motive, legality, style, prayer, bribery, or sentiment. If you make statements about momentum that are wrong, you are wrong. If you make arguments based on statements about momentum that are wrong, you are wrong. It's irrelevant whether you appreciate having that pointed out, or resent it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[CompusMentus]

^ Jammonius, hung, drawn, quartered.


Compus

 

[jammonius]

The outer walls of WTC1+2 were lined with drywall.

That statement is too general to be accorded much in the way of credibility. While the construction specification might be considered useful for showing how sturdy the Twin Towers were, they do not provide an accurate basis for the visible process of dustification that was seen, witnessed, felt and heard.

You folks who complain, on the one hand, about how Dr. Wood proves DEW were a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex, certainly do not subject your own posts to much in the way of verifiability, on the other.

Good grief.

Having been broken up and sent falling through the air it's perfectly normal to expect this to leave a trail of dust. Gypsum board is very fragile stuff. What's more, we know that those major major pieces of building impacted the ground. Dr Wood admits so. She concedes and uses the NIST figure for first impact. They were not "dustified".

Your quoted, unsupported speculation is hereby refuted:

Section of WTC1 wall:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/TTwallstructure.jpg[/qimg]

Here is a very small section of the GZ debris field showing a huge amount of steel that is intact.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail.jpg[/qimg]

Your use of generalization in order to describe what is seen in one photo is laughably imprecise and totally outclassed by Dr. Wood's complete presentation of the proof of DEW.

However, even as shown, your photo simply confirms the flatness of GZ and the total absence of 242 stories of building consisting in WTC 1,2 and 3. As to the latter, WTC3, the building was so completely pulverized, annihilated and, yes, dustified, that it has not ever even been so much as given an honorable mention in terms of investigative effort, other than by Dr. Judy Wood.

If you have any interest in learning then I can post a URL to the original (massive) overhead shot that was taken from. It's absolutely heaving with.

Here's more intact steel:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/steel8.jpg[/qimg]

It would be better to link unto drjudywood.com for a comprehensive demonstration of the site, time sequenced, linked to lidar and in other respects shown for what it was; namely, the aftermath of a DEW attack.

And people here can post you a hundred similar photos. Talk of "dustified" steel is a nonsense, jammonius. The steel fell, was eventually picked up and was carried away, that's all.

That is all false. Dr. Judy Wood has proven it.

 

[jammonius]

Some of the things Judy Wood says are true, and some are false.

The part where she says DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11 is among the true things.

When Judy Wood says momentum is conserved, I agree because it is true. By true, I mean that the outcomes of all experiments are consistent with momentum being conserved.

OK, if that is what you mean.

When Judy Wood says that a moving object colliding with a stationary object must always come to a stop, I disagree because it is not true. By not true, I mean that the outcomes of experiments are not consistent with moving objects colliding with stationary objects always coming to a stop.

I here claim that the above quoted portion of your post is a quibble. Furthermore, it is not placed in any context or given any scope or anything else that would make it useful, let alone meaningful in the context of the claim that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

That is the process by which I recognize truth. There is no other stage of it.

I would agree that "details matter" that precision counts and exactitude has its place, especially in science. I here assert Dr. Wood satisfies those criteria.

Since the entire "billiard ball" argument in the main part of the cited Judy Wood paper is based on the premise that a moving upper block must come to a stop upon colliding with the lower, a premise that is in error because the physics argument supporting it is invalid, its conclusions are utterly invalid.

I'm not yet willing to take your word on this Myriad. I fear you may be engaging in a matter of semantics; or, put differently, in making a distinction in a context that does not make a difference. I will pass on your observation to a few others who might be able to address your apparent point a bit more specifically than I can.

In the main, however, I think the BBE stands as valid and I will continue to defend it.

You are not the first to regard mathematics and science, and those who practice those disciplines, as having failed in some way, by reaching conclusions you disagree with.

You're in some bad company there, is all I'll say.

You misapprehend what I posted. Please consider reviewing it.

I have found errors that Dr. Wood has made, which makes her conclusions invalid. But she and those who use her work to support their ideas will not acknowledge or correct those errors, ensuring that the work will remain invalid and irrelevant. That is far sadder.

Everyone makes errors. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As for me, when I spot errors made by posters, I usually 'double check for accuracy' or, in some other way, try to explore the intent of the poster. I do not normally point out errors for the purpose of saying 'gotcha'.

Looking for errors in another researcher's work is a normal part of discourse. All legitimate researchers expect this to occur, and (despite the unpleasant emotions that can result from being found in error) welcome the correction of their errors as a means of maintaining the relevance of their work and avoiding inadvertently propagating errors.

Bravo. I agree fully with that explication of how errors are to be treated. Your statement as quoted above is 100% spot on as far as I am concerned.

No, I cannot think of any such examples in physics or math.

I can think of one, offhand, from the area of astrophysics. There exists, as I understand it, a dogged determination to hold onto the concept of the "Big Bang" irrespective of a large and growing number of contradictions to that theory. Furthermore, science funding is being manipulated in order to prevent the evidence contrary to the Big Bang concept from being pursued.

My source for this example is the thunderbolts website.

Momentum is not affected by considerations of a political nature.

Maybe, but science sure is thusly affected.

I prefer to realize that which is real.

So do I, Myriad, as I have said more than once.

Then we can rule the galaxy together as father and son?

We need a 'holy spirit'

I was building computer models of fire propagation in buildings when I was a sophomore in high school (and that was long before computers were part of any curriculum). I did my own calculations on the collapse of the towers on 9/12. I do not need NIST to know why and how the towers fell (though I appreciate the details they were able to fill in and the raw data they compiled).

In discussion of evolution on this forum, I have put forward the hypothesis that evolutionary processes are a form of intelligence, based on a synthesis of biochemistry, computing theory, cybernetics, and Wolfram "NKS." About 99% percent of the members here either disagree outright or regard the hypothesis as irrelevant for various reasons (unfalsifiability; a matter of mere semantics). That's because my evidence is not strong enough. But for my own use, I feel my hypothesis helps me to understand the world while being consistent with all available evidence. So, that's what I think.

The point is, the common storyline does not concern me. It happens that the common storyline on 9/11 agrees with my own conclusions. It's allowed to do that; I can't stop it. If it disagreed, I'd think it was wrong.

Thanks for the update. Very interesting, indeed.

v1f = 0 whenever v1i = 0 is wrong.

I'd like to double check for accuracy here. Are you attributing the above to Dr. Wood; if so, from where?

So far as I can determine, Dr. Wood has stated on her webpage as follows:

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.

You post something different; namely:

v1f = 0 whenever v1i = 0 is wrong.

v1f = (m1 - m2)/(m1 + m2) * v1i, IF v2i = 0 AND the collision is ideally elastic, is right.

I take it you are agreeing that Dr. Wood is correct?

Momentum is not affected by considerations of a political nature. Nor by propriety, etiquette, feelings, opinion, motive, legality, style, prayer, bribery, or sentiment. If you make statements about momentum that are wrong, you are wrong. If you make arguments based on statements about momentum that are wrong, you are wrong. It's irrelevant whether you appreciate having that pointed out, or resent it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No resentment, just a quest for accuracy in posting, by all who are willing and able to post from that perspective.

Respectfully,
jammonius