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

[GlennB]

Nominated

Beat me to it. Damn time zones

 

[Oystein]

Nominated

Thanks!
Some question the wisdom of continuing jammo's threads, but I must say they produce a steady trickle of nominations to both the Stundie and The Language Award!

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Utter bull flops. Any construction laborer can see that this is what drywall does when it is broken by the impact of tons of debris. You are speaking outside your area of expertise to people who have experience in several of the areas relevant to this stuff. I am a veteran fire fighter who has worked with thermite and demonstrated its use in arson, a retired NCO with service in the Air Force and Army, part of it in a combat engineer unit which loved to blow stuff up, and, occassionally, a construction laborer and welder's assistant and fire watcher for welding operations. Nothing you claim is supportable, nor do you offer any support of your beliefs other than to say that something exists that does things that you cannot describe. This is superstition on steroids. It would help your credibility here if you at least did some research into how some of the relevant construction materials behave before you spout off this gobbledygook.

Your quoted, unsupported speculation is hereby refuted:


[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/GJS-WTC030c_original.jpg[/qimg]

There is nothing in that picture to support a blody thing you claim.

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.

Unless the crazy old bat can describe what sort of energy her weapon projected, she is just farting in the wind. She has utterly failed to do that in all the years she has been ranting and bothering people with more important work to do.

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.

Let me guess. You missed the fact that WTC 3 was pounded flat by multi-ton pieces of steel travelling at over a hundred miles per hour.

 

[leftysergeant]

You are, in fact, blatantly incorrect:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/search2.jpg[/qimg]

Flat as a pancake; and, note the confirmation that it was on 9/11/01, before 5:21PM, as WTC 7 can be seen standing in the background, right next to the flat expanse.

No, this does not confirm that it was flat. The bottoms of buildings in the distance are well below the top of the pile. You can see underneath objects close to the camera. Your ability to analyse photographic evidence would be a horrible disability in a court of law. you would be utterly unable to make use of one of the more important forensic tools used in presentations to a jury.

I do hope you have never been a criminal defense attorney. There would probably be innocent men sitting in jail because of incompetent legal counsel.

 

[CompusMentus]

It is baffling, when Wood and her acolytes bleat on and on about using "observational data" to help conclude what happened on 9/11, that they then have absolute blindness when shown pictures such as GlennB posted above. It is worth reposting them below:-

What we have here is complete falsification of Wood's claim that "all the steel at the WTC was dustified".

Story, end of.


Compus

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914ca30216b5fcf.jpg[/qimg]

While we have that out, take a look at the columns lying on top of the pile at the right side of the picture. You will see that they are still in multi-storey pieces. This is also a clue as to what brought them down. There is clearly no damage to the column segments themselves. They are only damaged at the joints. The welds have obviously broken. There are only a very few mechanisms by which this can be done.

1. They can be tilted past their design limits.

2. A horrendously strong vibration could be set up in the steel.

3. The entire core area could have been so battered by the faling debris that it set up a mechanical resonnance in the columns which snapped them apart at the welds.

The welds on these columns are remarkably shallow, given the weight that they held in place. Much of the strength and ability of the towers to absorb lateral motion depended on everything being unified and in precise balance.

When the core spires finally fell, they can be seen to oscillate as they break apart. This is a clear sign of a mechanical resonnance at work.

It has abosultely nothing to do with DEW.

What we have here is complete falsification of Wood's claim that "all the steel at the WTC was dustified".

Exactly

 

[Oystein]

...
Unless the crazy old bat can describe what sort of energy her weapon projected, she is just farting in the wind...

Hmm - that is one kind of Directed Energy that NIST hasn't looked into. Some write a RCF, quick!!!

 

[Oystein]

...the visible process of dustification that was seen, witnessed, felt and heard...

Hm. I have seen some of the photo series where in the first image we see some steel amid dust, and in the last we see the dust still lingering after the steel has fallen. I realize that you and Dr. Wood have made yourselves believe that these are images of steel being "dustified". Very well. You may believe whatever you want.

But: I am not aware of any evvidence that

...the visible process of dustification that was felt by anyone
...the visible process of dustification that was heard by anyone
What would it feel like? What would it sound like? Who has felt or heard that visible process?




And while we are at it: By what physical, but non-mechanical process can solid steel be dustified? All methods that I know of are mechanical in nature, such as milling, grinding, shredding.
Can you point me to the page on Dr. Judy Wood's website that elucidates that bit? Surely she has invoked some physical principle here, or cited any references.




And lastly: Where did all the steel dust go? Various agencies, both governmental and private, have analysed the dust generated by the WTC event of 9/11, and reported their findings. By and large, the bulk of dust particles can be attributed to one of the following classes:
- anorganic compounds typical for concrete, drywall and fireproofing (incl. asbestos)
- organic materials
As for metals, traces of previously melted metals such as lead, zinc and others are ubiquous. Iron appears in traces as rust, or, more abundantly, as microspheres, which is a typical find after building conflagrations and indicative of the heat of fires. Such iron microspheres are also abundant in concrete, as a product of the production of cement, wehre flyash is frequently used - the source of the microspheres.
What was generally NOT found was unburned, uncorroded iron or steel particles. Because of their high density, such dust particles should have been mostly deposited very near, if not on, Ground Zero. Yet analyses of dust collected in the immediate neighbourhood (Deutsche Bank Building, across the street, sampled by J.R. Lee Group) shows NO steel dust, when it should have been a major propoprtion (on the order of 30%) of the dust mass.

This alone should make any serious researcher doubt the "dustification" hyothesis.

 

[twinstead]

This alone should make any serious researcher doubt the "dustification" hyothesis.

Unless that researcher managed to unplug himself from the Matrix and see the world for what it really is. Wake up!

 

[leftysergeant]

And while we are at it: By what physical, but non-mechanical process can solid steel be dustified? All methods that I know of are mechanical in nature, such as milling, grinding, shredding.

Welding fume could account for a great percentage of the sphereules as well. You never get it all out of a steel-framed building, and there was a lot of welding involved in the towers.

That some of the sphereules contained a lot of silicon is consistant with its being fly ash, but it could also be from sparks generated in grinding with an abrasive wheel.

Assuming an actual DEW weapon, I would expect it to produce heat, either as a laser-type beam, or some sort of vibrations that would break up the crystaline structure of the metals, perhaps by magnetism.

But lasers would all leave a trace behind and anything that could vibrate the steels into dust would produce an amazing ringing sound. Obviously, none such were observed.

 

[Oystein]

Welding fume could account for a great percentage of the sphereules as well. You never get it all out of a steel-framed building, and there was a lot of welding involved in the towers.

That some of the sphereules contained a lot of silicon is consistant with its being fly ash, but it could also be from sparks generated in grinding with an abrasive wheel.

These are processes that melt the steel, or greatly heat it. All these processes make the steel particles glow. Something not observed during the WTC destruction.

Assuming an actual DEW weapon, I would expect it to produce heat, either as a laser-type beam,

Again, we must rule out any heat above temperatures that create a visible glow, as that was not observed in the visible dustification process.

or some sort of vibrations that would break up the crystaline structure of the metals, perhaps by magnetism.

Ok. There is a physical principle (magnetism) that we could debate. Vibrations caused by magnetism imply changing magnetic fields. We know what this implies: strong electromagnetic waves, induction of strong electrical currents, everywhere around, unless shielded. But there was no shielding between the WTC and whereever such a DEW was located, unless the DEW was inside the buildings it destroyed.
Ha! reat! I made a prediction from one specific variant of DEW theory: If a DEW directed magnetic energy at the WTC buildings, it would either have caused strong and measurable electric currents in every piece of metal around, or not have been strong enough to destroy steel, or it was placed and shielded inside the building it destroyed.

But lasers would all leave a trace behind and anything that could vibrate the steels into dust would produce an amazing ringing sound. Obviously, none such were observed.

The sound might have been outside the audible frequency range?
The traces left behind by lasers would depend on their power and their wavelength(s).
Oh, maybe they directed sound energy at the steel!

 

[GlennB]

..... Yet analyses of dust collected in the immediate neighbourhood (Deutsche Bank Building, across the street, sampled by J.R. Lee Group) shows NO steel dust, when it should have been a major propoprtion (on the order of 30%) of the dust mass.

This alone should make any serious researcher doubt the "dustification" hyothesis.

Lioy et al sampled drifted dust in 3 covered locations very shortly after 9/11 as part of a study into possible long-term health effects. They found primarily fibrous materials, pulverised gypsum and comminuted concrete products, totalling close to 100%

linky

 

[Sabretooth]

OMG! I just found what really destroyed the towers!

 

[Oystein]

Lioy et al sampled drifted dust in 3 covered locations very shortly after 9/11 as part of a study into possible long-term health effects. They found primarily fibrous materials, pulverised gypsum and comminuted concrete products, totalling close to 100%

linky

Uhm ... frankly, we don't know exactly what the 50% Nonfibers consist of, and they give no numbers for the proportion of iron in the dust, just saying it was "a large signal" (and an expected signal, of course). For example on page 708:

Cherry Avenue sample. The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles,
glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes.

We may safely assume that large amounts of "dustified steel" would have raised a more than casual mention, but we can't be 100% certain about that.

 

[carlitos]

There is a relevant thread on a Directed Energy Weapon being employed in Las Vegas.

 

[jammonius]

Hm. I have seen some of the photo series where in the first image we see some steel amid dust, and in the last we see the dust still lingering after the steel has fallen. I realize that you and Dr. Wood have made yourselves believe that these are images of steel being "dustified". Very well. You may believe whatever you want.

Your description of steel being visibily turned to dust can be legitimately faulted for three separate reasons:

1--You do not document your assertion with visual confirmation. You could link us to the visual information you reference or post photo excerpts, among other possibilities, but you do nothing of the kind, leaving your claim unsubstantiated.

2--You fail to acknowledge that there really is very little in the way of publicly filed documentation of the 'steel-to-dust' claim. NIST avoids it, FEMA didn't touch it. Accordingly, as far as officially-filed investigatory information, the best source is Dr. Judy Wood. And, based on her analysis, the claim is that steel is turned to dust, as confirmed by visual documentation.

3--Your assertion concerning 'belief' is misplaced. You should know by now that I do not post on the basis of 'belief' claims. Instead, I only post on the basis of what can be documented, described and justified by reason.

But: I am not aware of any evvidence that

...the visible process of dustification that was felt by anyone
...the visible process of dustification that was heard by anyone
What would it feel like? What would it sound like? Who has felt or heard that visible process?

You never learn. You may not post a rhetorical flourish requesting others to do your work for you, let alone make an inferential claim.

If there is one thing that I have made very clear in numerous threads, there exists excellent eye and ear witnesses for the NO PLANE claim and for the DEW claim. By now, you should know that the best source of eye and ear witnesses is the 503 Task Force Witness complilation. I am not even going to post a link for that as I no longer have any desire to spoon feed you in the least, Oystein.

Secondly, it should come as no surprise to you that Dr. Wood substantiates her DEW proof with eye and ear witness accounts of people who were in the destruction. You will recall one: Patricia Ondrovic. There are many others. Go to drjudywood.com and find them.

You have not got any rational basis for being ignorant of the fact that there are DEW witnesses. Go find them.

And while we are at it: By what physical, but non-mechanical process can solid steel be dustified? All methods that I know of are mechanical in nature, such as milling, grinding, shredding.
Can you point me to the page on Dr. Judy Wood's website that elucidates that bit? Surely she has invoked some physical principle here, or cited any references.

Ignorance is not a valid justification for rhetoric. Go look.

And lastly: Where did all the steel dust go? Various agencies, both governmental and private, have analysed the dust generated by the WTC event of 9/11, and reported their findings. By and large, the bulk of dust particles can be attributed to one of the following classes:
- anorganic compounds typical for concrete, drywall and fireproofing (incl. asbestos)
- organic materials
As for metals, traces of previously melted metals such as lead, zinc and others are ubiquous. Iron appears in traces as rust, or, more abundantly, as microspheres, which is a typical find after building conflagrations and indicative of the heat of fires. Such iron microspheres are also abundant in concrete, as a product of the production of cement, wehre flyash is frequently used - the source of the microspheres.
What was generally NOT found was unburned, uncorroded iron or steel particles. Because of their high density, such dust particles should have been mostly deposited very near, if not on, Ground Zero. Yet analyses of dust collected in the immediate neighbourhood (Deutsche Bank Building, across the street, sampled by J.R. Lee Group) shows NO steel dust, when it should have been a major propoprtion (on the order of 30%) of the dust mass.

This alone should make any serious researcher doubt the "dustification" hyothesis.

Nope, your claim is false. Go to drjudywood.com and look up the facts.

 

[jammonius]

It is baffling, when Wood and her acolytes bleat on and on about using "observational data" to help conclude what happened on 9/11, that they then have absolute blindness when shown pictures such as GlennB posted above. It is worth reposting them below:-


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914ca302169ac2d.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914ca30216b5fcf.jpg[/qimg]



What we have here is complete falsification of Wood's claim that "all the steel at the WTC was dustified".

Story, end of.


Compus

The quoted post is silly. It makes not one reference to what is seen in either of the photos, let alone any attempt to address the flatness of remains of what had been 242 stories of building, not counting WTC 7, a 47 story building that left its own discreet 4-5 story heap.

Two hundred and forty two (242) stories of building, and Compus posts up two photographs that show, at most a heap that does not even rise to the top of the mezzanine level, as seen, in the one photo and as confirmed by the overhead shot that shows next to nothing left. You can actually count the steel beams that remain if you look carefully at the photo. The remains confirm that the vast majority of the steel was, in fact, dustified, as claimed.

While I am not sure what particular statement Compus relies on for making the assertion that Wood says "all the steel was dustified" and I won't say there is no statement of hers anywhere that puts it that way, I nevertheless point out that Wood posts a large number of documented visual proof showing what, exact, steel remained and claims that the remnant steel is far too little in the context of two 110 story buildings having "gone poof."

 

[twinstead]

Nope, your claim is false. Go to drjudywood.com and look up the facts.

Most experts I've talked to think drjudywood.com is a farce. You are welcome to disagree, but don't expect everybody else to just bow down and worship Judy. Just between you and me, she might very well be insane.

 

[A W Smith]

I wonder what 2092 forum posts boils down to in billable attorney hours defending his client Judy Wood?

 

[SanityGap]

You can actually count the steel beams that remain if you look carefully at the photo.

Because of course, there was nothing under the pile or in the basements.