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

[jammonius]

I have decided to start a little project.

I'm going to review Judy Woods' "work" and point out some of the many logical fallacies contained therein. (Once again thanks to Brian Dunning podcast for the guidance)

Those that want to join in, feel free!

Here goes:





Judy Wood is guilty of this logical fallacy on many counts. A prime example is her claim that "all the steel was "dustified" at the WTC". Many pictures exist showing the thousands of tons of the remnants of the steel structure at Ground Zero. Pictures that are readily available for inspection and which must have come to her attention. These are ignored.

A classic case of Observational Selection.


Compus

What are you talking about? If you're going to do this project of yours, you need to link us to the places in Dr. Wood's website that give rise to your assertions. You did not do that. Your project has no merit at all, absent a frame of reference that lets us know what, where and by what means you claim 'fallacy' or whatever it is you are wanting to claim.

You can engage in an exercise of rebuttal, citing claims of fallacy, however you cannot do so convincingly absent a reference.

What is equally interesting here is that you, Compus, posted up about 40 eulogies in the All43 video thread, staking out a claim that eulogies proved death in Boeing 767, United Fl 175, that was not ever shown to have crashed.

The issue with using logic as a means of criticism is that in order to be valid, it is usually essential that the person claiming to know the difference between and among fallacies should NOT use them her/himself. Further, it is essential to recognize that fallacy detection is not a weapon to be used against someone else and is, instead, merely a neutral means of helping to determine the validity of ALL arguments and claims, not just those you do not like to begin with.

You do not "own" fallacies or the right to rely on them for purposes of refutation. In addition, fallacy detection in this thread, to be valid, has to apply equally to all claims and posts, not merely those of Dr. Wood.

In short, we should all try not to engage in fallacious argument.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

wait...so you're saying the Empire didn't destroy the Titanic?

Evidence?

Oh they probably did!

The Death Star is a DEW!

 

[jammonius]

How do you know this, if you don't know which kind of DEW was used and what physical and technological properties it had?

Examine Dr. Wood's website wherein the proof is painstakingly put forward.

 

[excaza]

Examine Dr. Wood's website wherein the proof is painstakingly put forward.

Maybe you should take a closer look, because it's not put forward at all.

 

[twinstead]

Examine Dr. Wood's website wherein the proof is painstakingly put forward.

Why do you keep suggesting that we haven't done that? Look, a person can look at that site closely and STILL think it's a bunch of bat guano. Your continued declarations that the site isn't bat crap crazy really means very little.

 

[jammonius]

"Disappeared" means that it wasn't there any more.

A building broke it and buried it.

You have not substantiated your claim. You have merely re-interpreted data that I posted and you have done so in a way that does not follow either from what was said or from what was seen.

 

[jammonius]

Why do you keep suggesting that we haven't done that? Look, a person can look at that site closely and STILL think it's a bunch of bat guano. Your continued declarations that the site isn't bat crap crazy really means very little.

Twinstead,

Are you in or are you out? Didn't you express exasperation and say, in substance, that you were "outta here"?

In any event, it is good to be in communication with you. I keep suggesting you haven't reviewed Dr. Wood's website because you do not substantiate your claims about its content. If there's something there you take issue with, post it up. I do.

Refutation is an honorable way to post, Twinstead. I posted up the Conservation of Momentum calculation and posters had a field day of disputation about it. In the end, and typical of mathmatical diatribes, no one agreed with anyone else about the calculation. Declarations of "Wood wrong, poster right" were, of course, expected. However, Dr. Wood is the one who posted her work on a governmental website, including some of the calculations I quoted.

I'll take the official record over posters' musings.

I do wish you'd post up links and excerpts with respect to those aspects of Dr. Wood's proof that you disagree with.

 

[excaza]

Refutation is an honorable way to post, Twinstead. I posted up the Conservation of Momentum calculation and posters had a field day of disputation about it. In the end, and typical of mathmatical diatribes, no one agreed with anyone else about the calculation.

You must be thinking of a different dispute. The unanimous conclusion was that Dr. Wood's calculations are incorrect.

 

[djlunacee]

What are you talking about? If you're going to do this project of yours, you need to link us to the places in Dr. Wood's website that give rise to your assertions. You did not do that. Your project has no merit at all, absent a frame of reference that lets us know what, where and by what means you claim 'fallacy' or whatever it is you are wanting to claim.

You can engage in an exercise of rebuttal, citing claims of fallacy, however you cannot do so convincingly absent a reference.

What is equally interesting here is that you, Compus, posted up about 40 eulogies in the All43 video thread, staking out a claim that eulogies proved death in Boeing 767, United Fl 175, that was not ever shown to have crashed.

The issue with using logic as a means of criticism is that in order to be valid, it is usually essential that the person claiming to know the difference between and among fallacies should NOT use them her/himself. Further, it is essential to recognize that fallacy detection is not a weapon to be used against someone else and is, instead, merely a neutral means of helping to determine the validity of ALL arguments and claims, not just those you do not like to begin with.

You do not "own" fallacies or the right to rely on them for purposes of refutation. In addition, fallacy detection in this thread, to be valid, has to apply equally to all claims and posts, not merely those of Dr. Wood.

In short, we should all try not to engage in fallacious argument.

You mean like claiming DEW destroyed the WTC complex without definition of what kind of energy was used, or where it was fired from, or the trajectory of the energy beam? Or do you mean that showing 43 videos and numerous still photos of flight 175 heading towards and impacting are proof positive that no planes were used on 9/11? Or do you mean that if I said we went to lunch, it does not include me? Oh, you said fallacious, not foolish, sorry.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This argument about Ground Zero being flat has already been forwarded and defeated. Bringing it back up 2 years later in a different thread is both a dodge of the information in the original thread and an admission that the argument was a lost cause there. The only response such a claim should get is a link back to that original thread.

 

[djlunacee]

Well, DGM, your rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, I have examined Pt. 3 of your 5 part video; and lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW, to be found in the audio account:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/wtc3disappeared.jpg?t=1285888359[/qimg]

Thanks

How can you claim "clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW" when you won't even define what it is?

 

[leftysergeant]

Jammonius, seek help before you hurt yourself or finacially ruin a client. You are no longer able to interpret evidence.

 

[twinstead]

Jammonius, seek help before you hurt yourself or finacially ruin a client. You are no longer able to interpret evidence.

Seriously. If there was any doubt this page of the thread seals the deal

 

[jammonius]

You mean like claiming DEW destroyed the WTC complex without definition of what kind of energy was used, or where it was fired from, or the trajectory of the energy beam? Or do you mean that showing 43 videos and numerous still photos of flight 175 heading towards and impacting are proof positive that no planes were used on 9/11? Or do you mean that if I said we went to lunch, it does not include me? Oh, you said fallacious, not foolish, sorry.

No, that is not what I mean. However, what I did mean is that argument that introduces a request for more or for different proof without considering the proof posted is, indeed, a fallacy.

Dr. Wood proves DEW destroyed the WTC complex and has published that proof of claim at a govenmental source. Her proof is, therefore, the only valid explanation of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC complex, thusly published.

In contrast, the common storyline has not ever been proven.

 

[DGM]

No, that is not what I mean. However, what I did mean is that argument that introduces a request for more or for different proof without considering the proof posted is, indeed, a fallacy.

Dr. Wood proves DEW destroyed the WTC complex and has published that proof of claim at a govenmental source. Her proof is, therefore, the only valid explanation of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC complex, thusly published.

In contrast, the common storyline has not ever been proven.

How does she "prove" something when she can't even say what it is? This is a problem that you can't make go away.

 

[jammonius]

How can you claim "clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW" when you won't even define what it is?

Because your assertion, implied above, openly stated elsewhere, that you want a different kind of proof, without having dealt with the proof offered, is just that: Your assertion. And, your assertion is a fallacy of the "demand more proof" variety.

You are not the arbiter of what consititutes proof of the forensic exercise of determining what destroyed the WTC complex.

There is only one valid, and governmentally published determination of what destroyed the WTC complex; namely, the proof of DEW put forward, elaborately and thouroughly, by Dr. Judy Wood.

Deal with it

 

[jammonius]

How does she "prove" something when she can't even say what it is? This is a problem that you can't make go away.

There are, of course, innumerable variations on the 'demand more proof' ditty, some done rhetorically, like that above, and some done in different ways.

It appears posters never tire of that fallacy.

 

[Bell]

Jammonius, could you tell me (or better yet, draw a diagram) from where (what height and angle) the DEW hit both towers and the Marriott?

 

[DGM]

There are, of course, innumerable variations on the 'demand more proof' ditty, some done rhetorically, like that above, and some done in different ways.

It appears posters never tire of that fallacy.

You've offered no proof to start with. How can you prove something if you don't even know what it is?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Because your assertion, implied above, openly stated elsewhere, that you want a different kind of proof, without having dealt with the proof offered, is just that: Your assertion. And, your assertion is a fallacy of the "demand more proof" variety.

You are not the arbiter of what consititutes proof of the forensic exercise of determining what destroyed the WTC complex.

There is only one valid, and governmentally published determination of what destroyed the WTC complex; namely, the proof of DEW put forward, elaborately and thouroughly, by Dr. Judy Wood.

Deal with it

Please provide a link to the "governmentally published determination".