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

[jammonius]

Post # 579 does not refute. Instead, it reintroduces claims that have already been either fully demonstrated,( my claims); shown to be false, (claims concerning investigative efforts and outcomes) or otherwise addressed many times.

 

[DGM]

Post # 579 does not refute. Instead, it reintroduces claims that have already been either fully demonstrated,( my claims); shown to be false, (claims concerning investigative efforts and outcomes) or otherwise addressed many times.

Why can't you and Dr Judy just say you have no idea what kind of weapon could do what you propose? You've made a lot of posts avoiding this more then obvious fact.

 

[jammonius]

Why can't you and Dr Judy just say you have no idea what kind of weapon could do what you propose? You've made a lot of posts avoiding this more then obvious fact.

There is usually no need to address fallacies; and, if one does address them, one then and there runs a high risk of having what had been a decent attempt at dialogue being derailed, more often than not.

Fallacies are control mechanisms that seek, in the main, to distract from logical dialogue. That is why they are so dangerous. They confuse, rather than enlighten, distort, rather than provide clarity and they misinform, rather than inform. You are continuing to try to advance a fallacy and I will not go down that route, now or ever.

DGM, I will, instead, continue to thwart attempts to advance fallacies.

I hope at some point the distinction between legitimate discussion and fallacy will become clearer than it currently is.

 

[DGM]

DGM, I will, instead, continue to thwart attempts to advance fallacies.

I hope at some point the distinction between legitimate discussion and fallacy will become clearer than it currently is.

Your problem is my statement is not a fallacy. Unless you can show where you or Dr Judy has actually stated what kind of weapon (or energy source) could do what you propose my statement is fact.

Why do you deny this fact?

 

[twinstead]

There is usually no need to address fallacies; and, if one does address them, one then and there runs a high risk of having what had been a decent attempt at dialogue being derailed, more often than not.

Fallacies are control mechanisms that seek, in the main, to distract from logical dialogue. That is why they are so dangerous. They confuse, rather than enlighten, distort, rather than provide clarity and they misinform, rather than inform. You are continuing to try to advance a fallacy and I will not go down that route, now or ever.

DGM, I will, instead, continue to thwart attempts to advance fallacies.

I hope at some point the distinction between legitimate discussion and fallacy will become clearer than it currently is.

Oh for crying out loud. Can you BE any more transparently a hand waver?

 

[Oystein]

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

No. As a reminder: I asked "How do you know this, if you don't know which kind of DEW was used and what physical and technological properties it had?"

Miss Wood's website does not answer that question. If this website is painstaking in one regard it is its insistence on NOT making any claims about which kind of DEW was used and what physical and technological properties it had.

Unless, of course, you can point me to the page on Miss Wood's page, and quote the relevant excerpts? Thank you.

 

[Oystein]

Twinstead,

...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.
...

No, jammonius, you don't, and that is the problem.
You say that Miss Wood has some information on her page. We say she doesn't. To sunstantiate the negative, we would have to copy the entire content of her page and say "see, it's not in there".
If you could post up the relevant content, you could prove your point; we can't prove the negative any other way than saying "jammy, read the entire page!"

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

I have said it before: You are a liar, jammonius.
But rarely, if ever, have you lied in our face as boldly and blatantly as now.
There was total agreement that Miss Woods little math appendix was wrong on many counts, physical nonsense. I agree with Myriad, for example, and he with me. That alone proves you a liar, jammonius.

I told you many months ago to please stop the lying, once and for all. I see you did not heed my advice.

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.
...

She could have posted her favorite Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck Story, and NIST would have been under legal obligation to take it to their records.

You know that, jammonius, don't you!

 

[Bell]

She could have posted her favorite Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck Story, and NIST would have been under legal obligation to take it to their records.

A Christmas for Shacktown

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

WOW

Hi, I always knew people didn't trust the government but I never understood just how far out they were.
I really loved that "math and phyics failed to explain" part.
I was not physically in NYC on 9-11-2001 but I watch everything from the first report on. (I was one of those glued to the TV/computer for days people) I know what I saw and resaw. It was not PFM or some secret particle disrupter. Why is this so difficult to understand and accept?
The thing I have not been able to understand is why it would make a difference to anyone who thinks the gov is behind the attack?
1. Tell me who
2. tell me why
don't say "Jews to start a war" cause that makes no sense. Don't say "Bush and Cheney to start a war costing trillions in order to steal billions"
If Bush and Cheney wanted money robbing Ft Knox and West Point would have been easier and cheaper.
Don't say "To establish NWO" because clearly they are not in power and while my beer and cigarettes cost more I am just as free as ever to smoke and drink and my non working aquaintences are getting gov money (and I am certain thats not what Bush and Cheney wanted)
Well wait a minute, no it's making sense. It was not Bush and Cheney they do not have Particle disrupters. But aliens do. Illegal Mexicans are behind the attack

 

[twinstead]

Particle Disrupters ROCK!

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/gzholes-1.jpg?t=1286132122[/qimg]



Your opinion is not substantiated by any visual proof,

The visual evidence proves you and Judy incapable of percieving evidence. The holes are not round.

 

[djlunacee]

Post # 579 does not refute. Instead, it reintroduces claims that have already been either fully demonstrated,( my claims); shown to be false, (claims concerning investigative efforts and outcomes) or otherwise addressed many times.

I will give you an A for effort and a T for nice try. Problem is Jammonious, you have not offered one shred of proof, therefore there is nothing to refute.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

the pseudo-wise-person fallacy

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

jammonius should be among the "we" who should not engage in fallacious argument, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

No, Dr Wood's web site puts forth a fallacious argument based on elementary errors of physics. In this thread, Myriad, Oystein and others have already identified many errors in Dr Wood's argument. For jammonius to ignore those errors while continuing to point to Dr Wood's discredited argument is an example of the fallacy known as appeal to false authority.

If Dr Judy Wood were a wise person, and were relying upon math and physics, then jammonius would be engaging in the wise-person fallacy of his own invention:

And, by the way, I am happy to draw a line in the sand with you on this. Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.

Although Dr Judy Wood is not a wise person, and is not relying upon genuine math and physics, jammonius is arguing as though she were. That's a pseudo-wise-person fallacy.

In another thread, jammonius stated his reliance upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

That is what the perps of 9/11 and of the cover-up did not count on; namely, that a person with the expertise of Dr. Judy Wood could make an authentic, verifiable, factual determination of what happened, even though much evidence was destroyed, tampered with, contaminated purposefully. And even though what little investigation took place under governmental auspices was controlled and fraudulently directed away from determining what happened, Dr. Wood overcame all the obstacles and published what happened for all to see, in a governmental website.

That is the point and that is the singular contribution made by Dr. Judy Wood, making her unique as an American heroine.

On that I stand.

Emphasis as in the original.

Here are a few other quotations that reveal the extent of jammonius's dependence upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

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.

The highlighted text is delusion and poppycock. Apart from jammonius, whose ignorance of math and physics renders him incapable of competent assessment, everyone who has posted about Dr Wood's "Conservation of Momentum" and other calculations agrees they are incorrect. The reason we are not all saying exactly the same things about her calculations is that they contain so many errors that could be highlighted, and none of us have had enough patience to list them all. (Myriad gave a more complete list than most).

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

Dr Wood's DEW delusions were "governmentally published" because the government published all written comments, no matter how nutty.

For jammonius to appeal to the government's policy of publishing all written comments as proof of authority while discounting everything else the government has said is more than an appeal to false authority; it's also the fallacy of cherry-picking.

One more time for sake of clarity:

The proof of DEW as a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11, put forward by Dr. Judy Wood, is the only authentic, thorough and documented analysis of what destroyed the WTC complex to be found in the public record at a proper governvmental website.

The only one.

That's three fallacies in one brief statement: the pseudo-wise-person fallacy, an appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.

Although your post is a tad indirect, it is at least one post that recognizes that Dr. Judy Wood is the only person who has posted up a valid, thorough and painstaking analysis of what destroyed the WTC complex to a governmental website. True, the post then criticizes the effort, but the fact remains, in terms of proving what happened on 9/11, Dr. Judy Wood and her proof of DEW is basically the only game in town.

Pseudo-wise-person fallacy, appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.

Fallacies are control mechanisms that seek, in the main, to distract from logical dialogue. That is why they are so dangerous. They confuse, rather than enlighten, distort, rather than provide clarity and they misinform, rather than inform.

That's why jammonius relies on fallacies. His purpose is to distract, to confuse, to misinform.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So basically, you're saying that Jam's a wiseguy.

 

[tsig]

Particle Disrupters ROCK!

Actually they UNROCK.

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Just another day at JREF

Hi,
Nutcase1:I can prove it was not a death ray. The evil warlock Voldemort is behind it all. He don't need no stinkin death ray.
Nutcase2:Bull pucky It was Marvin the Martian with his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator
Nutcase3:WOW really I always thought it was dissolve-o paste spread by disgruntled janitors




ME:

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just like how Jammy sticks his foot in his mouth & presents all of us with pictures that clearly show steel beams & columns that was never "dustified" or zapped with a non-existant DEW.

Clearly insanity is ruling & clouding Jams thinking!

 

[tsig]

jammonius should be among the "we" who should not engage in fallacious argument, but I'm not holding my breath.


No, Dr Wood's web site puts forth a fallacious argument based on elementary errors of physics. In this thread, Myriad, Oystein and others have already identified many errors in Dr Wood's argument. For jammonius to ignore those errors while continuing to point to Dr Wood's discredited argument is an example of the fallacy known as appeal to false authority.

If Dr Judy Wood were a wise person, and were relying upon math and physics, then jammonius would be engaging in the wise-person fallacy of his own invention:

Although Dr Judy Wood is not a wise person, and is not relying upon genuine math and physics, jammonius is arguing as though she were. That's a pseudo-wise-person fallacy.

In another thread, jammonius stated his reliance upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

Emphasis as in the original.

Here are a few other quotations that reveal the extent of jammonius's dependence upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

The highlighted text is delusion and poppycock. Apart from jammonius, whose ignorance of math and physics renders him incapable of competent assessment, everyone who has posted about Dr Wood's "Conservation of Momentum" and other calculations agrees they are incorrect. The reason we are not all saying exactly the same things about her calculations is that they contain so many errors that could be highlighted, and none of us have had enough patience to list them all. (Myriad gave a more complete list than most).


Dr Wood's DEW delusions were "governmentally published" because the government published all written comments, no matter how nutty.

For jammonius to appeal to the government's policy of publishing all written comments as proof of authority while discounting everything else the government has said is more than an appeal to false authority; it's also the fallacy of cherry-picking.


That's three fallacies in one brief statement: the pseudo-wise-person fallacy, an appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.


Pseudo-wise-person fallacy, appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.


That's why jammonius relies on fallacies. His purpose is to distract, to confuse, to misinform.

Seems to me that telling us that the government is lying to us and part of a psyops to deceive us then relying on the fact that Dr Wood has published her work on a government site as proof of it's validity is a little contradictory.

 

[jammonius]

jammonius should be among the "we" who should not engage in fallacious argument, but I'm not holding my breath.

While your post is not going to advance the discussion very much because it is, in the main, just another one that declares yourself right and me wrong, your post is, on the whole, more substantive than many recent ones. I will therefore let this reply constitute my reply to the last dozen or so posts that precede it coming from various posters.

I post in accordance with the principles of dialogue as best I can. What is posted stands or falls on its own merit. Generally, to be valid, all a post has to do is to properly make a claim or properly present a refutation of a claim.

It is utterly useless to make declarations about who is right and who is wrong. This is obvious. It is rare to the point of nonexistent in 9/11 discussions for persons making declarations about who is right to mean someone other than themselves and the same holds true for declarations about who is wrong; it is invariably the other person. Accordingly, such declarations are almost universally self-serving and therefore useless.

I do not make such declarations. I let claims and refutations stand or fall on their own merit, in accordance with principles of proper dialogue.

No, Dr Wood's web site puts forth a fallacious argument based on elementary errors of physics.

Wait. Dr. Wood's website is hugely comprehensive consisting not just in many multiples of pages, but also in multiple segments, sections and areas. There is no way on earth your quoted statement can be considered a proper expression of refutation. It is far too general, generic and overreaching to have any merit at all.

In this thread, Myriad, Oystein and others have already identified many errors in Dr Wood's argument.

Once again, that is gross overstatement. There has not by any stretch of anyone imagination been anything close to any identification of even a few errors, let alone many. For the most part, even the attempts to latch onto at most between one and three errors was taken completely out of context and did not address the calculations made by Dr. Wood in the context of the claims she was making about the destruction of the WTC complex.

I here assert that Dr. Wood's calculations stand as unrefuted. And, that, in any event, there were claims of error associated with little more than a quibble here and there, far, far removed from any ability to claim, as you have "many errors."

For jammonius to ignore those errors while continuing to point to Dr Wood's discredited argument is an example of the fallacy known as appeal to false authority.

Nope, your assertion of fallacy is untenable, unproven and unworkable. As usual in connection with fallacies, it is best to seek to post free of fallacy rather than try to use fallacies, a tool of logic, as a weapon against others.

If Dr Judy Wood were a wise person, and were relying upon math and physics, then jammonius would be engaging in the wise-person fallacy of his own invention:

Although Dr Judy Wood is not a wise person, and is not relying upon genuine math and physics, jammonius is arguing as though she were. That's a pseudo-wise-person fallacy.

In another thread, jammonius stated his reliance upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

Emphasis as in the original.

Here are a few other quotations that reveal the extent of jammonius's dependence upon the pseudo-wise-person fallacy:

The highlighted text is delusion and poppycock. Apart from jammonius, whose ignorance of math and physics renders him incapable of competent assessment, everyone who has posted about Dr Wood's "Conservation of Momentum" and other calculations agrees they are incorrect. The reason we are not all saying exactly the same things about her calculations is that they contain so many errors that could be highlighted, and none of us have had enough patience to list them all. (Myriad gave a more complete list than most).

Oh boy. I do wish you could have spared us that bit of equivocation, banter and hyperbole.

Dr Wood's DEW delusions were "governmentally published" because the government published all written comments, no matter how nutty.

Your put down is duly noted. But, you do not have any apparent standing to make any such claim and I here assert that you cannot and will not substantiate it. I here assert the above claim is blatantly false and improper.

For jammonius to appeal to the government's policy of publishing all written comments as proof of authority while discounting everything else the government has said is more than an appeal to false authority; it's also the fallacy of cherry-picking.

The government posted NIST NCSTAR 1, 10,000pgs of fraud and deception. Among the scientific community, only Dr. Wood posted up proof of what destroyed the WTC complex.

That statement is true. Your statement is not.

That's three fallacies in one brief statement: the pseudo-wise-person fallacy, an appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.


Pseudo-wise-person fallacy, appeal to false authority, and cherry-picking.


That's why jammonius relies on fallacies. His purpose is to distract, to confuse, to misinform.

You are better off making sure your own posts are free from as many fallacies as possible. You have not done that.