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

[DGM]

Does anyone want to count how many fallacies Jammy committed in his post claiming he committed no fallacies?

 

[excaza]

All that handwaving, I thought there was a hurricane going through.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Not contradictory, but it could be counter-intuitive. Here's how it is thought to work:

First of all "the government" is not a generic concept. As you know, the concept of the MIC has been introduced for discussion in another thread. We basically do not always know who or what is in charge of certain acts that may appear to be governmental.

In the SAIC, ARA thread, posters and lurkers are strongly urged to take President Eisenhower's MIC admonition seriously. We really do not know what is going on, by and large.

Now, applying this to your post, the fact is, you need to assume that Dr. Wood has a lot of support within the government, consisting in people who, privately, agree with her. In fact, proof of that very point has been posted in the SAIC, ARA thread.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250984&postcount=358

There you will see what can only be fairly described as a specific statement of support of Dr. Wood coming from the United States Military's AFRL/Directed Energy Directorate

So, Tsig, there is no contradiction at all.

 

[excaza]

You really are insane. I'm sorry (ok, not really), but that's the only response I have left to your posts at this point.

 

[twinstead]

In the SAIC, ARA thread, posters and lurkers are strongly urged to take President Eisenhower's MIC admonition seriously. We really do not know what is going on, by and large.

You are beyond hope, jamm. Seriously. All I can say is get used to people laughing at you, because that's what the posters and lurkers are doing right this moment.

 

[Oystein]

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.

You are here assuming that you are even able to assess the substance of our posts. You are basically declaring most posters totally unsubstantive and WDC mostly unsubstantive.

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.

No. If the claim is mistaken or lied up, the post is no more valid than a post that does not make a claim. I'd even go so far and say that a mistaken or deceptive claim is less valid than a post that makes no claim.
What we need is not valid posts, but valid claims. You make claims valid by supporting them with evidence. Evidence would have to take facts from the real world, and apply principles of science, math and logic to them. That where you and Miss Wood generally fail: Your evidence uses supposed "facts" that only exist in your imagination, and fails to apply proper physics to them, or applies erroneous physics and math to them. Thus, what you posted generally falls on its on merits.

It is utterly useless to make declarations about who is right and who is wrong. This is obvious....

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.

At the end of the process, someone needs to make such a declaration. If you were right, and everything went well for your party, that someone should be a judge in a criminal court of law. But before him, some folks need to be convinced to (re)open investigations based on finding your version of the events, and your arguments, right.
I say: it is utterly useless NOT to make decisions about what is right and wrong (and, by extension, who is right or wrong), and declare that decision.

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.

You are declaring WDC wrong here and Miss Wood right. Tsk tsk tsk.

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.

Now you are declaring Myriad and myself wrong, and Miss Wood right. tsk tsk tsk.

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."

Again, you assert without evidence, contrary to evidence, and you declare us wrong and Miss Wood (and, by extension, yourself) right. You assume that we don't understand basic physics. This is not how it works, jammonius. Do you have children, or grandchildren, or nieces and nephews? Do any of them go to high school yet? Go see their high school teacher, bring him or her a printout of Miss Wood's little physics calculation, and ask the teacher to grade it. You may be in for a little surprise in the form of plenty of red ink.

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.

You missed WDC's main and initial point: That you shouild heed your own advice here!

...
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.

You declare WDC wrong, and you make unsubstantiated assumptions about his standing.

The government posted NIST NCSTAR 1, 10,000pgs of fraud and deception.

This statement, in its generalisation, is riddled with assumptions.

Among the scientific community, only Dr. Wood posted up proof of what destroyed the WTC complex.

That statement is true. Your statement is not.

You declare the scientific community wrong, and Miss Wood right. Based on nothing but assumptions. tsktsktsk.

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

WDC's post comtained not a single fallacy, and you have not pointed out one.
The basic premise of WDC's post was the observation that you want to hold us to standards that you don't abide in yourself.

In this post, I have shown you that you, while admonishing us for declaring people and their claims right or wrong, and riddling our posts with assumptions, do the very same all the time.

 

[Oystein]

Not contradictory, but it could be counter-intuitive. Here's how it is thought to work:

First of all "the government" is not a generic concept. As you know, the concept of the MIC has been introduced for discussion in another thread. We basically do not always know who or what is in charge of certain acts that may appear to be governmental.

In the SAIC, ARA thread, posters and lurkers are strongly urged to take President Eisenhower's MIC admonition seriously. We really do not know what is going on, by and large.

Minor correction is in order here: You really do not know what is going on, by and large.

Now, applying this to your post, the fact is, you need to assume that Dr. Wood has a lot of support within the government, consisting in people who, privately, agree with her. In fact, proof of that very point has been posted in the SAIC, ARA thread.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250984&postcount=358

There you will see what can only be fairly described as a specific statement of support of Dr. Wood coming from the United States Military's AFRL/Directed Energy Directorate

So, Tsig, there is no contradiction at all.

Wait a second - you, the man who criticized my posts for being "assumption riddled" and thus not worthy of much consideration, are now telling us that we need to assume something???
You are of course seriously deluded if you read that friendly "please **** yourself" fax as "support". If you think that every time someone laughs at you, that someone supports you, then it becomes immediately clear why you think your party enjoys so much support!

 

[TSR]

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 should probably look up what the word "fallacy" actually means.


No, here: I'll spoon feed you.

fal·la·cy (fl-s)
n. pl. fal·la·cies
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

.
And oh, look: an entire list of them

Fallacies of Relevance
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Bandwagon Fallacy
Fallacist’s Fallacy
Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of Division
Gambler’s Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Irrelevant Appeals
Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Consequences
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Poverty
Appeal to Wealth
Moralistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Red Herring
Weak Analogy
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Accent Fallacies
Equivocation Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy
Fallacies of Presumption
Affirming the Consequent
Arguing from Ignorance
Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Complex Question Fallacy
Cum Hoc Fallacy
False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
Hasty Generalisation Fallacy
‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Post Hoc Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy
Subjectivist Fallacy
Tu Quoque Fallacy

.
Now, which of these do you claim applied dealing with the proof offered by pointing out that it is incomplete and therefore inconclusive?
.

 

[TSR]

What on earth are you talking about, Djlunacee? This thread is about the proof put forward by Dr. Judy Wood, with links all over the place to where the proof can be found.

.
Except that that "proof" is insufficient to validating the claim.
.

I really don't understand how people in this thread can let you get away with the above statement without sending you a PM or posting up a correction. Based on how frequently it is used, have you no recollection of the phrase "moving the goal post"? I believe that phrase has been used 100s of times.

That is the way the "demand more proof" fallacy is usually referred to as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

.
No, moving the goalposts refers changing the claim and then demanding more proof, the the demand for proof itself.

Do be a dear and read your own citations (in this case, Wikipedia) to make sure they actually, you know, support your argument before you use them?
.

 

[TSR]

Dustification illustrated by Dr. Wood:

.
Let me ask you -- if all of the steel was "dustified," where did they find the
~185,000 *tons* of steel known to have been hauled away from GZ as of April 2002 -- and if GZ what flat, where did they hide it?

Do you have any idea how big a pile that much steel *alone* would have made?
.

 

[TSR]

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250984&postcount=358

There you will see what can only be fairly described as a specific statement of support of Dr. Wood coming from the United States Military's AFRL/Directed Energy Directorate

.
Despite the fact that this fax clearly states that while such a weapon *may* exist at some unspecified time in the future, nothing at that time (2007) could do the damage done at GZ, which logically include the fact that it didn't exist then?

"Worthy of further consideration" isn't Wood, it is support of taking a closer look.

Also, how do you know this is not a forgery, anyway: what is this document's provenance?
.

 

[jammonius]

.
Despite the fact that this fax clearly states that while such a weapon *may* exist at some unspecified time in the future, nothing at that time (2007) could do the damage done at GZ, which logically include the fact that it didn't exist then?

"Worthy of further consideration" isn't Wood, it is support of taking a closer look.

Also, how do you know this is not a forgery, anyway: what is this document's provenance?
.

TSR,

Your post is a bit of hodge-podge, isn't it. On the one hand you engage in the now familiar in this thread process of seeking to minimize the importance of what is presented; then, on the other, apparently in recognition that minimization isn't really working, you next turn and question the authenticity.

OK, that is fine.

I am not here seeking to convince you of anything.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

.
Let me ask you -- if all of the steel was "dustified," where did they find the
~185,000 *tons* of steel known to have been hauled away from GZ as of April 2002 -- and if GZ what flat, where did they hide it?

Do you have any idea how big a pile that much steel *alone* would have made?
.

Cut the rhetoric and make a claim.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I am not here seeking to convince you of anything.

all the best.

In Truther translation & style: "I don't have any evidence to prove that DEW's exist.

I have lost."

 

[Nonpareil]

Cut the rhetoric and make a claim.

The claim has been made.

The steel at the WTC was not dustified. We have one hundred and eighty-five thousand tons of remarkably solid steel that was removed from the scene to support this.

Now, any answer?

 

[jammonius]

.
Except that that "proof" is insufficient to validating the claim.
.

You are not the arbiter of the sufficiency of proof. That is especially true in a context such as this one where the only other governmentally filed attempts to determine what happened on 9/11, namely, FEMA then NIST, are each woefully inadequate, wrong and, as to the NIST one, fraudulent. Thus the Wood DEW explanation is basically the only validly performed, comprehensive determination of what destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

In that context, standing alone, the claim of insufficiency is misplaced and misguided.

Look, there is real danger here. At the societal level, proof was never really required. American xenophobia was deliberately triggered even BEFORE the second pyrotechnical display occurred, let alone the DEW episode of annihilation.

Look at this:

As you can see, Osama bin Laden had been named EVEN BEFORE the South Tower got its explosions, as seen above.

The problem with poster resistance to the proof of DEW, demonstrated by Dr. Wood, is that such resistance feeds into the PSYOP that was perpetrated; and, if what I hear about MSM programming of late, the PSYOP is currently being reinforced with outlandish claims of 'terrorism' here, there and everywhere.

That is very dangerous as such claims are being used as a pretext for bombing the smithereens out of poor countries, yet again.

No, moving the goalposts refers changing the claim and then demanding more proof, the the demand for proof itself.

Do be a dear and read your own citations (in this case, Wikipedia) to make sure they actually, you know, support your argument before you use them?
.

I've said many times, it is best to apply the rules of logic to one's own posting. I post as best as I can and I assume you do the same. If you think you've spotted a fallacy of some sort, then fine, name it. I often do the same thing, especially when it comes to the silly use of rhetoric by posters around here.

 

[Sabretooth]

The claim has been made.

The steel at the WTC was not dustified. We have one hundred and eighty-five thousand tons of remarkably solid steel that was removed from the scene to support this.

Now, any answer?

$100 says jammy comes back with, "Dr. Wood has provided insurmountable evidence on her webersite that a DEW was used", and a whole bunch of other useless words that completely fail to answer your question.

 

[Sabretooth]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43secondalbum/945nbcrightleftshadowbehindbldgnoex.png[/qimg]

As you can see, Osama bin Laden had been named EVEN BEFORE the South Tower got its explosions, as seen above.

That's a pretty low blow, Jammy. Even for you.

Notice that nowhere in this screenshot says the word "LIVE" or the typical time stamp that MSNBC uses. It says "Tuesday"...strongly implicating that this screenshot was taken from a news report that was playing a tape later that week.

How about providing a utube link, hmmm?

 

[leftysergeant]

You are not the arbiter of the sufficiency of proof. That is especially true in a context such as this one where the only other governmentally filed attempts to determine what happened on 9/11, namely, FEMA then NIST, are each woefully inadequate, wrong and, as to the NIST one, fraudulent. Thus the Wood DEW explanation is basically the only validly performed, comprehensive determination of what destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

One or the other has to be mushroom food. Since the former was documented and illustrated by professionals in several applicable fields and the later was pulled out of the lower torso of a deranged amateur, I'll go with NIST as the straight scoop and Judy's stuff goes onto that pile out in the far corner of the garden.

In that context, standing alone, the claim of insufficiency is misplaced and misguided.

The problem is that the steel dust must still exist, unles your scalar weapopn made it cease to exist at all, which, by any physical laws we know of, would have released such energy as to have obliterated a good part of the North American land mass and a good part of our atmosphere.

You need to account for why the iron content of the WTC dust was so freaking low or you look like an utter ignoramus concerning materials, and you make Judy look even less sane or bright than we already think her. Dude! Where's your steel?

The problem with poster resistance to the proof of DEW, demonstrated by Dr. Wood, is that such resistance feeds into the PSYOP that was perpetrated; and, if what I hear about MSM programming of late, the PSYOP is currently being reinforced with outlandish claims of 'terrorism' here, there and everywhere.

Only psyop I see going on here is Da Twoof.

 

[jammonius]

The claim has been made.

The steel at the WTC was not dustified. We have one hundred and eighty-five thousand tons of remarkably solid steel that was removed from the scene to support this.

Now, any answer?

The FEMA report notes something similar as to the amount of debris recovered. However, that claim, in and of itself, does not address the visual evidence of dustification, as exemplified in that segment of Dr. Wood's website treatise with the subtitle "dustification".

See:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

One statistical quote of this or that tonnage of debris is inadequate in the face of the visual evidence of what happened.

Secondly, the debris was mixed in with all sorts of material as a result of the comingling of the debris, what little there was, that is.

Thirdly, the handling of the debris at GZ was done in a way so as to thwart forensic examination. Thus, claims about collected tonnage do not add anything of substance to the determination of what caused the destruction.

Fourthly, the mere recital of an amount of debris collected is insufficient, on its face, as no amount is given for that weight of the structures whilst standing. 185,000 may sound like a lot; but that is incomplete analytically in the absence of the total weight of the annihilated buildings. In fact, merely giving the one number in the absence of the other is misleading.

With all of that said, basically the tonnage of debris collected issue is utterly unpersuasive in the best of circumstances. However, the cover-up done at GZ, in connection with the manner in which the clean-up was done makes such references superflous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.