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

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Thus the Wood DEW explanation is basically the only validly performed, comprehensive determination of what destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Which peer review paper makes her, or your claim, about DEW's "valid"?

Name just 1 peer review paper from an expert! Come on, don't be shy!!

 

[jammonius]

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?

OK, that's pretty good, analytically speaking. You are quite right that merely showing a screen shot is not proof of simultaneity. That said, your post is still too clever by 1/2. The reason I say that is that it is common knowledge that OBL was blamed during the live airing as can be easily ascertained by anyone who seeks to attach a lot of signficance to this issue.

In this instance, I don't even think it is outrageous for you to ask me for more substantiation if that is what you really think you need on this point.

So, do you accept that OBL was blamed on teevee before the episode of annihilation of the Twin Towers, or do you want more proof?

Let me know.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

There's only 1 problem with that article. It says & I quote:

There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored.

Figure 313. Most of WTC3 disappeared during the destruction of WTC1. The pedestrian walkway over the West Side Highway was connected to something that is no longer there. The remains of WTC2 can be seen near the center of the photo and the remains of WTC1 are partly visible in the lower right corner.

Figure 47. GZ workers walk in thick dust atop the rubble pile, hardly higher than the lobby level.

So what happened to the "dustified" steel?

 

[Sabretooth]

OK, that's pretty good, analytically speaking. You are quite right that merely showing a screen shot is not proof of simultaneity. That said, your post is still too clever by 1/2. The reason I say that is that it is common knowledge that OBL was blamed during the live airing as can be easily ascertained by anyone who seeks to attach a lot of signficance to this issue.

In this instance, I don't even think it is outrageous for you to ask me for more substantiation if that is what you really think you need on this point.

So, do you accept that OBL was blamed on teevee before the episode of annihilation of the Twin Towers, or do you want more proof?

Let me know.

By all means. I would love to see proof of the networks trumping up OBL during the live broadcasts.

 

[jammonius]

Which peer review paper makes her, or your claim, about DEW's "valid"?

Name just 1 peer review paper from an expert! Come on, don't be shy!!

Chewy,

Yours too is a post that outsmarts itself. One unstated assumption is that 'peer review' either adds to scientific validity or is a necessary condition to claim scientific validity. It is neither.

Peer review, is, indeed, inherently, even at its best, a mere fallacy. You know this.

Further, at present, peer review has been debased and has succumbed to the pressure of money and/or politics.

In some instances, peer review is bought, paid for and goes to the highest bidder in order to advance commercial interests. In others, it is bought, paid for and goes to the highest bidder for political purposes.

It is either naive or deceptive, intentionally or unintentionally, to raise the issue of peer review in connection with the claim that DEW destroyed the WTC complex. Anything that goes against the common storyline of 9/11, and the pretextual wars that the common storyline supports is simply not a candidate for peer review.

It is absurd to claim otherwise.

 

[leftysergeant]

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".

Actually, it does. We have a weight for the steel recovered, including that which was shipped to an unauthorized scrap dealer.

You need to account for your steel.

With all of that said, basically the tonnage of debris collected issue is utterly unpersuasive in the best of circumstances.

Only in twoofer world.

 

[Sabretooth]

By all means. I would love to see proof of the networks trumping up OBL during the live broadcasts.

So far I've found that the NSA suspected OBL at some point around midday when they inercepted transmissions. But, at best, that's 3 hours after the first attack.

 

[jammonius]

By all means. I would love to see proof of the networks trumping up OBL during the live broadcasts.

Try this as to network coverage:

http://911footage.org/Live-Coverage-On-9/11-Blamed-Bin-Laden-9/11/01.cfmx

Also, in terms of epistemology, I can tell you that I watched teevee on 9/11 and I recall OBL being named and I recall thinking, at that point, that it was premature to make a claim like that.

Granted, I do not expect you to take my word for this and I am not asking you to do so. I will, however, enquire as to whether or not you have personal, subjective experience involving teevee and 9/11.

If you do not find the link that I have provided above satisfactory, then I can tell you that I will not seek to prove the point further. I am personally satisfied with the proof I have now put forward. Whether you accept it or not is purely your business and not mine.

 

[leftysergeant]

Also, in terms of epistemology, I can tell you that I watched teevee on 9/11 and I recall OBL being named and I recall thinking, at that point, that it was premature to make a claim like that.

Premature and a bit speculative, but more solidly-grounded than anything you have presented. We were already sure he was behind the embassy bombings and the kamikaze attack on the Cole. So who are you going to think was behind a kamikaze attack on three buildings? Simple logic, though legally risky to assume. But reporters aren't lawyers. They are tolerated to make more mistakes than are lawyers.

 

[TSR]

Your post is a bit of hodge-podge, isn't it.

.
Not that any rational person would think.
.

On the one hand you engage in the now familiar in this thread process of seeking to minimize the importance of what is presented;

.
I have minimized nothing -- I have pointed out that you own source explicitly states that the tech does not exist which could do what you claim.

Which means it did not in 2001.

And pointing out that support for further research (he was probably not familiar with Wood's work, and so did not know of its fatal flaws) does not constitute support for that work.

Why are you attempting to lie about this?
.

then, on the other, apparently in recognition that minimization isn't really working, you next turn and question the authenticity.

.
Well? Where *did* it come from?
.

OK, that is fine.

I am not here seeking to convince you of anything.

.
No you're here to lie about the events of That Day.
.

all the best

.
Another lie: the best would be you actually addressing the points raised instead of post content-free crap.
.

 

[TSR]

Cut the rhetoric and make a claim.

.
Okay: you are delusional or lying about what happened to the steel from the towers, and also about the size of the debris pile, and the fact that ~185,000 tons were removed from GZ demonstrates.

Additional claim: you will never substantively address those tons of steel, and what they mean for your claims about dustification and the debris pile.

Additional claim: we can safely add "rhetoric" to the terms which you feel free to re-define in support of your delusion / lie.

rhet·o·ric (rtr-k)
n.
1.
a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

.
I directly and cogently responded to your post: it was *not* rhetoric
.

 

[Sabretooth]

Try this as to network coverage:

http://911footage.org/Live-Coverage-On-9/11-Blamed-Bin-Laden-9/11/01.cfmx

Also, in terms of epistemology, I can tell you that I watched teevee on 9/11 and I recall OBL being named and I recall thinking, at that point, that it was premature to make a claim like that.

Granted, I do not expect you to take my word for this and I am not asking you to do so. I will, however, enquire as to whether or not you have personal, subjective experience involving teevee and 9/11.

If you do not find the link that I have provided above satisfactory, then I can tell you that I will not seek to prove the point further. I am personally satisfied with the proof I have now put forward. Whether you accept it or not is purely your business and not mine.

Well, Jams...I'm not going to spend a few hours watching news scrolls looking for evidence of your claim. I did, however, watch this one:



I don't see any news report...scrolling, verbally, or otherwise...that even suggests anything about OBL.

So seeing that you have no intention on proving your claim, I'll just remind our viewers that this claim is completely invalid.

 

[TSR]

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.

.
And who appointed *you* the arbiter?

Hypocrite much?
.

 

[Nonpareil]

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

Yes. It does.

What you do not seem to understand, jammonius, is that the fact that 185,000 tons of solid steel were recovered at Ground Zero refutes, entirely and unequivocally, Judy Wood's claim that the World Trade Center was "dustified".

What does the fact that all that steel was recovered mean? It means that the photos which Wood took do not show the towers being dustified. If it did, then the steel could not have been recovered. So the photos must show something else.

They are not evidence of dustification.

See:

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

I find the fact that the page's URL is "StarWarsBeam3" to be incredibly funny. Anyone else?

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

You've got it the wrong way around. The "visual evidence" is inadequate in the face of the statistic. As you have not proven that the photo actually shows dustification, it is not enough to prove that dustification occurred rather than it simply showing a cloud of debris.

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.

One hundred and eight-five thousand tons is "a little"?

Thirdly, the handling of the debris at GZ was done in a way so as to thwart forensic examination.

Evidence?

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.

Four hundred and fifty million kilograms, or nine hundred ninety million pounds, or four hundred and ninety-five thousand tons.

Of course, this includes much more than the steel. Even looking at this, though, we can see that almost forty percent (37.4%, to be precise) of the tower's total mass was recovered in solid steel alone.

Your claims of "dustification" are nonsense.

 

[Nonpareil]

Peer review, is, indeed, inherently, even at its best, a mere fallacy. You know this.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[jammonius]

Yes. It does.

What you do not seem to understand, jammonius, is that the fact that 185,000 tons of solid steel were recovered at Ground Zero refutes, entirely and unequivocally, Judy Wood's claim that the World Trade Center was "dustified".

Even without examination, your claim of refutation is false. An assertion about the weight of steel does not refute what was seen to happen. Further, the assertion about weight has not ever been reliably determined our sourced.

Your claim is not supported by any source; and, your claim is contradicted by FEMA. I refer here to FEMA WTC Report, Appendix D.

See: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

There, it was acknowledged that the steel recovered was mixed, and was not, by any means, solid steel. Indeed, as the complex had been annihilated, it stands to reason that any claim concerning "solid steel" is at variance with what was seen to have occurred. In the first instance, the annihilation was almost instantaneous and on a scale and manner not seen before. In the second place, not much was left and what was left was a tangled mess. There was no such thing as solid steel that could be put on a scale. Those weight estimates are just that: estimates. And, they are unpersuasive as to the claim of dustification. That claim is best approached by taking a look at the visual evidence of destruction.

There is also visual evidence of what the steel looked like when it was collected. It remained tangled, as shown in the referenced FEMA report, pg. 2:

That mess was almost certainly not accurately weighed. Indeed, the same FEMA report linked above notes that the weight of the buildings' steel was only estimated BEFORE it was destroyed, let alone afterwards.

What does the fact that all that steel was recovered mean? It means that the photos which Wood took do not show the towers being dustified. If it did, then the steel could not have been recovered. So the photos must show something else.

They are not evidence of dustification.

Your claim is not only not supported, I have shown that it is contradicted by the actual evidence compiled by FEMA.

I find the fact that the page's URL is "StarWarsBeam3" to be incredibly funny. Anyone else?

A name is just a name.

You've got it the wrong way around. The "visual evidence" is inadequate in the face of the statistic. As you have not proven that the photo actually shows dustification, it is not enough to prove that dustification occurred rather than it simply showing a cloud of debris.

In this dialogue, I am the one who has posted both visual evidence and a link to the actual statistical claim.

One hundred and eight-five thousand tons is "a little"?


Evidence?

Cut the rhetorical crap.

Four hundred and fifty million kilograms, or nine hundred ninety million pounds, or four hundred and ninety-five thousand tons.

I fear that your use of numbers as quoted above merely serves to obfuscate. Your numbers do not overcome the visual evidence of what happened to the WTC complex. It was dustified.

Of course, this includes much more than the steel. Even looking at this, though, we can see that almost forty percent (37.4%, to be precise) of the tower's total mass was recovered in solid steel alone.

Your claims of "dustification" are nonsense.

Nope. The claim of dustification stands.

 

[excaza]

There is also visual evidence of what the steel looked like when it was collected. It remained tangled, as shown in the referenced FEMA report, pg. 2:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/femasteelappd.jpg?t=1286324145[/qimg]

Yes, that material certainly looks dustified.

 

[jammonius]

Well, Jams...I'm not going to spend a few hours watching news scrolls looking for evidence of your claim. I did, however, watch this one:



I don't see any news report...scrolling, verbally, or otherwise...that even suggests anything about OBL.

So seeing that you have no intention on proving your claim, I'll just remind our viewers that this claim is completely invalid.

Fine with me. Go ahead and make your claim that OBL was not accused on live teevee on 9/11 before the annihilation had happened.

Enjoy

 

[jammonius]

Yes, that material certainly looks dustified.

You can miss the point to your heart's content, Excaza.

 

[leftysergeant]

Even without examination, your claim of refutation is false. An assertion about the weight of steel does not refute what was seen to happen. Further, the assertion about weight has not ever been reliably determined our sourced.

That is actually all you need to debunk dustification. If steel is missing from the pile, then there is a possibility of dustification. If it was dustified, you still have to account for where it went.

There was no such thing as solid steel that could be put on a scale. Those weight estimates are just that: estimates. And, they are unpersuasive as to the claim of dustification. That claim is best approached by taking a look at the visual evidence of destruction.

You have just shown an uter lack of understanding of how scrap metal is handled. Of course that stuff can be put on a scale and weighed.

You an empty truck on an industrial-sized scale and weigh it, recording the weight as the "tare" weight. You load the steel onto the empty truck and weigh both together. This is the "total" weight. You subtract the "tare" from the "total" and you have the weight of the steel.

I mean DUH, man!
This aint rocket science or brain surgery. I knew that crap in grade school.