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

[TSR]

Further, the assertion about weight has not ever been reliably determined our sourced.

.
If the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, what kind of source would you accept?
.

 

[Nonpareil]

Even without examination, your claim of refutation is false.

Did you seriously just say "without examination"?

Oh, man...

An assertion about the weight of steel does not refute what was seen to happen.

It does, if the assertion is fact (it is), and what was "seen to happen" was not, in fact, seen to happen (it wasn't), and the claim about what was seen to happen does not entail that it was impossible for said fact to be true.

In short, yes. It does.

Further, the assertion about weight has not ever been reliably determined our sourced.

Yes, it has. Unless you claim that the NIST report is a lie.

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.

"Mixed" does not mean "not solid". That you are unable to distinguish between the two terms is not entirely surprising.

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.

"Annihilated"? Destroyed, yes, but hardly reduced to its component molecules - which is what would be required for there to not be solid steel. Are you proposing that the WTC was vaporized?

In the first instance, the annihilation was almost instantaneous

Twelve point five seconds is "instantaneous" now? When did physics change so drastically?

In the second place, not much was left

One hundred and eighty-five thousand tons is "not much"?

and what was left was a tangled mess.

"Tangled" does not mean "not solid".

There was no such thing as solid steel that could be put on a scale.

Seeing as you yourself refuted this later in your post, I will just sit back and grin. I'll let you know when we get to that bit.

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:

Yep, there it is. Looks solid to me. And weigh-able.

That mess was almost certainly not accurately weighed.

And you know this... how? Indeed, seeing as it is entirely possible to weigh things like this (ever heard of a "weigh station"?), and that we have a record of how much it weighed, it seems likely that it was.

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.

Uh, no. The FEMA section you linked to actually says that the steel was weighed. Try reading what you link to.

The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons.

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

Nothing in the FEMA report contradicts what I have said. In fact, it supports what I said in its entirety, and destroys what you said.

A name is just a name.

And names can be entertaining.

In this dialogue, I am the one who has posted both visual evidence

Of what? Dustification? No, you haven't. Of the fact that the steel was not dustified? Yes, you have.

Thanks, by the way.

Cut the rhetorical crap.

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

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.

Um, yes, they do, because you have presented no visual evidence of dustification. You have presented photos of a debris cloud. That is not evidence of dustification.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I here assert that Dr. Wood's calculations stand as unrefuted.

Baseless assertions are, after all, your stock in trade.

Your one correct assertion was that you yourself did not understand Dr Wood's calculations. Evidently you did not understand the many errors that Myriad, Oystein, and others have pointed out in those calculations either. You continue to make sweeping assertions about matters you have no hope of understanding.

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.

Baseless assertions are, after all, your stock in trade.

Let's take a look at that government site you've been going on about since your very first post in this thread:

In looking over this thread and in wading through the omnipresent put down posts, it would appear that the proof put forward by Dr. Judy Wood confirming that directed energy weaponry (DEW) were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex (WTC) on 9/11/01 stands as the only comprehensively proven explanation of what took place that day that has been placed in the record of a competent governmental authority.

Dr. Wood's comprehensive proof of claim that DEW caused the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11 was placed in the public, governmental record starting in March, 2007 and can be found at:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal

The foregoing is the only comprehensivley proven explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex that has ever been published in a public, governmental forum.

That governmental web site contains the public record for the eight requests for correction that were received during FY2007. Only five of those requests for correction involve NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

Although you have repeatedly emphasized the "governmental" provenance of that web site as part of your fallacious argument from false authority for Dr Judy Wood's DEW delusions, the following extracts from the government's responses reveal no governmental endorsement for Dr Wood's delusions. Indeed, the government categorically rejects Dr Wood's delusions:

....In your letters you challenge the premises and the "probable collapse seuqence" proposed by NIST in NCSTAR 1 explaining the sequence of events leading up to the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. As an alternative, you assert in your letters that "the evidence confirms that the World Trade Center towers were felled by use of Directed Energy Weaponry." In addition, you assert that Applied Research Associates (ARA), a NIST WTC Investigation contractor, had a conflict of interest...because ARA is a "significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof." For the reasons presented below, NIST is denying your request for correction and does not plan to retract the NCSTAR 1 report as you have requested....

....Your request for correction further asserts that NIST's findings violate the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy. NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons. The NIST analysis satisfied both the momentum and energy conservation principles....

....You further claim that ARA is a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof. Since there is no factual evidence to support this claim, NIST has no basis for accepting your proposed corrections to NCSTAR 1.

In conclusion, NIST is denying your request....

....Your appeal reiterates the original claims of your RFC and supplements, adding additional images of the WTC disaster....

In preparing a response to your appeal, NIST staff who did not participate in the NIST World Trade Center Investigation and who did not participate in the preparation of the NIST response to your initial RFC reviewed your appeal and the history of your RFC.....

The conclusions of that review are as follows:

• ....In response to issues you raised concerning energy and momentum....I find that the NIST WTC Investigation need no correction on this issue.
• Regarding your assertion that ARA is a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof...I find that the NIST WTC Investigation reports need no correction on this issue.

Based on the results of the review, I have determined that the NIST WTC Investigation as described in NCSTAR 1 and the supporting reports was thorough and based on all available evidence and that the original NIST response to your RFC was appropriate. Therefore, NCSTAR 1 will not be retracted or otherwise modified based on this appeal. Thank you for your comments and concern.

Those quotations are from the government's responses to Dr Judy Wood at the governmental web page you've been citing. Far from endorsing Dr Wood's DEW delusions, the government has rejected those delusions.

What you should have been saying all along is that Dr Judy Wood is among the select few whose DEW delusions have been thoroughly rejected by an official government web site.

 

[TSR]

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

.
Which page is it that you claim contradicts the NY Daily News article?

You *do* realize that FEMA was not tasked to and so did not weigh all of the remaining steel, right?
.

There, it was acknowledged that the steel recovered was mixed, and was not, by any means, solid steel.

.
Even if true that the steel was an alloy (I assume that's what you mean by "mixed",) would it not have been "dustified" as well?

And again: they did not examine *all* of the remaining steel.

What about the other hundreds of thousands of tons of debris -- was all of that somehow immune to your "directed energy?"

BTW -- what *was* that energy, anyway?
.

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.

.
16 seconds and 13 seconds is "almost instantaneous?"

Yet another redefinition by Jamm.
.

In the second place, not much was left and what was left was a tangled mess.

.
Ummmm, the buildings had just collapsed -- what would you expect what was left to look like?
.

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.

.
How does one know what one should charge / pay for scrap metal then?

You do, of course, have source for your claim about "the best way" as it applied to other build collapses, right?
.

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]

.
Again, what *should* it have looked like?
.

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.

.
And the FEMA report olny talks about the steel they examined.

And how would one go about "destroying" steel? How would weight something if it has been destroyed?
.

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

.
Except for the teeny tiny problem that your source only contradicts *you*.
.

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

.
Except for the teeny tiny problem that you have been shown to lie about and misinterpret "visual evidence."

And which statistical claim?
.

Cut the rhetorical crap.

.
Once again, you're using that word incorrectly.
.

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.

.
Yes, they do -- your "visual evidence" *cannot* contradict the number, because even if you weighed it, you would not get the weight of what's *in* the picture.
.

It was dustified.
Nope. The claim of dustification stands.

.
Sure, Jamm -- they were dustified. Except for the hundreds of thousands of tons of them that weren't.
.

 

[Sabretooth]

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

Whatever, Jams. You made the claim, not me. Call me when you have some evidence. I'll expect your call never.

 

[Oystein]

Cut the rhetoric and make a claim.

Cut the rhetoric and realize that the claim is contained in the question.

 

[Oystein]

You are not the arbiter of the sufficiency of proof.

Neither are you. Drop that silly argument.

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.

Youi declare government records wrong, and make yourself an arbiter of what is and isnt't proof? You are such a hypocrite!!!

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

Youi declare government records wrong, and make yourself an arbiter of what is and isnt't proof? You are such a hypocrite!!!

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

TSR, in very stark contrast to you, understands the basics physics and engineering and is thus much better equipped to make such claims in this context.

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.

You assume "pyrotechnical displays" and you assume DEW. What a riddle!

Look at this:

[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.

This image is deceptive, and you know it: The caption talks of "attacks" in the plural! This means that this screencap was taken AFTER the South Tower plane crash. Clearly, the image is a re-run. That is what you get when you post stills instead of video in context.

You lie and decieve, jammonius. Stop it.

The problem with poster resistance to the proof of DEW, demonstrated by Dr. Wood,

You assume that Miss Wood has presented proof. You can't be the arbiter of this, as you obviously lack the scientific basics in your education to make sucha call.

is that such resistance feeds into the PSYOP that was perpetrated;

You assume psyops.

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.

More assumptions about things you hear on the news.

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

Are being ... yet again? Name the poor countries that get bombed this time around.

I've said many times, it is best to apply the rules of logic to one's own posting.

Rules that you don't apply yourself. You try to hold us to standards that you violate yourself in practically every paragraph.

I post as best as I can and I assume you do the same.

You even admit to riddling your posts with assumptions

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.

You invent fallacies. You make them up. Another technique of lying and deceicing that you must stop, jammonius.

 

[DGM]

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

.

This link uses a technical term that I'm not familiar with. Could you explain the meaning of the term "poof" ?

I can truly say it's a unique "scientific" paper that captions a photo.

Figure 314(b). Steel wheatchex turn into a brown blob

 

[tsig]

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.



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.



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."



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.



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



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.



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.

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

Your hilited sentences contradict each other.

 

[tsig]

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.

You're saying that elements of the government are covering up the crime while other elements are attempting to uncover the crime.

The phrase "A house divided" comes to mind.

 

[catsmate]

"I would like to know how in FSM's name did the whole planet miss this thing being launched? Does anyone think that this sort of thing is not monitored by the likes of China and Russia? It must be huge given the power requirements. That would mean a massive launch vehicle, which apparently no one spotted.
Jammy, have you considered bring cloaking devices into your life
Here's some help in what to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device"

You mean you didn't see the nuclear pulse-detonation launch?

.
If the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, what kind of source would you accept?
.

Don't you know the rule? If it supports the Jammy Dodger's delusions then it's a 'reliable source', if it doesn't support them then it isn't. Simple really.

 

[jammonius]

Yes, that material certainly looks dustified.

 

[jammonius]

.
If the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, what kind of source would you accept?
.

TSR,

I have dealt with this before in other threads, notably the Dick Oliver threads and the ALL 43 threads. Newspaper articles are not ever considered reliable as evidence for either legal or valid historical documentation purposes. One has to go to the primary sources for purposes of establishing the truth of a factual assertion that might have been made in a newspaper.

Rather than go on and on about this, you can just google "newspaper articles as evidence" or some variation on that if you are interested.

In some thread or other, I have noted, for instance, that the oft repeated, and intrinsically stupid, claim that China bought scrap steel from the annihilated WTC complex derives from a Chinese student newspaper that may not even say that. Instead, the article actually deals with a purchase by a Chinese company of steel from India. The reference to WTC steel, even in that simple-minded source (when considered from the perspective of sourcing a claim like China bought remnant steel), was not even a clearly articulated claim.

Rather, it is simply an element of the PSYOP, something designed to account for the clear absence of steel. Needless to say, the claim that the steel is in China serves to anchor the thought that the steel is gone.

Yes, the steel was gone. It was annihilated by DEW.

Newspapers can be ok for sources for a variety of purposes, but not for purposes of establishing the truth of a factual claim. Newspapers are too unreliable for that.

 

[jammonius]

Baseless assertions are, after all, your stock in trade.

Good day to you, too, WD.

Your one correct assertion was that you yourself did not understand Dr Wood's calculations. Evidently you did not understand the many errors that Myriad, Oystein, and others have pointed out in those calculations either. You continue to make sweeping assertions about matters you have no hope of understanding.

No, I am simply not going to let you get away with gross overstatement like that. Dr. Wood's calculations were valid. Dr. Wood is as good as anyone else at her level of expertise and training in the formulation and the presentation of mathematical abstractions. It is no more uncommon for mathematicians, physicists or others who rely on mathematical abstraction to disagree with each other and to claim that each other has made this, that or the other "error" as it is for any other group of professional people to disagree with one another. You know the old saw: "Put 3 ___________'s in a room and you get 4 opinions."

So it is here.

What is childish, however, is the apparent need of some to make claims that "they are right and Dr. Wood wrong" all of which claims were self-generated, self-serving and self-righteous. It is flat out childish to post in that manner. It is unnecessary, serves no valid purpose and only reflects on the poster and not on Dr. Wood.

Dr. Wood's calculations are valid. There were a few claims of error, usually focused on one line in one part of the equation(s) under consideration and done without much reference to the actual context and the actual observed data upon which Dr. Wood's calculations were based.

There were not a lot of errors. Rather, there was a lot of hyperbolic claims of error, done for purposes of self-congratulatory ranting and raving.

Baseless assertions are, after all, your stock in trade.

How many times are you going to find it necessary to repeat that? Until you convince yourself, or what?

Let's take a look at that government site you've been going on about since your very first post in this thread:

That governmental web site contains the public record for the eight requests for correction that were received during FY2007. Only five of those requests for correction involve NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

Well, I'll be darned. Now we're getting somewhere WD. That's the right style. Let's actually examine the substance of what I posted and then engage in a proper rebuttal.

Congratulations on heading in the right direction. Now, let's examine what you have posted:

Although you have repeatedly emphasized the "governmental" provenance of that web site as part of your fallacious argument from false authority for Dr Judy Wood's DEW delusions, the following extracts from the government's responses reveal no governmental endorsement for Dr Wood's delusions. Indeed, the government categorically rejects Dr Wood's delusions:

While you are correct that the government's response does not reveal much in the way of endorsement, something to which I will turn in a moment, you have not got any right to refer to Dr. Wood's tremendous work with the word "delusion" or any of its derivatives.

You cheapen what might have been a fair rebuttal attempt by revealing a need to castigate the considerable work done by Dr. Wood.

The government did not do that; and neither should you have, provided you want to be taken seriously. Apparently, you do not.

Those quotations are from the government's responses to Dr Judy Wood at the governmental web page you've been citing. Far from endorsing Dr Wood's DEW delusions, the government has rejected those delusions.

What you should have been saying all along is that Dr Judy Wood is among the select few whose DEW delusions have been thoroughly rejected by an official government web site.

Once again, what could have been a proper exercise in rebuttal was, instead, debased by you such that you cannot be taken seriously. You lack objectivity, balance and the ability to respond appropriately.

Now, here's what might, nonetheless, be salvaged from your failings.

The first response to Dr. Wood is dated July 27, 2007 and can be found here:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004161.pdf

Posters are invited to read it.

Let's now consider the context. The reviewing entity was the entity that prepared the report, NCSTAR 1, that Dr. Wood refuted and declared, instead, that DEW were a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex.

On the one hand, you might come away from reading the July 27th response with the notion that NIST had rejected Dr. Wood's findings.

However, if you do that, you will have ignored the salient and the reveasling portion of that July 27th response.

The salient portion of the response states as follows:

As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.

There it is. NIST did not investigate the "collapses."

Thus, any rejection by NIST of the findings of Dr. Wood that DEW destroyed the WTC complex is inherently flawed, without merit, without value and without substance. NIST cannot reject findings based on what it, itself, did not investigate.

And, what is more, it is not even true that NCSTAR 1 says that NIST did not investigate what it calls "the collapses". There are two footnotes in the NCSTAR 1, 298 pg. Report that hint that NIST did not investigate, but that is not what they actually say. Instead, they leave it rather vague.

By the way, "collapse" isn't even the right term. The towers did not collapse. They were annihilated and pulverized and destroyed. They did not fall or collapse. That is what Dr. Wood's analysis revealed.

Permit me to suggest that if you want to be taken seriously by me and/or understood as engaging in a thoughtful process of rebuttal of what I post, then do, please, consider using proper language, free and clear from the ugly, meaningless put downs.

The subject is serious. NIST did not investigate what destroyed the WTC complex. Dr. Wood did.

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, it's concrete and drywall.......crushed by millions of tons of steel.....

 

[twinstead]

So there wouldn't be a dust cloud when the towers collapsed? Only DEW could have caused the dust in that picture?

Jamm. You are the WORST investigator EVER.

 

[jammonius]

Did you seriously just say "without examination"?

Oh, man...

Are you engaging in intentional misstatement, or mere hyperbole?

It does, if the assertion is fact (it is), and what was "seen to happen" was not, in fact, seen to happen (it wasn't), and the claim about what was seen to happen does not entail that it was impossible for said fact to be true.

In short, yes. It does.

You have not posted any reliable information about the 'before' and 'after' weight of steel. Further, I will not tolerate you simply using the unsubstantiated 'weight' issue as a means of avoiding looking at the observed data.

Straight up: The observed data controls in this instance for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the forensic examination of the site, where the issue of weight might have been one of many, many factors to consiser, was thwarted by tampering and intentional interference.

A factor that is seldom examined, acknowledge or considered, other than by Dr. Wood, that is, consist in the extent to which dirt, land fill and material apparently used to douse the after-effects of DEW were brought into GZ.

For consideration of that issue, please consider reveiwing the "Dirt" segment of Dr. Wood's comprehensive website.

To do so, you may start here:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html

Yes, it has. Unless you claim that the NIST report is a lie.

No need to claim "it is a lie." Rather, it is fraudulent because it deceives the public into thinking that it determined what happened to the WTC complex. However, as noted, NIST admitted to Dr. Wood that it, NIST, did not investigate the actual "collapses" something that is obviously true, because, had it done so it would have realized the towers didn't collapse in the first place. What NIST really meant, of course, was that it avoided having to analyze what happened so that it would not have to lie.

"Mixed" does not mean "not solid". That you are unable to distinguish between the two terms is not entirely surprising.

Your quibble is, frankly, not worthy of detailed response. If you've got a substantive point you want to try to make, go ahead and give it a try.

"Annihilated"? Destroyed, yes, but hardly reduced to its component molecules - which is what would be required for there to not be solid steel. Are you proposing that the WTC was vaporized?

Take a close and comprehensive look at Dr. Wood's findings. If you want to do it via the shortcut approach, try:

http://drjudywood.com/new.html

Twelve point five seconds is "instantaneous" now? When did physics change so drastically?

Please consider stopping the quibbling. It doesn't add much.

One hundred and eighty-five thousand tons is "not much"?

That is both quibble and rhetoric. I do not take kindly to rhetoric, as you may know by now.

"Tangled" does not mean "not solid".

More quibble. Sheesh

Seeing as you yourself refuted this later in your post, I will just sit back and grin. I'll let you know when we get to that bit.

Oh, no; are you a poster who gets a kick out of stupid 'gotcha games'? I hope not.

Yep, there it is. Looks solid to me. And weigh-able.

There is no evidence that weight was ever taken and there is no way of knowing how that mixed steel was assembled, from where, at what time, or even if it is solely limited to the WTC. That is yet another reminder of how the effort to do a proper forensic examination was completely debased by intentional obstruction of what should have been treated as a crime scene.

And you know this... how? Indeed, seeing as it is entirely possible to weigh things like this (ever heard of a "weigh station"?), and that we have a record of how much it weighed, it seems likely that it was.

That is a silly reply. You do not prove that weighing took place, you only engage in an attempt to use rhetoric in a way that leaves the issue vague, unsettled and unclaimed by you as a point you are trying to make.

Uh, no. The FEMA section you linked to actually says that the steel was weighed. Try reading what you link to.

No, I do not take it as being authoritative on that point. In the one section it refers to estimated weight. It does not prove that weighing took place and does not provide details of it, either.

Nothing in the FEMA report contradicts what I have said. In fact, it supports what I said in its entirety, and destroys what you said.

That is false.

And names can be entertaining.

I agree, names can be entertaining. Furthermore, levity, in connection with serious subjects, can be an aid to understanding.

Of what? Dustification? No, you haven't. Of the fact that the steel was not dustified? Yes, you have.

No. Dustification has been proven.

Thanks by the way.

I try to engage in substantive posting, confirming the accuracy of my claims with a posteriori proof.

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

It means what I think it means and I use the word properly.

Um, yes, they do, because you have presented no visual evidence of dustification. You have presented photos of a debris cloud. That is not evidence of dustification.

It is unfortunate that you end with quibble.

 

[jammonius]

You're saying that elements of the government are covering up the crime while other elements are attempting to uncover the crime.

The phrase "A house divided" comes to mind.

It might be worthwhile to consider the phrase, its ramifications, implications and potentialities.

Thanks for your post. It is helpful.

 

[TSR]

TSR,

I have dealt with this before in other threads, notably the Dick Oliver threads and the ALL 43 threads. Newspaper articles are not ever considered reliable as evidence for either legal or valid historical documentation purposes. One has to go to the primary sources for purposes of establishing the truth of a factual assertion that might have been made in a newspaper.

Rather than go on and on about this, you can just google "newspaper articles as evidence" or some variation on that if you are interested.

In some thread or other, I have noted, for instance, that the oft repeated, and intrinsically stupid, claim that China bought scrap steel from the annihilated WTC complex derives from a Chinese student newspaper that may not even say that. Instead, the article actually deals with a purchase by a Chinese company of steel from India. The reference to WTC steel, even in that simple-minded source (when considered from the perspective of sourcing a claim like China bought remnant steel), was not even a clearly articulated claim.

.
And your reliable, primary source for this claim?

Or do your rules only apply to *other* posters?
.

Rather, it is simply an element of the PSYOP, something designed to account for the clear absence of steel. Needless to say, the claim that the steel is in China serves to anchor the thought that the steel is gone.

Yes, the steel was gone. It was annihilated by DEW.

.
And your reliable, primary source for this claim?

Or do your rules only apply to *other* posters?
.

Newspapers can be ok for sources for a variety of purposes, but not for purposes of establishing the truth of a factual claim. Newspapers are too unreliable for that.

.
Of course, that *you* have used them as such doesn't matter...

Hypocrite much?
.

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/dustified1.jpg?t=1286408083[/qimg]

So, like, what distignuishes this dust from that of any other collapse or demolition, other than the fact that there was such a massive load of dry wall (which would normally be removed prior to demolitions to reduce the dust created) contributing to the dust clouds?