Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

Disrespecting Judy Wood

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

I discuss the work of Steven Jones as it is, as he produced it.
I can do this because I have very closely studied the work of
Steven Jones since it first appeared on the scene.

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I can't even say I like the woman personally, but you don't see me
disrespecting her because I understand in outline what she is
talking about, and it is interesting and very solid science.

Name call her and you call yourself out as lazy or bad at science.

 

[plague311]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

I discuss the work of Steven Jones as it is, as he produced it.
I can do this because I have very closely studied the work of
Steven Jones since it first appeared on the scene.

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I can't even say I like the woman personally, but you don't see me
disrespecting her because I understand in outline what she is
talking about, and it is interesting and very solid science.

Name call her and you call yourself out as lazy or bad at science.

I'm fine with that, Judy Woods is nuttier than squirrel ****. I have no issues saying it. I also, am not a scientist...I do IT.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I would agree with you, if the "scientist" in question produced actual reputable work instead of endorsing a conspiracy theory whose entire argument revolves around the idea that no toilets were found intact at the scene of a building collapse. At that point, I think it's pretty safe not to take that person seriously.

 

[GlennB]

Name call her and you call yourself out as lazy or bad at science.

Or, possibly .... you have read the detailed analyses that show why DEW technology could not explain the WTC collapses and have understood them perfectly well.

You then observe that Wood hasn't taken any of this in, or even responded.

You conclude that she is not (or rather, is no longer) a scientist.

Then you call her theories bat-crap crazy. With justification.

WTC Dust - where were the devices used in the <cough> 'dustification' positioned?

 

[LSSBB]

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I haven't said anything that I can recall regarding Dr. Wood, because I don't understand what she is saying. You mentioned in the other thread that she has a theory based on "field effects". I don't know what that is in this context. I do have undergraduate degrees in science, so I'm sure I could understand it if it is well explained.

That said, I have seen it stated that her theory involves Directed Energy Weapons. Since I know that the best a DEW has been able to do to date is put a hole in a simulated pirate boat's engine, I don't put much stock in the idea that it could have been used to demolish a skyscraper. Especially as with thermxte there is no other visual corroboration of the employment of the tool.

 

[WTC Dust]

Who are you referring to?

I would agree with you, if the "scientist" in question produced actual reputable work instead of endorsing a conspiracy theory whose entire argument revolves around the idea that no toilets were found intact at the scene of a building collapse. At that point, I think it's pretty safe not to take that person seriously.

 

[WTC Dust]

I read some debunking attempts, but nothing that was
a solid refutation of DEW.

I seem to remember an argument that depended on
the weapon being directly ABOVE ground zero, but I find
this to be unnecessarily restrictive. The weapon could
have been anywhere, not just directly above Ground Zero,
and I don't see why anyone should accept this as a
precondition.

I don't have an opinion on where the weapon was physically
located. Could have been deep in the sea or far away on a
mountain top, as far as I'm concerned.

Or, possibly .... you have read the detailed analyses that show why DEW technology could not explain the WTC collapses and have understood them perfectly well.

You then observe that Wood hasn't taken any of this in, or even responded.

You conclude that she is not (or rather, is no longer) a scientist.

Then you call her theories bat-crap crazy. With justification.

WTC Dust - where were the devices used in the <cough> 'dustification' positioned?

 

[WTC Dust]

You have a respectable amount of science education.
You probably remember that the human eye can only
perceive a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Lots of energy waves are invisible, but they don't bother
you. You know radio signals are there, even though you
can't see them. Gamma rays. X-rays. We can't see these
wavelengths.

With this thought, are you willing to say that at least
you wouldn't necessarily expect to see the beam itself?

Thermite had nothing to do with the destruction of the
WTC, so it's not worth discussing.

I haven't said anything that I can recall regarding Dr. Wood, because I don't understand what she is saying. You mentioned in the other thread that she has a theory based on "field effects". I don't know what that is in this context. I do have undergraduate degrees in science, so I'm sure I could understand it if it is well explained.

That said, I have seen it stated that her theory involves Directed Energy Weapons. Since I know that the best a DEW has been able to do to date is put a hole in a simulated pirate boat's engine, I don't put much stock in the idea that it could have been used to demolish a skyscraper. Especially as with thermxte there is no other visual corroboration of the employment of the tool.

 

[carlitos]

After reading the OP's posts on another topic, and realizing that she apparently has a PhD and still believes this nonsense, the only logical conclusion is that this is a mental health issue. I hope she's OK, but I'm not optimistic about her prospects without intervention. Apparently, she got a job after being interviewed in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, so I hope that's OK, and that future HR people aren't smart enough to google her name and find this stuff here (or that old posting about offering sex for weed).

That said, her observation isn't really different from the other nonsense we see here:

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Buddhism, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand the guru.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in ufology, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Erich von Däniken.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Zero Point Energy.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in video analysis, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand femr2's charts on 9/11.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Christian mysticism, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Bernadette Roberts.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in cryptozoology, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Kaballah, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Michael Laitman .

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Transcendental Meditation then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand the Maharishi.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.​

 

[WTC Dust]

It's not a matter of belief. It's science. I can be proved wrong,
and I'm 100% willing to change my mind. Just not without proof.


If you haven't spent a hell of a lot of time reading Dr. Wood, then
you don't understand Dr. Wood. Simple enough.

After reading the OP's posts on another topic, and realizing that she apparently has a PhD and still believes this nonsense, the only logical conclusion is that this is a mental health issue. I hope she's OK, but I'm not optimistic about her prospects without intervention. Apparently, she got a job after being interviewed in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, so I hope that's OK, and that future HR people aren't smart enough to google her name and find this stuff here (or that old posting about offering sex for weed).

That said, her observation isn't really different from the other nonsense we see here:

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Buddhism, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand the guru.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in ufology, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Erich von Däniken.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Zero Point Energy.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in video analysis, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand femr2's charts on 9/11.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Christian mysticism, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Bernadette Roberts.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in cryptozoology, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Kaballah, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Michael Laitman .

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in Transcendental Meditation then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand the Maharishi.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.​

 

[NoahFence]

It's not a matter of belief. It's science. I can be proved wrong,
and I'm 100% willing to change my mind. Just not without proof.

That is a lie. No amount of reality shoved into that cavernous area between your ears will change your mind. It's been attempted already, and it has failed.

A DEW capable of what we saw on 9/11 does not exist. The results of the use of that weapon do not exist. They are figiments of your VERY overactive imagination. You claim the results are the complete "dustification" of the twin towers. That is a LIE. - not a mistake. A lie.

What do you gain by lying?

 

[beachnut]

It's not a matter of belief. It's science. I can be proved wrong,
and I'm 100% willing to change my mind. Just not without proof.


If you haven't spent a hell of a lot of time reading Dr. Wood, then
you don't understand Dr. Wood. Simple enough.

You were proved wrong, the steel did not turn to dust. Have you changed your mind?

You were wrong the momentum model of the WTC is correct, yet you deny the physics. Have you change your mind? You say you know physics, have you changed your mind to support science, or woo?

I read all of Dr Wood, she is insane, or she has an insane claim of Beam Weapons cause the WTC destruction, you think some unknown weapon did it. Both of you have idiotic insane claims.

Normal people aren't highly educated and creative, like Dr. Wood and me.

Judy is insane.

The iron that was found used to be caught up in the steel, but the steel got pulverized down to the elements, which results in iron being detected.

You make insane claims.

I've never seen any direct evidence that the steel was shipped off to be recycled, only hearsay evidence.
Look at the hole on 9/12, and there isn't actually that much steel.

A four to five story high hole of ruble. You are wrong, you ignore the proof and evidence, you remain wrong.

 

[jhunter1163]

An excellent debunking of the beam-weapon hypothesis by our very own R.Mackey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

 

[jhunter1163]

And folks, do let's be civil and polite. Don't make me put on my Mod Hat.

 

[twinstead]

And folks, do let's be civil and polite. Don't make me put on my Mod Hat.

If you do, please wear the sombrero. I like the sombrero.

 

[CompusMentus]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name, nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

You begin by equating disrespect with derogation. Your choice of terms here is interesting.

Pointing out that Steven Jones is "an enemy of the United States" and "evil" isn't derogatory?

You don't think that your words detract from his character or express a low opinion of him? I'm calling into quesion here your definition of the word derogatory. Please explain.

Compus

 

[NoahFence]

An excellent debunking of the beam-weapon hypothesis by our very own R.Mackey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102

Not that the very premise puts itself to bed right off the bat, (or batty if you so choose)

but the actual logistics of it in that thread are amazing. How about fly planes into them and hope for the best?

Dusty? Comments?

 

[The Big Dog]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

That is literally the fastest I have ever seen anyone contradict themselves.

Wow.

 

[fitzgibbon]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name, nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

You aren't serious, are you? So every person who comes up with an insane notion must be afforded respect regardless of the insanity of the notion? I hope that works in WTC Dust world; I've yet to see it played out for any continuing length of time in the real world. Human beings are imperfect beings with a finite amount of patience. We tend to parcel it out where it's most deserved

Name call her and you call yourself out as lazy or bad at science.

Were we referring to a scientist of the proved stature of Nicola Tesla, you might have a point.

But we're not. We're referring to someone Rube Goldbergising basic physics while applying Smacco's Razor to a non-problem.

Fitz

 

[TJM]

Disrespect Dr. Wood?

Sure do, and will continue to do so.

Before any discussion of her imaginary weapon system can be discussed, the good doctor is first and foremost, a no-planer. A theory so incredibly daft it renders any further disccussion on the topic moot. Even more so when she cannot or will not define whatever this imaginary weapon is.