Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[beachnut]

... And as an example of what Spencer states that the 9/11 Commission Report did not "even begin to tell" is this:

"Even as NORAD's commander for the continental United States [Gen Larry] Arnold is not privy to everything concerning the [military] exercise."

Therein lies a clue to the use of secret compartmented information on 9/11.

Thanks to Ms. Spencer.

What does this have to do with the insane claims of Judy?

You don't understand flying, NORAD and the USAF; as you use nonsense to spin more nonsense.

 

[jammonius]

Judy Wood's bleatings have been well documented here over the years, from her ridiculous website full of fluff and nonsense,

drjudywood.com is an excellent website, detailing how the WTC complex was destroyed. Something you will not find in, say, the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

to her stupid request for correction submitted to NIST,

I have already provided the links found at NIST's Office of Chief Information Officer, where the RFC can be found.

to her interview with Greg Jenkins,

I agree that someone looks stupid in the interview with Greg Jenkins; i.e., Greg Jenkins.

to her ridiculous back and forth with "'Scholars' for 9/11 'Truth'",

Let's see, the word "ridiculous" was used for an earlier observation. Tsk tsk.

to her insane ramblings about 'the Hutchinson effect',

Dr. Wood has written a highly respected book, where "respect" is a conclusion based on the ranking the book has achieved. Her writing style in it is clear, cogent and extremely persuasive. It is far from rambling. So it is in connection with her reference to the Hutchinson Effect.

to her ludicrous qui tam application,

Ludicrous? Well, at least you avoiding using "ridiculous" for a third time.

to her even more ludicrous and bound-to-fail lawsuit against various and sundry companies. In the latter, her lawyer was very lucky in that he just barely escaped being sanctioned by the court for bringing such a stupid and bound-to-fail action, and managed to get off with a stern warning from the court not to bring any further stupid claims.

Ludicrous, (again), stupid (again, twice in same sentence!).

Well, let's put another spin on that exercise in hyperbolic disdain. No sanctions of any kind were imposed, precisely because the case was sufficiently substantiated to have made it improper for sanctions to be imposed. By the way, you didn't mention that sanctions were asked for at the district court level and at the appeal level and were DENIED all the way through.

I might here point out, that legal challenges to the common storyline of 9/11 have resulted in sanctions and money penalties against some lawyers in some cases challenging 9/11. None were imposed in the Wood case, despite multiple attempts to get them imposed.

It might be worthwhile to think a bit about that track record of failure of the various and sundry law firms (some large, some medium sized, some small) that represented the defendant corporations that included MIC behemouths SAIC and ARA to get any sanctions at all, ever, against Wood or her lawyer.

Is that something you'd attach the word "ridiculous" to?

Judy's bleatings are just repetitions of the same old same old, long-debunked nonsense without any substance that she's been spouting for years, none of which has ever amounted to a hill of beans because it is all complete and utter BS without any basis in fact or reality.

Debunked you say? I'd say the word "bleating" applies more to debunkers of Wood than Wood. But, hey, while that might be just my opinion, I'm sticking with it. I know one thing with certainty, though: I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with the NIST Report and/or the 9/11 Commission Report as proof of anything having to do with 9/11. Talk about bleating? In spades for those sources.

As an aside, you won't get far trying to tout Wood's 'book' here, so give it up.

Dr. Judy Wood merits respect.

 

[beachnut]

drjudywood.com is an excellent website, detailing how the WTC complex was destroyed. Something you will not find in, say, the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

... Dr. Judy Wood merits respect.

Her claims are insane. Her website is anti-intellectual claptrap, and anti-science. He does not use physics or math to come up with her fantasy.

NIST, the 911 Commission, and most first graders are intellectual Giants compared to Judy's work.

 

[twinstead]

Dr. Judy Wood merits respect.

You are welcome to respect anybody you want, and it doesn't surprise me that you do--she's telling you what you want to hear. Pardon me if I want a little less biased critique of Judy's ideas.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos,

"A lie" you say? You have claimed that WDTTG? is not found in any library, or words to that effect. As your statement is "absolute" in nature it is a bit hard for you to prove, don't you think?

By the way, do you agree with me that the word "incorrect" might be more suitable than "a lie"? The former is courteous and respectful; the latter, not so much. I know we don't have to be respectful to Judy Wood here; after all, the thread is entitled "disrespecting Judy Wood." But, the fact is, Librarians for 9/11 Truth were quoted in my post that you said contained "a lie."

Your statement is "incorrect."

You may wish to double check that post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8242257&postcount=200

Your lies are myriad. Tell you what - prove that this "book" was in a public library before my post and I will send you a pizza. Good luck.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Your lies are myriad. Tell you what - prove that this "book" was in a public library before my post and I will send you a pizza. Good luck.

Dude, that's a waste of a perfectly good pizza.

Worldcat shows 35 copies of the book (dunno if they're all in public libraries, and I'm not gonna page through all of them). The nearest one to me is in Geneva, New York, about a four-hour drive.

How many public libraries are there? No clue. Could any reasonable person construe the above data as evidence that Wood's work is respected or respectable? I would venture not.

 

[Sunstealer]

Judy Wood is no scientist.

Neither is WTCdust.

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Enjoy.

Welcome BTW.

Could only stand about 10 minutes of that. She is bonkers.

Hans

 

[jammonius]

Li·brar·ies. noun, plural that have Where Did the Towers Go?

Your lies are myriad. Tell you what - prove that this "book" was in a public library before my post and I will send you a pizza. Good luck.

This is only an indirect reply to the above as I do not seek to prove anything to you. You are the master of your own belief formation process, your own mechanism of determining when something has been proven to your satisfaction. I do not wish to enter into that process with you as it gives you too much power to be arbitrary. In the game you are proposing, you get to say when your have been satisfied that something is proven to you.

As for me engaging in that process: No thank you.

What I would like to offer, though, is the observation that those who have claimed Where Did the Towers Go? is unavailable in li·brar·ies. noun, plural appear to have used an unreliable search engine:

My own survey of the list of 35 li·brar·ies. noun, plural resulting from the above search show activity in the li·brar·ies. noun, plural whereby copies of WDTTG? are checked out AND/OR on hold.

You could order pizza for you and yours, and act as if it is on me

 

[CompusMentus]

Do you want to revisit that thread? I don't think you completed the project you started in that thread of posting up obituaries for all alleged passengers on alleged Flight 175.

More from the master of the Untruth. There was no such "project" as jammonius states above. I merely decided to counter every fallacious post by him there with immutable facts about the Flight 175 passengers. I did so with great effect. In the end he stopped posting his lies and distortions. There was then no need for me to continue. Job done.

Jammonius was outed in that thread as a believer in the most bizarre, outlandish ideas of what happened on 9/11. He was shown countless times to be unwilling to answer any relevant questions arising from his idiotic assertions there. Any contrary evidence presented against his daft story was dismissed by him as rhetoric or as "unproven" (although jammonius will never state what level of proof would be enough) or part of the grand impossible cover-up.

Jammonius, it can be seen, still has no proper answer to the unavoidable questions that arise from the fate of the passengers. If there were "no planes" on 9/11 where are these people? What happened to them? Did they not exist? I deliberately chose the Hanson case as an example because some of the facts of that case were tested in a Court of Law. As a self-procaimed searcher for "Truth" why does he not investigate these tested facts? Facts that turn his insane theory on its head?

In answer to his question, I don't want to revisit that thread. What would be the point? Until jammonius shows he has the spermsacks to address some of the pertinent points I outline above I'm content to sit back, smile and watch him dangle.

Respect? As someone correctly wrote above, respect has to be earned. You have to put the graft in. Judy and jam have done no such thing and probably never will.

Somebody should tell Judy to enjoy her time in the faint glow of the little fire she has lit. But be sure to warn her how cold it gets when the flame finally flickers and dies.

Poof!


Compus

 

[MarkLindeman]

Oh brother.

You have not quoted anything from Ground Truth. I think your post is, then, rather inconsistent. You do no more than quote a teevee interview, not the book.

If you can't support your assertions, then they're unsupported. It really doesn't matter what anyone else cites.

As we all know, teevee is a medium of misrepresentation and of illusion.

I was gonna let this one go, but it's just too funny. Does this assertion mean anything in this context? Are you surmising that Farmer was forced to read those words from a script? that Farmer was impersonated by an animatronic simulacrum? anything?

If you claim Ground Truth is a resounding reaffirmation of the 9/11 Commission Report, rather than a critique of its flaws and of its weaknesses, so be it.

And if he doesn't, and the rest of us wonder why you are reduced to putting words in other people's mouths instead of supporting your own, so be that.

I do not have a copy of Ground Truth. I borrowed it; read it and came away with the impression it was intended to convey disappointment with the commission report and to inform the public that the commission did not do a good job. Given the position John Farmer had, I formed the opinion that he was veiling his criticism and his reporting on how the commission had functioned so as to make very serious claims, but to do so in as milquetoast a fashion as possilble.

If you disagree, fine. I am here reporting on my recollection of the book.

Nonsense. Your original assertion wasn't about your "impression" or your "recollection"; it was about the book itself. As for your purposed "opinion" that Farmer was "mak[ing] very serious claims... in as milquetoast a fashion as possilble [sic]," I can't help but notice that not only is this opinion unsupported, but it's meaningless unless you specify the claims.

But, hey, you are the master of your own belief formation process, your own mechanism of determining when something has been proven to your satisfaction. Have fun!

 

[Scott Sommers]

I have to say that, much to my surprise, Jammi appears to be correct. The Vancouver Public Library has 2 copies, both of which are borrowed and on hold for when they're returned. Although it does appear that the public library system of the North West Territories does not have a copy. I have always though that this no-plane stuff stinks like a bucket of horse urine, but now that Chris Mohr has successfully raised money and replicated that landmark thermite study, we now know that can't explain what happened on 9/11. Maybe Jammi is right and we should be trying to raise money to test some of theories of that shining paragon of scientific brilliance Dr. Judy Wood, PhD - that's Misses Doctor to you.

I've said right from the start that thermite is just as believable an explanation as space-based ray guns turning concrete into oatmeal...oh sorry, I mean dust...or is it foam now?

 

[jammonius]

More from the master of the Untruth. There was no such "project" as jammonius states above. I merely decided to counter every fallacious post by him there with immutable facts about the Flight 175 passengers. I did so with great effect. In the end he stopped posting his lies and distortions. There was then no need for me to continue. Job done.

Jammonius was outed in that thread as a believer in the most bizarre, outlandish ideas of what happened on 9/11. He was shown countless times to be unwilling to answer any relevant questions arising from his idiotic assertions there. Any contrary evidence presented against his daft story was dismissed by him as rhetoric or as "unproven" (although jammonius will never state what level of proof would be enough) or part of the grand impossible cover-up.

Jammonius, it can be seen, still has no proper answer to the unavoidable questions that arise from the fate of the passengers. If there were "no planes" on 9/11 where are these people? What happened to them? Did they not exist? I deliberately chose the Hanson case as an example because some of the facts of that case were tested in a Court of Law. As a self-procaimed searcher for "Truth" why does he not investigate these tested facts? Facts that turn his insane theory on its head?

In answer to his question, I don't want to revisit that thread. What would be the point? Until jammonius shows he has the spermsacks to address some of the pertinent points I outline above I'm content to sit back, smile and watch him dangle.

Respect? As someone correctly wrote above, respect has to be earned. You have to put the graft in. Judy and jam have done no such thing and probably never will.

Somebody should tell Judy to enjoy her time in the faint glow of the little fire she has lit. But be sure to warn her how cold it gets when the flame finally flickers and dies.

Poof!


Compus

Did you challenge the use of the word "project" in the thread you seem to want to revive? I know I called it a project in that thread; well, to be sure, "propaganda project."

Look Compus, I think you're out on a limb, to be candid about it. If you want to start posting in that thread again, do so. I will here note that if you do not complete the ______ [word for project that you find suitable] you started, it will raise the inference that there are no obituaries for some of the alleged victims, a factor that gives rise to the inference they were made up.

Since that thread, it has been disclosed that military PSYOPS specifically include the making up of fake people, based on fake identities that are all documentable via web searches, including photos. But, then again, in re 9/11 we already knew that.

Here is a post of mine giving a then summary of where you had gotten in re Flight 175:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6298401&postcount=3670

 

[BaaBaa]

Vicsims?

Really?

Somebody tell me when Jammy gets better material because he's off to the bin....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Unless you are a medical doctor who has examined Dr. Wood,
you have no position to claim that she is insane. If you were
a medical doctor who had examined Dr. Wood, and you repeated
that she was insane, she'd have a legal case against you.

Sorry, you are right. Its her claims that are insane. And yes I am qualified to say that.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Sorry, you are right. Its her claims that are insane. And yes I am qualified to say that.

Actually, this is wrong. 'Insanity' is a literary term derived from folk understanding of strange behavior. It dates back to the 16th century, and is not used by doctors to describe patients.

The technical term that is owned by medical doctors is mental illness.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I will here note that if you do not complete the ______ [word for project that you find suitable] you started, it will raise the inference that there are no obituaries for some of the alleged victims, a factor that gives rise to the inference they were made up.

See, this is the problem with being a noob: I can never quite believe how silly some of the arguments are.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Look Compus, I think you're out on a limb, to be candid about it. If you want to start posting in that thread again, do so. I will here note that if you do not complete the ______ [word for project that you find suitable] you started, it will raise the inference that there are no obituaries for some of the alleged victims, a factor that gives rise to the inference they were made up.

No, that does not follow. The autheticity of victims does in no way hinge on a random internet poster's listing of their orbituaries.

Hans

 

[CompusMentus]

If you want to start posting in that thread again, do so.]

Firstly, I have to wonder what part of "I do not want to revisit that thread" (as I wrote above) does jammonius not understand? Secondly, the thread in question was closed by the mods here making it a little difficult for me to follow his ill-informed advice.

Once again we have a demonstration of the double-standards, the blatant hypocricy shown many times in this forum. Whilst calling out for respect for certain discredited individuals we see side-by-side the denegration and wholesale defamation of a mass of victims of 9/11. Jammonius, by his words above, implies that Lee Hanson perjured himself in front of a US Court of Justice. He offers no proof that this could be true. Only hollow disgusting insinuations that that man is a liar and imposter and not a witness to and victim of what happened on that day.

As for the unposted facts about the remaining passengers. I would never, until my dying day, post them on demand for jammonius. I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of me doing so. I do have them stored and I can safely say they are available if I ever needed them. They are also available to anyone with a wont to find. Easily. Google is your freind.


Compus

 

[LSSBB]

Since that thread, it has been disclosed that military PSYOPS specifically include the making up of fake people, based on fake identities that are all documentable via web searches, including photos. But, then again, in re 9/11 we already knew that.

And your evidence for this denial of the loss of people's loved ones is, beyond "Well, they coulda"?