Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[phunk]

The student did not listen well. Dr. Wood focused on what happened and made no claim about who did it.

How do you know this?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

the commonstoryline mandates that gravity and kerosene annihilated the Twin Towers, each in about 10 seconds.

I think you mean "in about 56 minutes and 102 minutes respectively".

 

[ProBonoShill]

I am not here to prove anything to you. I make claims.

And this my friends, is the truth movement in a nutshell.

 

[WTC Dust]

None of this is reliable evidence.

The missing planes and passengers, and corresponding plane debris and passenger remains on the crash sites might also be considered pretty good evidence by some.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

See? You're admitting that you're stuck in thermodynamics. For the sake of figuring things out, just know that heat did not play a central role in the destruction of the WTC. It wasn't heat energy. It has many of the hallmarks of cold fusion and zero point energy, but that is just my best guess at the moment. High heat? No need to guess. Extreme heat was not evident during the attacks on the WTC.

Despite the name, thermodynamics is about energy in general, not just heat.

I had hoped you knew this.

Also, I don't agree that heat played no role.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

The truth is that you couldn't see much of the building above a ten foot fence from street level. Certainly not a tall pile of steel beams, as I expected.

You mean the tall piles of steel girders and other scrap? You mean the recovered human remains? You mean the blocks of compressed concrete flooring? You mean all that stuff that kept burning for weeks after the collapse? All obviously far more substantial than the plumes of dust settling within hours of the collapses.

Yes, I saw those pictures. No, I don't call that pulverized.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

First of all, Hans, I didn't suggest it. Dr. Judy Wood suggested it. I happen to agree with Judy on many of her other points, but I do not have a professional opinion on her ultimate findings, except to note that they have not been effectively debunked by any one at any time.

Get it right. Wood suggested the mechanism. Blevins did a forensic analysis of the material remains of the WTC. Different people. Different studies.

The WTC was, among other things, destroyed by heat.

Thermodynamics is about energy. All kinds of energy. Your suggestion that an energy weapon could create its own energy violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

I am not Judy Wood, and my theory is not about energy weapons. My theory is about steel turned into foam. What does thermodynamics say about steel turned into foam?

Does anyone remember that quote that says in effect, "Your theory may fly in the face of all conventional thinking, but if it conflicts with thermodynamics, it is doomed"?

 

[WTC Dust]

True, but even if I'm wrong about the planes, I'm not wrong about the WTC dust. Plane crashes don't produce it.

Yet despite this evidence, you still believe there were no plane impacts.

 

[WTC Dust]

That image is pretty good evidence that a car crash took place on that spot. UNLIKE Shanksville, where there was no good evidence of this type.

Really?

Below is the type of bullcrap "evidence" and rantings Judy tries to use to purvey a sense of mystery, awe, and unbelievable effects that can only be explained by her equally fantastical theory.

Just like the claim that the toasted cars all the way over on FDR, which is a supposed weird occurrence, can only be explained by a super secret and science-fiction-like weapon. This in fact was just damaged cars being towed to the FDR location as has been shown.

Here's another example of her carnival/side show type garbage. This is from her website here. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Everyone gather 'round for the Greatest Show on Earth! Even better than the Man with Lizard Skin, or the Bearded Lady, Judy presents... THE MYSTERIOUSLY SKEWERED CAR!!!!



You have to be kidding me. Dropped from the TOP of the tree and skewered? Looks to me like the the car wrapped around the tree from the right. I love the "The rescue workers appear to be shocked by what they see." Like she can see that expression from the photo. Nothing like adding more "shock and awe" to her claims. Her bloated head (due to her own personal delusions of grandeur) is so far up her own rear end, she can no longer see the obvious and practical explanations in front of her.

 

[sts60]

I had been going to comment on the "skewered car" idiocy from the perspective of a (volunteer) firefighter. But then I realized I was going to be spending more time commenting on the ravings of:

1. An ex-mechanical engineering professor claiming that some kind of directed-energy weapon turned several skyscrapers to dust, which is immediately refuted by the fact that, well, they weren't turned to dust, but hundreds of thousands of tons of twisted solid steel and other stuff. This blithering incompetent cannot even define what sort of weapon was supposedly used, and has said studying the type and energy considerations didn't matter. She also claims that a quack-science "effect" somehow used energy from a distant hurricane in this process. She is no scientist, and no engineer; the average newspaper astrologer would sneer at such "analysis".

2. Yet she is a veritable Feynman compared to a groupie with a PhD in an unrelated field, who repeated the lie that the steel was turned to "dust", then said it was turned to "foam". She swabbed some stuff of a ledge long after 9/11 and claimed it was a direct WTC remains sample and bragged about her "chain of evidence". She chastised posters for saying Crackpot Prime had said the Magic Death Ray may have been in space, even though they immediately provided examples of CP saying just that. (The extra funny is that this groupie was lecturing everyone about not being familiar with CP's material.) Meanwhile, this person actually said that thermodynamics was irrelevant to the study of the process that allegedly turned hundreds of thousands of tons of steel to "dust" (or "foam", or maybe peanut butter) in about ten seconds! What staggering incompetence. Not only is this person no scientist, she's a pretty good argument that the much-mocked Reefer Madness in reality vastly understated the dangers of habitual marijuana consumption.

3. Some person (who some have claimed is a lawyer) who also can't define what the Magic Death Ray is, and thinks getting a crackpot lawsuit thown out is a Legal Victory for the Ages because its promulgators weren't fined for their stupidity and incompetence. Like #2, this person also laps up the random neural firings of Crackpot Prime as genius, and thinks posting pictures of hurricanes is scientific analysis.

So, I'm taking my own advice and not spending any more time commenting on this drivel, let alone replying even indirectly to the delusionauts posting it here. Feel free to refer to the DEW thread cited in that post, and the multiple quantitative analyses referenced, but enough is enough. It's not that the characters, with their contempt for the victims of those murderous attacks, draw my sympathy for their condition. It's just that they are so utterly ineffectual and irrelevant - even rejected by most other 9/11 conspiracists - that poking a stick into their cage isn't even faintly amusing anymore.

 

[phunk]

It has many of the hallmarks of cold fusion and zero point energy, but that is just my best guess at the moment.

Please elaborate, what hallmarks are those?

 

[WTC Dust]

PROBABLY

Think about what this word means, and get back to me.

Wrong.

From a November 11 2006 interview with Jim Fetzer:-

(About 35m)




Later (about 47m) Troy phones in with a question:-





You can find a recording of this interview HERE (MP3 File 13.5 MB)

Compus

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh really? So what is Wood's specialty?

Man, can you get anything right??

Woods specialty isn't "field effects." She learned about that scam from John Hutchinson.

 

[WTC Dust]

Thunder at each of the NYC airports indicates that the field extended at least that far from the eye of Hurricane Erin.

How far from a hurricane's eye can these field effects occur?

 

[phunk]

What field?

 

[WTC Dust]

Expect this to happen, because it certainly will.

Wow. Just... wow. Forget 9/11. If either you or Judy Wood could identify and publicly reproduce this process which is more than 100% efficient, you would literally change the course of human history.

 

[WTC Dust]

Biomedical Science is heavy on biochemistry, so we have to know all about thermodynamics.

Here's the thing: You have a PhD. Good for you. But it is not in physics or engineering. While you may be very smart regarding plant genetics, your familiarity with physics is lacking.

This is shown by the above quotes.

Thermodynamics is about energy and work, not just heat. Any first year engineering student will be able to tell you that.


Now, I don't know how things work in the biomedical sciences. Maybe there, it's acceptable to propose radical processes without needing to explain how those processes work.
Not so much in the physical science. If you want engineers and physicists to accept the existence (and use) of a weapon capable of tremendous destruction, you have to be prepared to explain how it works, where it is and what it does.
If you aren't willing to do that, then you are not going to be taken seriously.

Remember: the physicists and engineers of the world are under no obligation to accept, or even respect, new ideas until and unless the ideas pass muster.

And should someone be kind enough to explain the problems with the concept, whining about how they make assumptions (necessitated by the utter lack of explanation from the hypothesis' proponents) is a sure way to earn yourself scorn.

Further, harping on misinterpreted "evidence" (often intentionally misinterpreted) is a sign of someone so ideologically bonded to their notion that they cannot accept correction even when the mistakes are obvious. Don't be surprised if people treat you like a bad smell for it.



In short: While bombast and warped burdens of proof may be de rigeur in genetics, things are not so laissez-faire in the rest of science. Put up, or shut up.

 

[WTC Dust]

Not molecular iron. Iron chips. Visible iron chips, in great abundance.

Tell Me about flyash WTC Dust. What's in flyash? Iron? Perhaps we can also consider how much iron is in ink for printer cartridges and how many printers were in these towers. Human blood..there is iron in human blood. Dust...How much drywall was in those towers, WTCDust? Have you addressed any of those points?

 

[WTC Dust]

I continue to emphasize (not deny, as AE states) that Wood claims field effects were evident on 9/11.

Contrary to what Tracy Blevins asserts, Judy Wood does indeed make several direct links between the destruction of the WTC towers and what she terms 'field effects' from hurricanes, and even tornadoes.

The example shown in the picture posted by gamolon is taken from Hurricane Wilma. Judy Wood mentions it in this interview and she specifically ties it to her allegations that cars on 9/11 mysteriously ended up in weird positions due to some kind of 'field effect'.

She mentions the term 'Torsion Field', presumably not the original Einsteinian variety but the pseudo-scientific kind

So she's definitely
1) Making claims that hurricanes can levitate cars by special forces referred to as 'field effects' or 'torsion fields'
2) Making claims that this kind of thing happened on 9/11 due to Hurricane Erin
3) Implying that these forces were deliberately used by conspirators on 9/11

Further direct evidence that Judy Wood is making pseudo-scientific claims like this (contrary to the denials of Tracy Blevins) is found on the same interview when she denies that:

a) People would jump from a building fire in large numbers (no citations given, only personal conjecture - in fact it has happened many times in history and is well documented)
b) People who jumped from 90 stories shouldn't become 'broken up' when they hit the pavement, so this is suspicious and apparently an artifact of her 'torsion field' idea.


She IS in fact making several specific claims, while denying that she is doing so. Deceptive? Yup, it certainly is. She's a morbid, attention-seeking fraud IMO.