Stellafane,
Thank you for your reply; it adds to the substance of the thread, in the sense that it reveals certain misapprehensions on your part. However, to your credit, your misapprehensions appear to be based on an actual review of Dr. Wood's material and not on a diatribe. Further, your presentation is thoughtful, in my opinion.
Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful reply. The reason I asked about the DEW specifically, is because as I pointed out in post #666 (yeah, the Number of the Beast and all that), the use of such a device to bring down the WTC is impossible. It cannot have happened the way Dr. Wood describes. This really isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. A spaced-based weapon would be observable from the ground, while a ground-based weapon would have left an explosive trail of vaporized matter between it and the WTC. Neither happened on 9/11. Add to this the fact that a full-scale working DEW has never been demonstrated as feasible, nor has Dr. Wood provided an iota of evidence that such a thing physically exists. Those are formidable barriers that can only be surmounted by a preponderance of unambiguous, verifiable proof.
While it might again be fruitless to say this, I will do so anyway. Dr. Wood makes no claim that the annihilation of the WTC complex was done by weapons in space or by space beams. Rather, that claim is much like that of Beachnut raising Flight 93 and then claiming I'm off-topic for raising Flight 93 in a thread about Dr. Wood.
Thus, those who seek to debunk the space beam claim are really only debunking themselves and not Dr. Wood.
Do you copy, Stellafane? Is there anything in the foregoing sentence that you need clarification on? And, whatever you do, please do not claim your source for attributing the space beam claim to Dr. Wood is a webcast transcript where three people are talking at once and Dr. Wood gives a one word reply of "Yes" as your source for claiming Dr. Wood supports or advocates space beams. The only noteworthy thing about that claim is that it appears to be the most often relied on source for attributing that claim to her. That, in and of itself, is a clear indicator she makes no such claim.
It is not found either on her website or in her book, each of which are the true sources of her claims, her information and her proof.
Instead, she offers up as evidence a rather muddled observation connecting the Earth's magnetic field with the weather -- which, as I explain in post #674 is another impossibility and indicates that Dr. Wood simply does not understand the science involved. Again, the fact that Dr. Wood is seriously in error is not a matter of interpretation or dispute, as a simple review of basic science texts will prove.
I have taken a look at your post # 674 and do not find it all that compelling. You make arguments about what can or cannot be attributed to weather, but you do so in a limited context. For instance, you do not seem to consider weather modification tactics; or, for that matter, the subject of energy weapons, which is the real claim made by Dr. Wood, as I understand it.
In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory does not make any sense. She presents no evidence for the existence of the DEW, she cannot explain why no one has seen what should be the abundant evidence it has left behind, and the evidence she does present is based on bogus science.
The above, and in particular that part that states "Dr. Wood's DEW theory does not make any sense" is based on a misapprehension of what Dr. Wood has actually done and said.
You presume she has a theory. I am not aware that she has a theory as she only presents evidence and an analysis of the evidence. Forensic science is not about producing a theory; it’s about determining what happened.
I might add that the problem here may be as old as the divergence between Aristotle on the one hand, Plato on the other. For Aristotle, reality was empirically derived, based on what could be sensed; i.e., seen and heard for the most part because that is how humans sense reality. For Plato, the role of internal knowledge, based on deduction, was given primacy.
I think one thing can be said with high accuracy:
The work done by Dr. Wood is highly empirical, it is based to a very large extent on the record of what was seen. Hence, the super-abundance of photographic data. Seeing is believing, right?
It also presumes too much, in my opinion, for you to make a claim about "what she can or cannot explain?" Similarly, it is an oxymoron to state, as you have done, that “evidence” is “based on bogus science”?
Evidence is evidence. You can analyze it, ignore it, form conclusions about it, form opinions about it, but you cannot PRODUCE evidence FROM opinions.
Perhaps you need to clarify. Evidence can be tainted; it can also be tampered with. We've seen an example of that in this thread with the toasted car picture that debunkers cling to, right?
This does not necessarily invalidate all of Dr. Wood's work, of course -- many people can be very wrong about one thing and still be correct about others. But in this case, it's not so much that Dr. Wood is in error, it's how she's in error: flying directly in the face of all known science. To me, this must call into question her other conclusions, because if they're products of similarly sloppy thinking and scholarship, I don't think they can be taken seriously. And in any case, if one extracts the DEW from Dr. Wood's overall scenario of what happened on 9/11, what is one left with? By what other mechanism was the WTC brought down?
If you have formed your own opinion about what happened based on reviewing the evidence and if your opinion contradicts the evidence, it is not the evidence that is wrong; it’s his own opinion that is wrong. Evidence cannot be wrong. It can be wrongly interpreted, to be sure; and it can be incomplete. However, the issue of incompleteness applies in spades to the official attempts to explain 9/11; yet, debunkers seem willing, on a grand scale, to overlook that incompleteness, even though the incompletness factor has been openly acknowledged, admitted and otherwise disclosed.
In short, permit me to suggest you would benefit from reading Dr. Wood’s book so that you might know what she does or does not present in it with a greater degree of accuracy than you currently possess.
Blessings
