Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[jammonius]

Hi Jammonius. I hestitate to respond, since our discussion doesn't really seem to be making any progress. Indeed, from my perspective it's actually going backward, since it seems that every time we interact I raise another issue that goes unadressed, until we have now accumulated a collection.

The key words in the above are "my perspective." You are always and ever entitled to your perspective; and I, mine. Thus, it follows that when looking at something from "a perspective" elements of interpretation are involved.

There are an abundance of factors that serve to differentiate the relative quality of one perspective from another one. Chances are, you think your perspective is more accurate than mine, no doubt. For my part, I try to put the issue of perspective in a suitable context. Most debunkers use the perspective of assuming the common storyline is true and of then analyzing everything to make it conform to that storyline.

Some debunkers do not even acknowledge the existence of any material, evidence or circumstance at all, ever, for any reason, that is in the least bit contrary to the common storyline of 9/11.

Would you agree with me that that perspective is rather extreme?

What is your perspective in that respect? Do you acknowledge the existence of any contrary indicators to the veracity of the common storyline of 9/11?

Likewise the issue of what is or is not addressed is not as you have set it up.

I tried to help you with that by carefully delineating how the seismic issue started. I have addressed the seismic issue because that is the one raised by
Compus in post # 1003, as I have carefully explained to you.

Yet, here you are expanding that issue to include other ones followed by a claim they haven't been addressed. They need not be addressed, at least not by me, as I am not here talking about those matters.

The very first point in your own summary is telling on this precise point, Stellafane:

To summarize, in this thread I've noted the following:

* There is no evidence a DEW of the sort Dr. Wood envisions exists. You respond by citing seismic evidence. But seismic evidence cannot be used to interpret surface events in the way Dr. Wood claims (see below). And even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that it could, all Dr. Wood would have would be some potentially anomalous data that may well be explanable in any number of ways, including the "official" story. At best, the DEW would only be one remote possibility among many others, most of which would offer far more viable scenarios. Thus even then, there would be no proof whatsoever that a DEW exists.

Your next point does raise a seismic data claim. I have countered by pointing out that Dr. Wood's seismic claim is set out in a 30+ page chapter replete with diagrams and footnotes. Your assertions are not supported in that manner. Further, the context in which Dr. Wood makes her claim started years ago with her challenge to the way in which NIST used, or rather ignored, the very same seismic data that she relies on.

Keep in mind, Stellafane, Dr. Wood is a citizen/scientist. It was the duty, indeed the congressional mandate, (as I have earlier posted) of NIST to determine what destroyed the WTC complex. NIST engaged in a fraudulent exercise instead. That is what Dr. Wood challenged six ways to Sunday.

Her book is the icing on that cake and her seismic analysis falsifies the common storyline in the context in which that storyline was sought to be proven.

You, on the other hand, would have us engage in a pedantic exercise where, apparently, you assume you are making valid posts, with nothing close to the kind of detail or backup that Dr. Wood has published. I hesitate to put it this way, but I think you give your posts too much credit, as in the following example:

* Seismic data is not a valid method for interpreting the nature and magnitude of a surface event, not in the way Dr. Wood attempts. Your response appears to be that you disagree. Unfortunately for Dr. Wood, this is not a matter of opinion or debate: as I've explained, basic science itself dictates that the use of seismic data for this purpose has little or no value. Therefore, even if one is inclined to dismiss me, they'd still have to contend with science and reaility -- which doesn't care about the personal beliefs or preferences of you, me, or Dr. Wood.

Below, you revert to DEW. I am not here addressing DEW. Furthermore, if I were to do so, experience convinces me it wouldn't work for all sorts of reasons; not least of which is that the darn posts would be moved. Perhaps you are unaware, but I have posted up DEW threads that raged on and on for many dozens of pages and many 1000s of posts. Look them up. Open up a new one.

* A DEW, irrespective of location, would have left abundant and obvious evidence, much more compelling and unequivocal than seismic readings; and yet no such evidence was observed. Your response seems to be to encourage me to read Dr. Wood's book, which I consider a non-answer. If Dr. Wood's ideas cannot conform with basic science, then nothing she says in her book is going to change that.

That which follows is another variation on DEW. I have discussed that elsewhere.

* The instantaneous conversion of solid steel into dust would result in a spectacular explosion that would have likely devastated Manhattan and the surrounding environs, yet no such explosion occured, Your response was to state that I needed additional "context" -- a statement I simply do not understand -- and further encouragement to read Dr. Wood's book.

In the quote below you claim too much and it is based on your having raised issues that do not follow from the seismic discussion.

So at this juncture, from my point of view we're looking at four fatal flaws to Dr. Wood's ideas, any one of which renders her work utterly impossible. But although those issues comprise a devastating and insurmountable barrier, in actuality they're just the beginning. You see, to facilitate the discussion, when I joined this thread I initially set the bar very low, indeed as low as I possibly could: Does Dr. Wood's ideas conform with the most basic science principles? This is as rudimentary and unchallenging an entry point as I could conceive, akin to the first bunny question on an exam. And yet, thus far Dr. Wood's ideas cannot surmount even this modest standard.

In the quote below, you may well have raised a "debate room" but I have already been there and done that and got the....

Think of it this way: in essense, I've built a very large "debate room" in which all are free to enter and discuss any ideas they wish. The door is very wide and always open. Just one thing -- it's almost too trivial to even mention -- like all doors, mine has a threshold. It's a very low threshold, the lowest one they sold at the hardware store, rising barely a quarter-inch above the floor. And it's made of solid basic science.

You may exit as you see fit.

If an idea trips over that low threshold, there's really no point in entering further, since it's not going to last very long once the real debate gets underway.

Of course, it goes without saying that you're 100% entitled to disagree with me, and completely dismiss everything I've just written. But what you can't do is expect anyone to take Dr. Wood very seriously, not if her ideas cannot even pass the very modest threshold of fundamental science without stumbling.

I have no worries whatsoever about either how seriously Dr. Wood is being taken; let alone where she is being taken seriously. Trust me on that one.

 

[sts60]

... But what you can't do is expect anyone to take Dr. Wood very seriously, not if her ideas cannot even pass the very modest threshold of fundamental science without stumbling.

Stellafane, with all due respect, you've set the bar too high. Yes, it is a fact that poor crazy Judy Wood's vague claim about some kind of directed-energy weapon, somewhere (maybe in space*), is incompatible with physics. Yes, the "DEW" fantasy has been quantitatively refuted on this board by four separate posters (myself , myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch).

However, the ground state of the bar (pun not intended) for the claim "the towers were turned to dust" is simply this: were the towers turned to dust? Can Wood's tiny band clear the bar when it's laying at their feet?

The answer is: no. The vast majority of the structural steel was recovered in solid form. Wood's assertion is simply wrong, and no platefuls of word salad by her or her similarly delusional and incompetent groupies can obscure that simple fact. Further discussion is moot.


*I think Wood's agreement to the "space" reference during the Fetzer interview were a mistake by her; she was put on the spot by their mention and didn't have the presence of mind to talk around the question and avoid accidentally committing to any descriptions.

 

[beachnut]

Wake descends, can't be seen in clear air.
Wake on 911 descends from aircraft flight path into clear air, can't be seen.
For 911 truth, descend is down, not up.
Wake goes down, 911 truth needs to wake up.

 

[jammonius]

Stellafane, with all due respect, you've set the bar too high. Yes, it is a fact that poor crazy Judy Wood's vague claim about some kind of directed-energy weapon, somewhere (maybe in space*), is incompatible with physics. Yes, the "DEW" fantasy has been quantitatively refuted on this board by four separate posters (myself , myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch).

However, the ground state of the bar (pun not intended) for the claim "the towers were turned to dust" is simply this: were the towers turned to dust? Can Wood's tiny band clear the bar when it's laying at their feet?

The answer is: no. The vast majority of the structural steel was recovered in solid form. Wood's assertion is simply wrong, and no platefuls of word salad by her or her similarly delusional and incompetent groupies can obscure that simple fact. Further discussion is moot.


*I think Wood's agreement to the "space" reference during the Fetzer interview were a mistake by her; she was put on the spot by their mention and didn't have the presence of mind to talk around the question and avoid accidentally committing to any descriptions.

Greetings STS,

I think you misread Stellafane's post. That poster expressed interest in and awareness of perspective. You cite four posts, three of which are from a thread for which I provided the OP, yet you do not offer up any mention at all of either rebuttal or contrary indication to the posts you rerference.

I don't think that is what Stellafane had in mind; at least, not on the basis of that poster's acknowledgment of "perspective."

Blessings

 

[Resume]

I have no worries whatsoever about either how seriously Dr. Wood is being taken; let alone where she is being taken seriously. Trust me on that one.

No one should worry about whether Wood is being taken seriously; other than a few credules, and some cynics with murky motivations, I don't know of a single rational adult that gives her "ideas" any credence whatsoever.

Trust me on that one.

 

[CompusMentus]

Use of language like "massive concrete roof" is an incomplete unsupported claim. Domes are designed to have lightweight roofs. Some are supported by nothing more than air. Your use of the word "massive" serves no purpose other than that of misleading yourself, not others.

I wonder how "soft and pliable" this roof was when it hit the earth (see HERE) :-

The Seattle Kingdome
On March 26, 2000, the firm [Controlled Demolition, Inc.] used 4,450 pounds of dynamite placed in 5,905 carefully sited holes and 21.6 miles (34.8 km) of detonation cord inserted over a period of four months to take down the 25,000-ton concrete roof of the Kingdome in Seattle, Washington in 16.8 seconds, one day before the 24th birthday of the stadium that had been the home of the Seattle Mariners of Major League Baseball and the Seattle Seahawks of the National Football League. The total cost for the demolition project was $9 million. The firm carefully planned the collapse of the roof to prevent its simultaneous free fall, creating a delay pattern that would break the roof into pieces and setting up 15-foot-high earth berms on the floor of the stadium to absorb the impact of the falling concrete. The demolition of the Kingdome established the record for the largest structure, by volume, ever demolished with explosives. The implosion of the 125,000-ton concrete structure did not cause a single crack in the foundation of the new stadium being built 90 feet (27 m) away

My bold


Readers will notice too that jammonius still fails to/cannot source Dr Woods' claims (that P and S seismic waves propagated differently (or were absent) at the Kingdome and/or WTC) other than her own book.


They will also see that not one supporter of her "work" here can answer the simple, direct question:-

If, as Judy Wood insists, the towers were "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens", what caused the seismic disturbances during the collapse(s)?

Compus

 

[alienentity]

I wonder how "soft and pliable" this roof was when it hit the earth:-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.



My bold


Readers will notice too that jammonius still fails to/cannot source Dr Woods' claims (that P and S seismic waves propagated differently (or were absent) at the Kingdome and/or WTC) other than her own book.


They will also see that not one supporter of her work here can answer the simple, direct question:-






Compus

What technical basis does Dr Dust (as opposed to Dr Foam) have for comparing the deliberate demo of a 125,000-ton concrete structure with the top-down collapse of a steel frame building?

Do you think she even noticed they were very different structures? LOL

 

[jammonius]

I wonder how "soft and pliable" this roof was when it hit the earth (see HERE) :-




My bold


Readers will notice too that jammonius still fails to/cannot source Dr Woods' claims (that P and S seismic waves propagated differently (or were absent) at the Kingdome and/or WTC) other than her own book.


They will also see that not one supporter of her "work" here can answer the simple, direct question:-






Compus

You know, Compus, you have opened yet another "can of worms" from a debunker perspective in the following quote of yours:

"Quote:
The Seattle Kingdome
On March 26, 2000, the firm [Controlled Demolition, Inc.] used 4,450 pounds of dynamite placed in 5,905 carefully sited holes and 21.6 miles (34.8 km) of detonation cord inserted over a period of four months to take down the 25,000-ton concrete roof of the Kingdome in Seattle, Washington in 16.8 seconds, one day before the 24th birthday of the stadium that had been the home of the Seattle Mariners of Major League Baseball and the Seattle Seahawks of the National Football League. The total cost for the demolition project was $9 million. The firm carefully planned the collapse of the roof to prevent its simultaneous free fall, creating a delay pattern that would break the roof into pieces and setting up 15-foot-high earth berms on the floor of the stadium to absorb the impact of the falling concrete. The demolition of the Kingdome established the record for the largest structure, by volume, ever demolished with explosives. The implosion of the 125,000-ton concrete structure did not cause a single crack in the foundation of the new stadium being built 90 feet (27 m) away"

The context is that the demolition of the Kingdome, a much smaller, lighter, by far, structure than the Twin Towers produced a stronger seismic signal and P and S waves, all as more fully elaborated by Dr. Wood.

Firstly, explosives were placed in the roof so as to break it into smaller pieces, according to your quote. Secondly, that was done for the purpose of minimizing the seismic impact so as not to harm nearby structures. Thirdly, and equally, if not more, significant, specific measures were taken to absorb and minimimize the seismic impact. I am astonished you would post this Compus on one hand, and claim it supports a debunker perspective, on the other. It does no such thing. It cost $9milloion to properly plan that demolition precisely so that seismic impact could be minimized and that is by no means supportive of debunker claims. Rather, it supports the claim that the Twin Towers lack of seismic signal is confirmation they did not collapse, all as more fully shown by Dr. Wood.

Nothing much happened to any structure near the WTC complex, other than WTC buildings and no harm was done to the bathtub, on which the 500,000ton (each) towers stood.

Of greater importance here is that you are engaging in a deduction when observation is the primary point. The Twin Towers were seen to disintegrate in midair and the seismic data confirms it.

Your reference to the Kingdome is nothing more than a quibble at best. At worst, the new information you have provided only serves to confirm the validity both of Dr. Wood's proof and the validity of using the Kingdome intentional demolition as an example.

Your request for more sources than I have already provided does not merit a response; and that for two reasons. Merely asking for more proof is a well understood dodge. It presupposes, without showing, that the proof already provided needs to be supplemented. That is your claim. I do not, as a rule, respond to simple requests for more proof. That is a debunker tactic. Secondly, the proof already offered for the proposition that the common storyline has been falsified by seismic data and analysis provided by Dr. Wood is sufficient. That point stands. It has not been refuted. In your example, you support Dr. Wood's claim, as I have here confirmed.

Blessings

 

[CompusMentus]

What technical basis does Dr Dust (as opposed to Dr Foam) have for comparing the deliberate demo of a 125,000-ton concrete structure with the top-down collapse of a steel frame building?

None it seems.

As shown in this thread, JW is making bare-assertion claims about the seismic effects of the WTC. Her whole "dustification" theory is built on those unsupported claims.

That's it. In a nutshell.

Compus

 

[carlitos]

...no harm was done to the bathtub...

Where did all the toilets go?

I think we're getting somewhere.

 

[jammonius]

I think we're getting somewhere.

So do I

In particular, I think Compus has strengthened, inadvertently perhaps, Dr. Wood's seismic falsification of the common storyline of 9/11.

In case anyone might be wondering, considering this is, after all, a conspiracy forum, Compus is not secretly serving as a foil to strengthen the claims I am making at my request or with my participation. The appearance Compus is doing so is quite inadvertent as far as I am concerned. Perhaps Compus is having second thoughts about debunker claims? I don't know, but it sure looks that way.

Blessings

 

[LSSBB]

You know, Compus, you have opened yet another "can of worms" from a debunker perspective in the following quote of yours:

"Quote:
The Seattle Kingdome
On March 26, 2000, the firm [Controlled Demolition, Inc.] used 4,450 pounds of dynamite placed in 5,905 carefully sited holes and 21.6 miles (34.8 km) of detonation cord inserted over a period of four months to take down the 25,000-ton concrete roof of the Kingdome in Seattle, Washington in 16.8 seconds, one day before the 24th birthday of the stadium that had been the home of the Seattle Mariners of Major League Baseball and the Seattle Seahawks of the National Football League. The total cost for the demolition project was $9 million. The firm carefully planned the collapse of the roof to prevent its simultaneous free fall, creating a delay pattern that would break the roof into pieces and setting up 15-foot-high earth berms on the floor of the stadium to absorb the impact of the falling concrete. The demolition of the Kingdome established the record for the largest structure, by volume, ever demolished with explosives. The implosion of the 125,000-ton concrete structure did not cause a single crack in the foundation of the new stadium being built 90 feet (27 m) away"

The context is that the demolition of the Kingdome, a much smaller, lighter, by far, structure than the Twin Towers produced a stronger seismic signal and P and S waves, all as more fully elaborated by Dr. Wood.

Firstly, explosives were placed in the roof so as to break it into smaller pieces, according to your quote. Secondly, that was done for the purpose of minimizing the seismic impact so as not to harm nearby structures. Thirdly, and equally, if not more, significant, specific measures were taken to absorb and minimimize the seismic impact. I am astonished you would post this Compus on one hand, and claim it supports a debunker perspective, on the other. It does no such thing. It cost $9milloion to properly plan that demolition precisely so that seismic impact could be minimized and that is by no means supportive of debunker claims. Rather, it supports the claim that the Twin Towers lack of seismic signal is confirmation they did not collapse, all as more fully shown by Dr. Wood.

Nothing much happened to any structure near the WTC complex, other than WTC buildings and no harm was done to the bathtub, on which the 500,000ton (each) towers stood.

Of greater importance here is that you are engaging in a deduction when observation is the primary point. The Twin Towers were seen to disintegrate in midair and the seismic data confirms it.

Your reference to the Kingdome is nothing more than a quibble at best. At worst, the new information you have provided only serves to confirm the validity both of Dr. Wood's proof and the validity of using the Kingdome intentional demolition as an example.

Your request for more sources than I have already provided does not merit a response; and that for two reasons. Merely asking for more proof is a well understood dodge. It presupposes, without showing, that the proof already provided needs to be supplemented. That is your claim. I do not, as a rule, respond to simple requests for more proof. That is a debunker tactic. Secondly, the proof already offered for the proposition that the common storyline has been falsified by seismic data and analysis provided by Dr. Wood is sufficient. That point stands. It has not been refuted. In your example, you support Dr. Wood's claim, as I have here confirmed.

Blessings

Where were the sensors located relative to the WTC sensors? What was the ground consistency between the two different sites (granite, sandstone, sand and gravel)? What kind of signal to noise ratio was there for the NY seismograph reading vs. The seattle one? Was there differences in the equipment? Do you have Measurement Systems Analysis results? Do you have baseline readings for NY?

ETA: do you have a scientific model, equations and all, that shows what NY should have been, and what Seattle should have been? Do you have evidence for your alternative mechanism for destruction, plus a valid scientific model? Do you have pictures of the equipment used in the WTC destruction, bills of material, sworn testimony, similar working models?

 

[jammonius]

Where were the sensors located relative to the WTC sensors? What was the ground consistency between the two different sites (granite, sandstone, sand and gravel)? What kind of signal to noise ratio was there for the NY seismograph reading vs. The seattle one? Was there differences in the equipment? Do you have Measurement Systems Analysis results? Do you have baseline readings for NY?

The above quibble reminds me of the old tactic used to try to defend against speeding tickets.

Officer, where was your radar gun located when you claimed a speed of 80 in a 55?

When did you last calibrate the radar gun?

What brand was it?

LSSBB, enough of the quibble, already. Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline of 9/11.

Deal with it

 

[CompusMentus]

<snip> more blather, bare assertion and argument from incredulity </snip>

Noted is the continued avoidance of this question:-

If, as Judy Wood insists, the towers were "dustified" and "wafted to the heavens", what caused the seismic disturbances during the collapse(s)?

Compus

 

[LSSBB]

The above quibble reminds me of the old tactic used to try to defend against speeding tickets.

Officer, where was your radar gun located when you claimed a speed of 80 in a 55?

When did you last calibrate the radar gun?

What brand was it?

LSSBB, enough of the quibble, already. Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline of 9/11.

Deal with it

This is not a speeding ticket. You are accusing someone to be complicit in the murder of thousands. You are telling families that they are lying about the death of their loved ones. You are flying in the face of DNA, physical equipment evidence, eyewitness testimony, and scientific and engineering analysis. I'm only asking you meet the same level of evidence met in courts of law and in US congress.

 

[jammonius]

Compus,

Your query post # 1206 does not merit detailed reply because you mischaracterize Dr. Wood's claim.

Rephrase and I will likely reply.

 

[jammonius]

This is not a speeding ticket. You are accusing someone to be complicit in the murder of thousands. You are telling families that they are lying about the death of their loved ones. You are flying in the face of DNA, physical equipment evidence, eyewitness testimony, and scientific and engineering analysis. I'm only asking you meet the same level of evidence met in courts of law and in US congress.

It is not a speeding ticket, but the analogy holds good. You neither own nor have a monopoly on concern, sympathy, empathy or attachment to victims at large, so do not try to do so. Take off the flag, put on your own clothes. The flag belongs equally to me. Grasp this, if you would please.

The whole point of the forensic exercise done by Dr. Wood and placed into perspective and context in this thread is WHAT happened; not at all WHO did it. That is a separate matter that certainly, definitively and absolutely has not ever been determined by any duly authorized governmental authority. Insead, as Gov. Kean may have said "the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail" by which is meant it did not determine either what happened, let alone who did it.

A partial remedy to that sad state of affairs occurred when Dr. Wood determined the WHAT aspect, showing the Twin Towers were destroyed by a form of exotic weaponry in the form of DEW.

She also falsified the common storyline of 9/11 in so doing.

 

[DGM]

Noted is the continued avoidance of this question:-





Compus

Didn't you know, those are the exact signals energy weapons make.


They tie in great with the magnetic signatures

 

[CompusMentus]

The above quibble reminds me of the old tactic used to try to defend against speeding tickets.
Officer, where was your radar gun located when you claimed a speed of 80 in a 55?
When did you last calibrate the radar gun?
What brand was it?
LSSBB, enough of the quibble, already. Dr. Wood has falsified the common storyline of 9/11.
Deal with it

The above (non) response to valid questions reminds me of the old tactic of five-year-olds putting fingers in ears and saying ""La la la la, I can't hear you."

Interesting.

Compus

 

[LSSBB]

It is not a speeding ticket, but the analogy holds good. You neither own nor have a monopoly on concern, sympathy, empathy or attachment to victims at large, so do not try to do so. Take off the flag, put on your own clothes. The flag belongs equally to me. Grasp this, if you would please.

The whole point of the forensic exercise done by Dr. Wood and placed into perspective and context in this thread is WHAT happened; not at all WHO did it. That is a separate matter that certainly, definitively and absolutely has not ever been determined by any duly authorized governmental authority. Insead, as Gov. Kean may have said "the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail" by which is meant it did not determine either what happened, let alone who did it.

A partial remedy to that sad state of affairs occurred when Dr. Wood determined the WHAT aspect, showing the Twin Towers were destroyed by a form of exotic weaponry in the form of DEW.

She also falsified the common storyline of 9/11 in so doing.

Grasp this: you have repeatedly brought up seismic evidence, and yet when I ask you to show how the comparison of the King Dome measurements to the WTC are valid, you called it a quibble. I asked you to show any evidence the DEW weapon exists, and you fail to provide it. There is no moral equivalence between you and I here. You are making accusations based on conjectures for which you refuse to establish validity, and I am questioning why you refuse to establish scientific and forensic validity for your accusations before you put them forth.

Show me a DEW weapon that can do the DEW you say it can do. Put up, or shut up.