Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[fuelair]

I don't think she'll be cashing checks anytime soon:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6918559&postcount=994

But how do her sales compare to those of The Greek Seaman by that uberpro writer Jacqueline Howett???

 

[carlitos]

jammonius admits error. Great news. An error which skews his figures in favor of his argument, but still. Progress.

Kudos, jammonius.

 

[tsig]

It sounds like she has some aversion to knowledge of the weapon itself. It's as if trying to understand it is some form of blasphemy. Like God for Christians, it's best to just be content that it exists and not try to figure it out.

Not very scientific. Not very respectable.

TWWIMW*

*the weapon works in mysterious ways.

 

[tsig]

I've been trying to imagine a device that reduces a tall building to dust at considerable distance and it would make the components of the Eniac appear small in comparison and so overbuilt it would make Steampunks envious. And even then it wouldn't work, most likely.

It's the type of insanity that makes the worship of Cthulhu appear sane in comparison.

Try to imagine a device that can turn any amount of steel into dust in ten seconds.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Try to imagine a device that can turn any amount of steel into dust in ten seconds.

Well...duh...you can't think about specifics...like total energy consumption or the type of energy that can turn steel to dust. Just free your mind of such "distractions" and only concern yourself that the government has figured it all out, and has black projects that can do this. You *********** sheeple.

 

[jammonius]

No it doesn't. People are bored with "truthers" and well..............this is what's left.


How have you been?

I'm well, thanks.

You?

 

[MG1962]

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

Well maybe when a scientist stops making claims about death rays from space powered by hurricanes I may be moved to respect them. There is a big difference between science and science fiction. Judy Woods seems to lack the finesse to distinguish between the two

 

[beachnut]

Hi Macgyver,

Yup, I mistook rankings for sales. Amazon doesn't divulge actual sales. And, yup, the lower ranking is better. Thus, Dr. Wood is outselling Kean&Hamilton, Farmer and Spencer.

Dayyum

You mistook Judy's ideas as being sane.

There are a lot of idiots who believe Dr Wood, her insane ideas appeal to nuts who can't think for themselves.

Judy's ideas are insane. If you don't know her ideas are insane, you can't do the math, you don't understand physics, there is no hope for you to join reality.

 

[sts60]

I see jammonius could not keep away from the thread started by another delusional fan of the incompetent and apparently mentally ill Ms. Wood. Poor things, not only can't they even define what their magic death ray is supposed to be - jammonius couldn't in this thread - they must not do so, because then they would have to do more than wave their hands and tell people what geniuses they are.

They're not. I know and have worked with some very smart people; these folks are not only second-raters, they're not even honest second-raters, since they pretend reality (e.g., aircraft impacts, and hundreds of thousands of tons of recovered structural steel) didn't happen.

Dishonesty and delusion aside, what they're doing does not get as far as "cargo cult science", because it doesn't even take the approximate form of science. It's a lot of handwaving from crackpots desperate for attention, but the real world doesn't notice them enough to laugh at them. They get laughed at here, but they don't deserve even that much attention. And so I'll leave it with a reminder that at least four people (not only R. Mackey, but also myriad, BenBurch, and myself) did the kind of work they are incapable of doing - examining the magic-death-ray promise quantitatively, bounding the problem, and to no rational person's surprise, finding the fantasy to be just that.

The only difference between the magic-death-ray crowd and the disheveled guy ranting to empty air behind the 7-11 is a keyboard and a veneer of education. If it pleases you guys to argue with them, well, it's your time.

 

[Axxman300]

Okay...so some secret weapon was used to bring down the towers.

However in the two wars we've been fighting this secret weapon has yet to be used. There have also been no suspicious collapses of structures elsewhere, like the nuclear facilities in Iran for example.

So the one place America uses it's super-duper awesome death ray is in the US so it can start a war...but it doesn't use the super-duper-death ray in that war...

..okay...

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Judy Wood shows disrespect towards science and the scientific method with claims that defy both. She deserves no respect in this matter if for no other reason that she either can not or will not show the work or evidence that supports her "Theories" while there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bell]

Absent a fair amount of knowledge about Dr. Judy Wood, the above might appear to be a cryptic post. But, then again, posters in this thread seem not only well acquainted with Dr. Wood, they, in addition, seem eager to get on record as having something to say about her.

That is remarkable.

Well, despite everyone being Dr. Wood's current or ex BFF, the information presented in the quoted post actually pertains to the book written by Dr. Wood:

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

The post asserts the book is not selling at all.

Well, a current view of the book's Amazon listing can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Eviden...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324396684&sr=1-1

This is what it says, in relevant part:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/WDTTGamazon.jpg[/qimg]

The sales ranking is respectable. At times, Where Did The Towers Go? has been the #1 selling 9/11 book.

Most assuredly, the book IS deeply researched, IS very well written and IS quite compelling. On the debunker side, I don't think there is a comparable book that can match the quality and the persuasiveness of Where Did The Towers Go? Moreover, the book is everything the NIST investigation should have been, and wasn't. Fortunately, the book provides a public source of what destroyed the World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The book is of great significance in the present and in the future.

Count on it.

4 new from $39.95 and 5 used from $102.19

 

[Nick Terry]

A brief off topic post, but I have a story!:

Wow...yeah that won't be happening. I know some of them require (as my current school does) that you list your highest degree after your name if its a professional masters (MBA/MPA/MPP/etc.) or any type of doctorate, but I definately won't prefacing it with Dr. LightinDarknes

That reminds me of a women I worked for in undergrad in a university office - she *demanded* to have Dr. SoandSo PhD, MA, BA put on her cards, and went nuclear if you do not address her as Dr. at every opportunity. All of her degrees were in English, from good schools too, but it had nothing to do with the position she was working in. That was my first exposure to "people who insist on throwing around the doctorate" personalities. And although I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, so far I'm batting 100%: those who obsess over listing their PhD everywhere and making other people call them Dr. have so far all been doing it to hide their academic, professional, or intellectual shortcomings.

Not that Dr. WTC Dust is doing that or anything...and now we return back to the topic of us all just not being smart enough to understand Dr. Wood's...lasers hypothesis.

I dunno. In a higher education environment, academics get misnamed all the time. A lot of it comes down to courtesy. British students can get very confused when emailing and will use any of the following when addressing someone with a doctorate in a lecturer position (who is therefore not a professor by rank or title):

Dear Professor x,
Hi Professor,
Hiya,
Hey there,
Dear Mrs x,
Mr x,
Dear Sir,
Sir, [also to female staff!]

and in class, some female staff are even addressed as 'Miss' because a few students have yet to adjust from school.

The correct appellations for a lecturer, in the British system,are exclusively Dr x or the academic's first name. And virtually everyone tells their students to call them by their first names after week 1 of a course.

This may be a cultural thing; I get the impression that many European cultures, not just Germany, accept and respect the right of people with doctorates to be called Dr. The British find the way that some Americans put 'Judy Wood, PhD' on everything to be downright weird. You wouldn't even do that on a business card. It'd be 'Dr Judy Wood'. If someone wrote 'Dr Judy Wood, PhD' then you're in full-on woo territory.

Another thing is gender. As some of the examples of misappellations listed above show, it is not unknown for unmarried female academics to be addressed, entirely wrongly, as 'Mrs'. Whenever this has come up with my female colleagues in the UK, they are very insistent that they prefer being addressed as Dr x because it totally neutralises the question of whether they are married or unmarried.

There's a difference, ultimately, between social courtesies and appeals to authority. The classic crank example is putting 'Gillian Keith, PhD' on the cover of a book. Virtually no book that puts PhD after the author's name is anything other than woo. Even David Ray Griffin manages without doing that. Putting Dr or PhD in email addresses, Twitter accounts, blog names or website URLs is almost always a sign of insecurity.

That said, and however much I might think they are clueless a-holes, it's still relatively rude to talk about Ms Wood, Mr Fetzer or Mr Griffin when they all have doctorates, no matter how nutty they are. It's just as easy to say Judy Wood and deprive her of a doctorate that is now worth less than toilet paper, and not go for the low blow and deliberate insult.

Why? Because cranks and woos will sometimes resort to the same tactic of deliberate insult, and ostentatiously deprive real scholars of their proper titles.

 

[Oz1976]

I can speak eloquently and with detailed knowledge of
Steven Jones work, unlike most of Judy Wood's detractors.
When they speak of her work, they don't even use the
right words. They don't display a thorough knowledge of
the subject matter, compared to the intensity of their
criticism.

That's because her "work" is so out of this world insane that no one pays it any mind. What the 3 people that are also ******* crazy talking about her "work" discuss it "wrong"? Come on.

 

[Oz1976]

Wood studies the destruction of the WTC. She has no
reason to speak of planes.

You can't talk about the destruction of the WTC WITHOUT the discussion of the plane impacts. She is a no-planer Dust, she does not believe planes were flown into the towers. Do you? If you do not, then you as well, deserve ZERO "serious discussion".

 

[DGM]

I can speak eloquently and with detailed knowledge of
Steven Jones work, unlike most of Judy Wood's detractors.
When they speak of her work, they don't even use the
right words. They don't display a thorough knowledge of
the subject matter, compared to the intensity of their
criticism.

What like "puffed" or "cauliflower" ? I don't need a detailed knowledge of the "flat earth" argument to know the earth is not flat.

Dr Judy Woods does not have a theory. She has disconnected threads of crapolla.

 

[DGM]

WTC Dust:

Just to be fair. In Dr Judy's book she talks about how hurricane Erin suddenly steered away from NYC. She briefly mentions a cold front, she down plays this as no match for Erin. Why don't you impress us and show where a weather front has ever failed to steer a hurricane (the reason Erin was not even in the forecast)

Time to show us you're great research skills.

 

[twinstead]

Obviously the weathermen were in on it

 

[Oz1976]

I don't read that and think she's implying a forced position
directly overhead. I read it as it could be in the sea or
on top of a mountain, as in, "the location hasn't been
determined".

Wow. So this weapon can be on the other side of the planet without line of sight of the WTC and "atomize" it? Really? You're supporting this "theory"? Absolute nonsense. If you can't see why (hint: LINE OF SIGHT), then there is no hope for you.

Do me a favor Miss Blevins, watch these and tell me where on the building the collapses initiated. Then tell me how this "weapon" intitiated the collapses at those points, without line of sight.

South Tower Collapse

North Tower Collapse

Can you tell me where the collapses started? Perhaps was it in the damage zone? If you, like the rest of us, can conclude that the damaged areas of each tower is where the collapses began then can you tell me why THIS WEAPON wasn't enough:
2nd Plane Impact: 43 different cameras

Or, do you think all this footage is faked?

 

[Oz1976]

Okay...so some secret weapon was used to bring down the towers.

However in the two wars we've been fighting this secret weapon has yet to be used. There have also been no suspicious collapses of structures elsewhere, like the nuclear facilities in Iran for example.

So the one place America uses it's super-duper awesome death ray is in the US so it can start a war...but it doesn't use the super-duper-death ray in that war...

..okay...

Truther logic. Apparently we only use this weapon on ourselves and not others. Ya know like Katrina and other hurricanes that have dealt crushing blows to the US coastlines. Yeah...we won't make a hurricane in the Persian Gulf and direct it at Iran though either, only on ourselves.