Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Mudcat]

The problem with DEW should be obvious to anyone who paid even one iota of attention in High school physics, Dust. While a DEW is very much possible as weapons they're impractical in the extreme so more conventional means are desirable. But a DEW that does what you're suggesting doesn't just doesn't exist it is also flat out impossible.

 

[Sunstealer]

Woods is a fruitcake. She shouldn't be respected at all, just like someone who has a PhD but insists 2+2=5. Woods is wrong and proposes one of the wackiest ideas out there. She's mocked and rightly so.

WTCdust - propose a mechanism by which solid iron is turned to dust by an energy beam. I'll guarantee that you can't.

 

[CompusMentus]

As for disrespecting Judy Wood how can any rational person not do so after seeing and hearing her talk numerous times about her mad totally unfounded nonsense? I've watched and listened to her many times as she squirmed visibly and audibly under close scrutiny about her daft theories. I don't need a degree or doctorate in any scientific discipline to understand that she has obvious mental health issues. One clincher (regarding her general state of mind) for me was hearing her express the belief that the US Government had signed a treaty banning the weaponisation of Space because she was about to publish some further rubbish on her website. Yes, that's correct, Dr Judy believes that her website has influence on US defence policy.

It's not disrespect I feel it's utter disdain.


Compus

 

[chrismohr]

I spent some 1500 hours rebutting Richard Gage's claims. I disagree with every scientific claim he makes that he uses to assert Controlled Demolition but it took a long long time to understand his claims. Many people have asked me to look at Judy Wood's work and study it with the same care and respect I gave Richard Gage. I say no thanks, I've done enough, someone else can carefully rebut JW but I guarantee it won;t be me. Too much brain damage for one lifetime.

 

[CompusMentus]

I spent some 1500 hours rebutting Richard Gage's claims. I disagree with every scientific claim he makes that he uses to assert Controlled Demolition but it took a long long time to understand his claims. Many people have asked me to look at Judy Wood's work and study it with the same care and respect I gave Richard Gage. I say no thanks, I've done enough, someone else can carefully rebut JW but I guarantee it won;t be me. Too much brain damage for one lifetime.

I have waited a while for someone to rebut her claims of the seismic effects detected on 9/11. I suspect there are many holes in this aspect of her theory. With only a basic understanding of the science involved though, I feel I am unable to expound on my suspicions with this regard as I am not qualified to do so. I wish there was a geologist/seismologist out there interested enough.


Compus

 

[The Dark Lord]

Judy Wood is a complete freaking whackjob and so is anyone who takes her "work" seriously.

 

[LSSBB]

I have waited a while for someone to rebut her claims of the seismic effects detected on 9/11. I suspect there are many holes in this aspect of her theory. With only a basic understanding of the science involved though, I feel I am unable to expound on my suspicions with this regard as I am not qualified to do so. I wish there was a geologist/seismologist out there interested enough.


Compus

No, geologists and seismologists are too well grounded and unshakeable.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I think I read somewhere that Judy Wood spent several years in a coma. Probably just a rumor but maybe it is true and she has brain damage which would give her an excuse for being so crazy.

 

[CompusMentus]

No, geologists and seismologists are too well grounded and unshakeable.

Or shaken but not stirred....


Compus

 

[fuelair]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

I discuss the work of Steven Jones as it is, as he produced it.
I can do this because I have very closely studied the work of
Steven Jones since it first appeared on the scene.

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I can't even say I like the woman personally, but you don't see me
disrespecting her because I understand in outline what she is
talking about, and it is interesting and very solid science.

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

Not really. People who are trained in science but misuse it, purposefully misinterpret results, make it up etc. will always be "called names" (like "fraud", "charlatan", "liar", incompetant fool", "idiot", etc.) as specifically fits their crime against science and the methods of and expectations for good science. Your mileage may differ but people in the sciences and people who choose to act and believe scientifically are very much offended by people who misuse science and/or use false science to forward a political or economic agenda or, even, a personal vendetta. They will be named and called on it. That will never make one lazy or bad at science - nothing about it is wrong.

 

[CompusMentus]

I think I read somewhere that Judy Wood spent several years in a coma. Probably just a rumor but maybe it is true and she has brain damage which would give her an excuse for being so crazy.

That she was comatose at some point doesn't seem to be in doubt. The length of time she spent in that condition however, does.

There are other doubts about her academic credentials. She was/is often trumpeted as an expert in Bi-Material Engineering. It seems this acclamation concerns work she conducted with dentures. So it's anything from gold fillings to Fixadent. Take your (tooth)pick.

Compus

 

[Quad4_72]

So this is a thread about insulting Dr. Judy Woods? Don't mind if I do...

Woods is a mentally ill individual and her work (Fecal matter, if you will) is something that I would expect to find in the science fiction section of a bookstore. The only reason it's not there is because it would stink up the entire building, so generally the best place to look for her papers is at the garbage dump. It's pretty easy to find, as the smell overpowers all of the garbage there.

 

[triforcharity]

And folks, do let's be civil and polite. Don't make me put on my Mod Hat.

Just don't put on the Mod ass less chaps..... lord help us....

 

[carlitos]

The original argumentum latrinum:

http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/#S

Where were the toilets from the buildings? There should have been nearly 10,000 toilet fixtures in the "rubble pile." (But there wasn't a "rubble pile," either!)

,,,

Required minimum number of fixtures per occupants:
Number of toilets expected

25,000 each tower
approx. 6,000 each for WTC 3,4,5,6 = 24,000
50,000 + 24,000 = 74,000 people.​

Not including WTC7

Approximately 2876 toilets
Why can't we find even ONE of them?

If you cannot ****, you must acquit. /Johnny Cochran

 

[The Platypus]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

I discuss the work of Steven Jones as it is, as he produced it.
I can do this because I have very closely studied the work of
Steven Jones since it first appeared on the scene.

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I can't even say I like the woman personally, but you don't see me
disrespecting her because I understand in outline what she is
talking about, and it is interesting and very solid science.

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

Cult followers are very protective of their leaders.

 

[alienentity]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Sorry Dr Blevins, but you don't get to decide what people choose to ridicule, or what is respectable science.

What Dr Wood is doing is not professional, respectable science. It's at the very least incredibly neurotic, attention-seeking, disrespectful and grossly incompetent pseudo-science. It's flim-flam.

I've forced myself, thru a combination of morbid fascination and stupidity, to listen to enough of Dr Woods insane ramblings to discover that she hasn't got a clue what she's talking about, regarding her main claims

1) Dustification of the towers. Absolute balderdash. 100% fertilizer. It is documented that close to 185,000 tons of steel was removed from the WTC site. Yet Dr Wood and her deluded flock (unfortunately that includes you too) deny that the steel was there to be carted off. I think Dr Wood sarcastically put it something like this 'If you mean that it was removed by the afternoon of 9/11, yes it was removed'.

She and you, btw, have zero respect for the documentary evidence. You simply evade whatever contradicts your beliefs without adequate explanation. Besides, it doesn't matter what you claim - it's dead wrong. Who cares? You might as well claim the steel was turned into cheese and shipped off to Pluto by aliens working for the NWO.

Your work and hers are both contemptible and disgraceful. I say that advisedly because your recent posts here confirm that you ignore and evade correct answers given to you (patiently) while pretending that you are willing to change your mind.

2) The towers shouldn't have collapsed in less than 45 seconds. Here again, Dr Wood and you both fail miserably as you try to impose a harshly anti-didactic approach to physics. You may indeed have some pride in achieving a PhD in BioMedicine, but you've grossly overestimated your intelligence and/or abilities when it comes to physics.
But because Dr Judy Wood decided to plunge down a mindless hole, you've followed her obediently down it and lost your mind there as well.

It's as if the two of you have had a really bad trip and cannot recover.

What else was Dr Wood raving on about recently? Oh yes, that the same mysterious energy weapons which produced the artifacts she sees at the WTC also occurred at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, where Tim McVey famously blew up a fertilizer bomb.

I think there's also a bridge collapse where she has attributed this mysterious weapons effects as well.

See what I mean about attention-seeking? She's attaching herself to important events and trying to sell her twisted ideas in book form.

 

[Stellafane]

As a person, Dr. Woods may be a wonderful human being and deserving of respect. But her ideas are pure insanity and should be treated as such.

 

[CompusMentus]

She's attaching herself to important events and trying to sell her twisted ideas in book form.

She has a long lamentable history of it (attaching herself to important events that is)

More Woody Ravings.....I remember an amusing exchange between her and Jim Fetzer (when she could squeeze a few words in edgeways) on one of Fetzers Republic Radio Shows (or whatever they were called, The Dynamic Duo or something) After mentioning that she had a part to play at NASA in the research that sought the reasons for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, Fetzer questioned the facts surrounding the causes of it. Judy W. continued by assuring Jim F. that the NASA investigation "was as clean as a whistle" because "I watched them like a hawk" or words very near to that effect. She also insinuated that all along she knew the cause of Columbia's demise long before anyone else. This ties in with her claims that she knew something was up at the WTC on the very day that happened. She does seem to suffer from some sort of Infallibility Complex.

BTW alienentity, good post.

Compus

 

[Oystein]

I think there is an ethic question to ponder about whether a mentally ill person deserves ridicule and disrespect for the insane blabberings her brain vomits out, or pity and compassion.

But don't ponder too long, it's not worth it.

Basically, "Dr." Judy Wood is disrespecting reality, she disrespects science, she disrespects the many able scientists and forensic experts who have amassed mountains of evidence against the mad perversions she tries to pass off as "science", and ultimately she disrespects every victim and relative who deserves to be given thoughtful and correct answers about what happened on that day, and not depraved figments of a sick imagination dumped on the world for mere cash.

 

[CompusMentus]

I do think you have a point Oystein in that the mentally ill don't deserve ridicule and disrespect. But there is a contrary position whereby the objects of our derision (in the main truthers and the woo-warriors) will say they are completely sane and it is us that are deluded and mad. A lot of these people see themselves like the Russian dissenters a few decades ago who dared to confront the communist regime, were declared insane and ended up rotting in asylums. Perhaps we should just be careful in not going down the route of declaring someone is a nut just because their views are incomprehensible to us. It's difficult though, as you write above, as the subject we deal with here although it happened 10+ years ago seems fresh and raw in many minds.

Compus