Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[BStrong]

I only discovered Dr. Wood after joining up here.

Her theory is based on a false premise, and she doesn't get any better from there.

 

[jammonius]

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

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

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:

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.

 

[jammonius]

I only discovered Dr. Wood after joining up here.

Her theory is based on a false premise, and she doesn't get any better from there.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[X]

Calling someone like Dr. Wood "insane" is disrespecting the insane [...]

Agreed.


You said Mr. Mackey's work is questionable because it discusses the location of the supposed DEW weapon. Do you realize that you're implying one does not need to describe where an energy weapon was fired from in order to deduce it's use? Even when, as Mr. Mackey demonstrated, the location plays a critical role in determining the capabilities of such a weapon?
I suppose that's only to be expected. I mean, Dr. Wood thinks people who speculate on how the DEW works are out-of-line, never mind people who go so far as to discuss the likeliest locations for it.
You do know that you are following a "scientist" who refuses to discuss how her hypothesized weapon works, right?



Finally, as you sit behind your keyboard proclaiming to all and sundry how smart and educated you are, please stop doing hard-returns mid-sentence. It makes your posts difficult to read. Let the text wrap.

 

[jammonius]

Poor crazy Ms. Wood has attracted another degreed incompetent, whose central premise ("dustification") is immediately and definitively refuted? I'm not surprised. I hope they get compassionate mental health care, but as one of several people who quantitatively refuted Ms. Wood's vague ramblings years ago in this forum, I'm well aware the whole no-plane-undefined-beam fantasy is about irrelevant people seeking attention. I put the poor OP on ignore some time ago, but the world at large and science in particular beat me to it. Pretty sad, really.

What can be seen counts. As to the claim of refutation, that, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, there exists no validly conducted, publicly trusted determination of what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11, other, that is, than the work done by Dr. Wood and posted at the NIST website, her website and most especially, now, in her book Where Did the Towers Go?

As to seeing:

 

[NoahFence]

What can be seen counts. As to the claim of refutation, that, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, there exists no validly conducted, publicly trusted determination of what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11, other, that is, than the work done by Dr. Wood and posted at the NIST website, her website and most especially, now, in her book Where Did the Towers Go?

As to seeing:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/dustspire.gif[/qimg]

 

[TJM]

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.

Well!

I stand corrected.

So jammy, since the book is doing well perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing a brief passage or two (being mindful of forum rules, naturally) to give us a better understanding.

Welcome back.

 

[WTC Dust]

Which false premise?

I only discovered Dr. Wood after joining up here.

Her theory is based on a false premise, and she doesn't get any better from there.

 

[dafydd]

Which false premise?

That there were no planes and that a non-existent super duper energy beam destroyed the towers. Anybody who believes that is quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I've read her stuff on the web and in my opinion she is in need of medical help.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why don't you rephrase her claims of the seismic effects
right here, and then we can pick them apart?

What is it that you think she is saying?

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

 

[TJM]

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

Of course she doesn't. That would only muck up her delusions.

 

[WTC Dust]

You're a JREFer. You're not supposed to believe everything you
read. You're supposed to be skeptical.

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.

 

[Quad4_72]

You're a JREFer. You're not supposed to believe everything you
read. You're supposed to be skeptical.

WTC Dust, again, please type your message BELOW the quoted text. It is out of order and poor etiquette when you put your response before the quote.

 

[dafydd]

You're a JREFer. You're not supposed to believe everything you
read. You're supposed to be skeptical.

There must be some reason for Judy Wood's mental condition. Something must have sparked off her silly delusions. You're a believer, tell us how this supposed energy weapon works?

 

[TJM]

Finally, as you sit behind your keyboard proclaiming to all and sundry how smart and educated you are, please stop doing hard-returns mid-sentence. It makes your posts difficult to read. Let the text wrap.

It looks as if she's pasting text from a text editor - my iPhone app produces exactly the same breaks when I use it to post here.

 

[WTC Dust]

Her criticism comes primarily from non-scientists who cannot
effectively pick apart her claims. If they had scientific reason
to counter Wood, they'd do that. Using derogatory terms is
by definition losing the debate. I think that's even in the
JREFer FAQ.

I come here for debunking, not personal attacks. Along the
way, if you happen to have a debunking of Wood, I'd listen.
But it's tedious and boring to hear crazy talk coming from most
of you, because it isn't on point, and it doesn't affect her
science.

Mackay gave it a try, but the forced positioning of his weapon
does not match the claims of Dr. Wood, who doesn't focus on
the particular location of the weapon. She focuses on the physics
involved. Bravo, Mackay. You did the right thing, anyway. You
tried to debunk Dr. Wood.

Either you misunderstood Dr. Wood on the positioning, or you
added your own constraint, but either way, you failed. But you
also succeeded in a way that other people haven't. You
treated her claims seriously and actually tried to debunk them.

Bravo. Try again. I want to see what else you have.

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.

 

[tsig]

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.

Well now we know who two of the five were that bought this book.

 

[WTC Dust]

What I'm saying, Dear X, is that the location of the weapon
isn't what Dr. Wood discusses very much or at all.

Has there been extended debate on the addition of Mackay,
the positioning requirement? I haven't seen it. Have people
thoroughly reviewed his decision to add the positioning requirement
to Dr. Wood's concepts? If so, I want to read their criticism of
Mackey. (Oops been mispelling.)

Just so you know, forcing extra stuff onto a theory and then
trashing the theory because of the extra stuff isn't actually
debunking the original theory.

And on the subject of text wrap, I'm not sure I want to make
my posts particularly easy to read. Rude people might get tired
of following along.

Agreed.


You said Mr. Mackey's work is questionable because it discusses the location of the supposed DEW weapon. Do you realize that you're implying one does not need to describe where an energy weapon was fired from in order to deduce it's use? Even when, as Mr. Mackey demonstrated, the location plays a critical role in determining the capabilities of such a weapon?
I suppose that's only to be expected. I mean, Dr. Wood thinks people who speculate on how the DEW works are out-of-line, never mind people who go so far as to discuss the likeliest locations for it.
You do know that you are following a "scientist" who refuses to discuss how her hypothesized weapon works, right?



Finally, as you sit behind your keyboard proclaiming to all and sundry how smart and educated you are, please stop doing hard-returns mid-sentence. It makes your posts difficult to read. Let the text wrap.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

.

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

Describing an insane person as insane is not name calling and past achievements are no measure of current sanity or future ability.

 

[tsig]

I read some debunking attempts, but nothing that was
a solid refutation of DEW.

I seem to remember an argument that depended on
the weapon being directly ABOVE ground zero, but I find
this to be unnecessarily restrictive. The weapon could
have been anywhere, not just directly above Ground Zero,
and I don't see why anyone should accept this as a
precondition.

I don't have an opinion on where the weapon was physically located. Could have been deep in the sea or far away on a mountain top, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed.


You said Mr. Mackey's work is questionable because it discusses the location of the supposed DEW weapon. Do you realize that you're implying one does not need to describe where an energy weapon was fired from in order to deduce it's use? Even when, as Mr. Mackey demonstrated, the location plays a critical role in determining the capabilities of such a weapon?
I suppose that's only to be expected. I mean, Dr. Wood thinks people who speculate on how the DEW works are out-of-line, never mind people who go so far as to discuss the likeliest locations for it.
You do know that you are following a "scientist" who refuses to discuss how her hypothesized weapon works, right?



Finally, as you sit behind your keyboard proclaiming to all and sundry how smart and educated you are, please stop doing hard-returns mid-sentence. It makes your posts difficult to read. Let the text wrap.

She's not implying it, she said it.

I like the 'in the deep sea' part.

On a mountaintop, in the deep blue sea

Sits a weapon that none can see

It wreaks fear in you and thee

From it's mountaintop, deep in the sea.