• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

Macgyver1968 said:
I believe you are correct. In her interview with Greg Jenkins about 5 years ago, she referred to his questions about the specifics of the weapon as "distractions". Not very scientific thinking. To her, the only thing that is important is the belief that some mythical device really does exist that is capable of what she describes. When you start talking about specifics, you bring in that pesky known science that can cast doubt on her crazy theory. As long as she keeps it vague, then, in her mind, her belief is safe.
Click to expand...


Also in that highly entertaining interview, (see below) when Jenkins asks about the energy requirements for such a DEW, she answers simply "we don't need to know that" This is either astonishing arrogance or blatant ineptitude. I leave it for the lurkers to decide (jammonius™)


Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



Compus
 
Exactly.

And anyone claiming a cause but completely unable to explain how that cause works is not worth respect.
If that person demands that they be taken seriously, and ignores all attempts to show where they went wrong, and accuses innocent people and victims of horrendous crimes, then that person becomes worthy of contempt.

That is what Ms. Wood is doing. Hence her earned disrespect.

WTC Dust's attempts to ignore Mr. Mackey's work because Mr. Mackey analyzed the practicalities of DEW at various locations, while lauding the claims of Ms. Woods (who refuses to even describe how her hypothesized DEW even operates), are certainly not worthy of serious consideration. They are merely the frantic dance of a mind unable to cope with real objections and problems to a claim that has taken on the role of ideology.
 
dafydd said:
"The irrepressible MMB, complete with diamond studded tiara, entertained a crowd of thousands as she stripped to loud cheers and applause, revealing a hand-painted marijuana leaf where a fig leaf should be and the slogan 'Medical Marijuana' inscribed on her bum."

That got attention alright, but from the photos accompanying the press release, it's easy to see why the audience was cheering, and it had nothing do with marijuana.

Medical Marijuana Barbie is a character created by Tracy Blevins, comptroller for New York's Medical Marijuana Party, and is the star attraction of Blevins' one-woman "Medical Marijuana Traveling Circus Sideshow," designed to garner support for the legalization of medical pot.

Besides her breasts, the best thing Blevins has going for her cause is a Ph.D. in pharmacology from the University of Texas Houston Medical School. "I get 'em with the Barbie and keep 'em when they hear about the Ph.D.," she told the Palm Beach Post in November 2000.

But does she? Sure, parting with a bra and panties is going to pull some eyes. But what do the gawkers support, legalizing medpot or your bust? Will they become bosom buddies with the cause or simply your bosoms?

http://vigilantsquirrelbrigade.blogspot.com/2011/12/update-who-is-real-tracy-blevins.html

A serious scholar indeed!
Click to expand...
she had a blogspot too
http://web.archive.org/web/20050211133008/http://rainbeauxbarbie.blogspot.com/
 
carlitos said:
It's gone from directed energy to directed free energy I see. She spoke with some "Zero Point Energy" people and swapped notes or whatever.
Maybe I can turn this Toyota into foam using my Power Balance bracelet.
Click to expand...


This (the free energy aspect) is the influence of her unstinting belief in the patently fraudulent "Hutchison Effect". She became highly enamoured with Hutch a number of years ago. Leading to a split with her then-time busom-buddy Jim Fetzer. That should turn on a little light somewhere, I mean when even Jim Fetzer dumps you for being too crazy that should indicate somethings wrong. Fetzer is a man who after all welcomes with open arms such lauded luminaries of the TM as Rosalee Grable on his show at every whip-stitch.

Respect? Don't make me laugh my sides might split.

Compus
 
X said:
All Mr. Mackey was doing was showing that, for any reasonable location of the DEW (unless you want to assume the ridiculous, like the bottom of the sea or halfway around the world or on a distant planet, requiring the directed energy to be unaffected by matter between it and its target, and not affect the interstitial matter at all), the weapon would be either absurdly impractical or outright impossible.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
and in any case insanity is no respecter of educational level.... Woods and Dustie may well been rational capable Scientists when they graduated but that says nothing about how rational and capable they are now. That is best shown by their recent "work" :D
Click to expand...

The above raises interesting and far reaching questions. Chief among them is the implication that it is insane to question the status quo; and, it certainly may be in the context of "going along in order to get along."

Certainly in the case of Dr. Wood and who I gather WTC Dust is, they have each achieved doctorate degrees and worked as scientists. They have also each challenged the status quo in regard to 9/11. WTC Dust appears quite clear in lauding Dr. Wood for being both willing and able to fundamentally challenge the common storyline of 9/11 and to prove what actually destroyed the WTC complex.

Most scientists would shy away from doing that because it would mean job loss. Period, end of story.

That is one reason why the deception of 9/11 is so hard to uncover. People are generally willing to admit they have doubts about the common storyline of 9/11; at least in private conversation. However, publicly challenging 9/11 is another matter. That is what will get one labeled as "crazy."

That is a misnomer. What is more accurate is to say that such people are whistleblowers. And, as to that category of people, whistleblowing activity almost always results in sacrifice and loss. It takes extraordinary courage to do that; plus, whistleblowers are not always correct; or, if they are, are not always able to prove their claims once additional deceit is engaged in by the powers that be.

So, yes, I agree that the willingness to engage in self-sacrifice may be considered either brave or foolish; either sane or insane. It all depends on one's capacity to endure fascism.
 
twinstead said:
Did she or did she not use the same photos?
Click to expand...

Why are you forcing us down this road, twinstead. Take a look at the photos yourself and make a claim as to which are the same and which are not.

I am not going to play the control game you are inviting me to engage in. You know me better than that.

Sheesh!! :D

take care

ps
I'm running a bit late, more later.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Am I taking crazy pills? Does WTC Dusts lack of forum etiquette bother anyone else? She writes in some sort of poem paragraph form and puts the quoted message after her thoughts.
Click to expand...

Its extremely annoying, but as we've seen, she's gone full brick-wall status. No amount of requests will get through.
 
jammonius said:
Why are you forcing us down this road, twinstead. Take a look at the photos yourself and make a claim as to which are the same and which are not.

I am not going to play the control game you are inviting me to engage in. You know me better than that.

Sheesh!! :D

take care

ps
I'm running a bit late, more later.
Click to expand...

I'm only inviting you to apply the same criteria of valid evidence you do to things you disagree with as the things you do. Otherwise, you just come off as hypocritical.
 
jammonius said:
While it is not clear to me if the term "bleatings" was meant to apply to Dr. Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go?" it did occur to me that one way of assessing the above comment would be to compare the sales of Dr. Wood's book to other known 9/11 books that are thought to have appeal to debunkers. Three titles were selected:

John Farmer, "The Ground Truth"
Kean & Hamilton "Without Precedent"
Lynn Spencer "Touching History"

To be sure, Dr. Judy Wood's book has not as yet approached the 1,000,000+ range, as is the case for Kean & Hamilton, and has not achieved the <800,00 range achieved by the Farmer book. In third place in the compilation I selected is Lynn Spencer's book at the 100,000+ level.

And, at >40,000, Where Did the Towers Go? is getting there.

Speaking just for me, I think it fairly likely Dr. Wood's book will achieve 100,000 in sales in due course. Even at 50,000, a level her book is already approaching, it could be said that that is, well, respectable.
Click to expand...
Can anyone find a source for these claimed sales figures? I did a little research on book sales a few years ago, and they seem a little high to me. Assuming 80,00 means 800,000. If Dr. Wood can move 50,000 units at that price, I'm going to have to reevaluate my career choices.

On edit.

Oh. My. God. I looked again at the attached image. I forgot what we're dealing with here. He is using the "Amazon Sales Rank" to make the claims above about sales figures. Apparently, jammonius thinks that this number is 'units sold' not 'number of other books that are outselling this book at the present time.'

Never mind - we're in a parallel universe here.


Just in case: jammonius: This is a sales ranking. Higher numbers are worse, not better.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Can anyone find a source for these claimed sales figures? I did a little research on book sales a few years ago, and they seem a little high to me. Assuming 80,00 means 800,000. If Dr. Wood can move 50,000 units at that price, I'm going to have to reevaluate my career choices.

On edit.

Oh. My. God. I looked again at the attached image. I forgot what we're dealing with here. He is using the "Amazon Sales Rank" to make the claims above about sales figures. Apparently, jammonius thinks that this number is 'units sold' not 'number of other books that are outselling this book at the present time.'

Never mind - we're in a parallel universe here.


Just in case: jammonius: This is a sales ranking. Higher numbers are worse, not better.
Click to expand...

It also states that it is #1 with magnetism or something like that. It doesn't say it's #1 with 9/11 or anything related to it. Judy Woods book is a non seller on Amazon...I assure you.
 
carlitos said:
Can anyone find a source for these claimed sales figures? I did a little research on book sales a few years ago, and they seem a little high to me. Assuming 80,00 means 800,000. If Dr. Wood can move 50,000 units at that price, I'm going to have to reevaluate my career choices.

On edit.

Oh. My. God. I looked again at the attached image. I forgot what we're dealing with here. He is using the "Amazon Sales Rank" to make the claims above about sales figures. Apparently, jammonius thinks that this number is 'units sold' not 'number of other books that are outselling this book at the present time.'

Never mind - we're in a parallel universe here.


Just in case: jammonius: This is a sales ranking. Higher numbers are worse, not better.
Click to expand...

LOL...I was wondering about that....well at least he can take solace in knowing Dr. Judy's book is outselling the other 3 he listed.
 
Haven't got my "sea legs" back yet !

Macgyver1968 said:
LOL...I was wondering about that....well at least he can take solace in knowing Dr. Judy's book is outselling the other 3 he listed.
Click to expand...

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:jaw-dropp
 
jammonius said:
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:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Welcome back Jammy.

Actually a ranking of 41k on Amazon for a self-published book on a very narrow subject matter isn't too bad...considering all the books on there. David Icke's lastest book is ranked around 2k, and he has loads more followers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom