Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[aggle-rithm]

Asking about total energy consumption is a distraction. Maybe it doesn't require any energy. Maybe the process produces energy. !!! GET IT????

So many of you act like you're intellectually living in a very small box.

Yes, that silly old Laws of Thermodynamics is holding us back again.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Either way, doesn't change the fact that airplane crashes don't turn steel buildings into dust.

Do you mean buildings made of 100% steel? Irrelevant.

Or perhaps you mean building made partially of steel turning to 100% dust? Also irrelevant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not really. There was a lot of dust produced. There was some parts of the building left over, and even those parts are interesting.

There is a world of difference between "a lot of dust produced" and "turned to dust".

There was a huge heap of parts left over, and if you lived there, you would have seen them lug it away for months.

Hans

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ugh, I can't believe I'm letting myself get drawn into this ridiculous discussion.

I'm outta here.

 

[tsig]

Asking about total energy consumption is a distraction. Maybe it doesn't require any energy. Maybe the process produces energy. !!! GET IT????

So many of you act like you're intellectually living in a very small box.

It's called reality.

 

[jammonius]

Unfortunately for Judy, ludricrous, ridiculous and stupid are the three most appropriate words in the English language to describe the nonsense that she spouts both on the internet and via her frivolous lawsuits. I could add many synonyms but it wouldn't change reality. You shouldn't blame others for the failings of Judy Wood and her lawyer, nor should you blame others for the proper use of the English language in describing the failings of Judy Wood and her lawyer.

You protest overmuch. I do not care what other people say about such matters. Certainly, when they do so, they merely say something about themselves, nothing whatever about Dr. Judy Wood or whomever. This is well known. "Whatever person A says about person B, information is imparted concerning person A, not B."

Use of hyperbolic phraseology merely confirms that the poster designated LashL does not like the fact that Dr. Judy Wood has painstakingly determined and proven, six ways to Sunday what destroyed the WTC complex on the one hand; and, neither NIST, the 9/11 Commission, nor any other governmental entity has publicly done so, on the other.

Use of hyperbole in that context merely conveys person A's words; words that are properly referred to as hyperbolic and over the top.

That is not true. Both the court of first instance (in its initial decision and in its decision on the request for reconsideration) and the appellate court specifically held that the pleading advanced on behalf of Ms. Wood was so poor that it could not even meet the very low threshold required to survive a motion to strike, without the defendants even having to file a defence to the ridiculous, ludicrous, and woefully drafted Complaint.

The above is incorrect. The defendants did not proceed on the basis of a motion to strike. I have posted below the document filing history of the Wood v ARA et al. case in US federal court, Southern District of New York.

As you can see, there were 107 separate filings in that case; none designated as a motion to strike. There are some designated motion for sanctions and motion for costs. ALL WERE DENIED.

If one were to check further, 18 lawyers were listed in the Attorney section of the public court record. 1 of them represented Dr. Wood.

So, let's review the bidding here. 17 versus 1 in a case where the plaintiff claimed the defendants committed fraud by misrepresenting what destroyed the WTC complex and that in fact the WTC complex was destroyed by a form of directed energy weapons.

Sure, I can easily grasp that people who form an attachment to the common storyline of 9/11, either by preference or because they need to do so for some reason, would be nonplussed by Dr. Wood's assertions. They might even claim her assertions were stupidludicrousridiculous, wash, rinse, repeat.

But, in the legal event, Dr. Wood lost her case but did not have to pay one-dime in costs to any defendant.

Put it this way: The defendants had to pay all 17 of their law firms and assorted lawyers, paralegals and other expenses, through 107 filings in the case on their own.

Both the court of first instance and the appellate court held that the pleading was so woefully inadequate that it could not even make it past the very lowest hurdle to even require a defence to be filed by the defendants. The courts held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring certain of her putative claims, and that she failed to plead any legally coherent claims in her Complaint (i.e., the claims were frivolous, and grossly improperly pleaded).

The "i.e." part is hyperbole. Yes, the case was dismissed. No, the defendants did not get sanctions or costs. The defendants wanted to get them, tried to get them, but they were denied. No need to be hyperbolic about this. Facts are facts.

Both courts also held that the Complaint was not even worthy of being permitted to be amended because it was so hopelessly inadequate that even amending could not salvage it. That is about as bad as it gets - not even being able to draft a Complaint that can make it past the very low standard that it had to meet at the pleadings stage. Yikes!

That is not nearly as bad as it gets. It's much worse when you have to pay costs and sanctions.

Keep in mind that the case claimed the defendants committed fraud and that DEW destroyed the WTC complex. The case went on for over a year in the lower court alone and was not finally resolved until a writ of certiorari was denied by the US SUPREME COURT in 2010.

All 17 of the defendants law firms were quite busy for quite some time.

The appellate court specifically held that:

"Originally Posted by Appellate Court
We have considered all of Wood's arguments bearing on the adequacy of the pleadings in the Amended Complaint and Wood's request for leave to amend. We find them to be without merit and, as such, the district court's dismissal of Wood's claim with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) is AFFIRMED."

That is pretty much the worst of the worst kind of failure that a plaintiff and her lawyer can achieve.

I'm sorry. That is not bad at all. Indeed, all anyone can do in any legal contest is make arguments. Courts decide.

Here, the court may indeed have said "We have considered all of Wood's arguments bearing on the adequacy of the pleadings in the Amended Complaint and Wood's request for leave to amend."

Firstly, there is nothing hyperbolic about that, something that posters might take heed of.

Furthermore a very clear, between the lines message to be derived from that language is this:

WOOD PUT UP ONE HELL OF A FIGHT, BUT WE ARE RULING AGAINST HER NONETHELESS.

That is a fair, non-hyperbolic rendering of the phrase "we have considered all of Wood's arguments..." That is, Wood made a lot of them

That is what legal contests are all about. That is nothing at all to be ashamed of.

It is a serious failing of the civil court system in NY, in my view, that sanctions are almost never imposed against parties who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits that are so bad that they cannot even state a claim or assert appropriate jurisdiction and are so badly drafted that even amending would not cure the deficiencies. In the jurisdiction in which I live, the general rule is "costs follow the event" which means that a plaintiff bringing a frivolous, nonsensical, and bound-to-fail lawsuit (such as the one that Judy Wood brought) would result in costs payable by the plaintiff (or her lawyer) to the successful defendants on a motion to strike. That is the standard here, and it is a good one.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion as to when costs should be imposed. They were not imposed on Dr. Wood or her lawyer. One thing you might want to do, however, is double check the accuracy of your reference to motion to strike. See F.R.Civ.P 12(f). The Wood case was rendered under 12(b)6.

That aside, the only motions for sanctions in which I've been interested in this case were those being sought by a couple of non-government defendants against Ms. Wood's lawyer (as the government defendants did not seek sanctions and the non-government defendants did not seek costs against Judy personally) and I recall asking you quite some time ago to substantiate your claims about other sanctions being sought, but you never did. I take your failure to provide evidence of your claims to mean that you cannot do so. I will, of course, revisit that should you ever provide evidence in support of your claim in the future.

I'm not sure what is being referred to in the above? I have set out below the entire history of the case. If there is something in it that is unclear to you, perhaps you could advise further.

In any event, the defendants apparently recognized Judy's serious difficulties and chose not to proceed with a motion for sanctions against her on that basis, but felt that it was worthwhile to pursue taking her lawyer to task for his shameful role in the debacle, possibly because of the strong wording used by the District Court.

The history of the case reveals that motions for sanctions were most definitely filed, LashL. I'm surprised you did not ascertain as much before posting in error.

It's a shame, really, that the courts in NY are so gun-shy, though, and that they seem to often speak a good game but then not follow through, and Judy's lawyer was lucky that the appellate court let him off the hook with only a warning. I do not know, obviously, but reading between the lines, I am guessing that the court may have concluded that her lawyer was not exactly firing on all cylinders himself, and felt kind of sorry for him too.

The above seems rather misquided, legally speaking. Yes, the US District Court SDNY is located in NY, but it is a federal court. The rules of procedure are uniform, throughout the federal system, governed, as they are by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. True, each of the federal court have local rules, but the local rules of the SDNY are, I believe, rather similar to those of almost all other federal district courts.

LashL, what are you talking about?

But in no way whatsoever did either the court of first instance or the appellate court say or even hint that "the case was sufficiently substantiated to have made it improper for sanctions to be imposed" as you stated above. To even suggest that is an out and out lie, frankly. The courts specifically denounced the pleading and the appellate court specifically denounced the lawyer for bringing such a ludicrous and frivolous appeal but cut him a break by not imposing sanctions against him personally, quite possibly because they felt a bit sorry for him, too. But they were absolutely clear that the case was NOT substantiated in any way, shape or form and that if he tried it on again, they would smack him down six ways to Sunday.

The above is worse than hyperbolic, it is a flat-out misrepresentation.

As clearly shown in the record of court proceedings, sanctions and costs were sought. They were DENIED.

Furthermore, they were denied at the APPELLATE level as well, LashL. You have clearly announced you wanted Wood and/or her lawyer to have been sanctioned. The courts decided otherwise.

Get over it.
Deal with it.
Move on.
Feel better
Take 2 aspirin and call your doctor in the morning, or something.

Why are you trying to misrepresent the court judgments in this case, particularly when the documents are readily available to prove the extent of your misrepresentation?

The record of the case is set out below, LashL. Misrepresentation is something that can be relatively objectively determined here. Your errors concerning the court procedural history are here demonstrated for all to see.

Finally, last I heard, Judy sought leave to appeal to the SCOTUS and leave was summarily denied. So, in the result, every single court that ever dealt with the matter said that it was so woefully inadequate that it could not be saved even by amending it; in other words: ludicrous, stupid, ridiculous, and beyond hope from the outset. Those really are the best words to describe it.

The US SUPREME COURT denies certiorari in more than 90% of the cases that apply for it. The application process, itself, requires the careful preparation of a writ and rather exacting standards to do so.

Do you know of any lawyer who has ever filed one? If you do, the statistically likely outcome is that it was denied. Nothing unusual about that at all. Your characterization of Wood's having done so as failure is, how shall we properly put this, ah, I know, inaccurate.

Things can be correct/incorrect; accurate/inaccurate. Most other characterizations contain an emotional element.

Thank you for sharing.

One has to earn the respect of others, and Judy Wood has not done anything to earn my respect. In fact, in light of the manner in which she disrespects the deceased and their families with the patent nonsense that she promulgates so hurtfully and hatefully, she has actually earned my disrespect. My disrespect for her would, of course, be tempered with compassion if she is, indeed, mentally ill. In my view, the mentally ill deserve compassion and deserve to have their actions viewed in a different light than the actions of those who are fully capable and cognizant. However, if she is not mentally ill, the fact that she continues to peddle her hurtful and hateful nonsense would mean that no such tempering with compassion would be warranted at all and full-on contempt and loathing would be the order of the day.

The above is misdirected. By painstakingly determining on the basis of valid forensic process what destroyed the WTC complex; and then by publishing a beautifully crafted book providing even more detail about what happened, a book that is rapidly catching on with the public, I might add, Dr. Wood has done more than perhaps any other human being in the world to honor the victims of 9/11.

By having done so, Dr. Wood merits, and will certainly receive, historically signficant respect all in due course.

 

[Resume]

Planes might or might not have been hijacked on 9/11. Either way, doesn't change the fact that airplane crashes don't turn steel buildings into dust.

Well, not dust, dust and debris. Reinforcing beams, airplane parts, people parts . . . Not fairy dust and pixie rays and other reality-defying silliness.

 

[twinstead]

Jammonius it's obvious what the courts think of Judy's case. Why you and WTC Dust have hitched your wagons on that crazy star I have no idea.

 

[WTC Dust]

You didn't see the pictures of the damage done to the WTC? Strange you'd be commenting on this with this level of knowledge.

True, but then, no steel buildings were turned into dust, so this fact seems a bit irrelevant.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

Thermodynamics is about heat transfer. If the WTC wasn't destroyed by heat, then you have to rethink whether or not relying exclusively on thermodynamics is appropriate.

Yes, that silly old Laws of Thermodynamics is holding us back again.

 

[WTC Dust]

You can't ignore the steel. Any mechanism of destruction of the WTC must account for what happened to the steel that made up the supporting structures of the building. In terms of building strength, you could ignore everything that wasn't steel, because the glass windows and concrete floors didn't provide the strength. It was the steel.

Do you mean buildings made of 100% steel? Irrelevant.

Or perhaps you mean building made partially of steel turning to 100% dust? Also irrelevant.

 

[WTC Dust]

I did live there, and I do still live and work there, and I saw what went on there.

There is a world of difference between "a lot of dust produced" and "turned to dust".

There was a huge heap of parts left over, and if you lived there, you would have seen them lug it away for months.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

You didn't see the pictures of the damage done to the WTC? Strange you'd be commenting on this with this level of knowledge.

You mean the tall piles of steel girders and other scrap? You mean the recovered human remains? You mean the blocks of compressed concrete flooring? You mean all that stuff that kept burning for weeks after the collapse? All obviously far more substantial than the plumes of dust settling within hours of the collapses.

Yes, I saw those pictures. No, I don't call that pulverized.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thermodynamics is about heat transfer. If the WTC wasn't destroyed by heat, then you have to rethink whether or not relying exclusively on thermodynamics is appropriate.

The WTC was, among other things, destroyed by heat.

Thermodynamics is about energy. All kinds of energy. Your suggestion that an energy weapon could create its own energy violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Hans

 

[Resume]

I did live there, and I do still live and work there, and I saw what went on there.

Oh goody, do tell!? What went on there, was it . . . was it a . . . conspiracy?

 

[MRC_Hans]

You can't ignore the steel. Any mechanism of destruction of the WTC must account for what happened to the steel that made up the supporting structures of the building. In terms of building strength, you could ignore everything that wasn't steel, because the glass windows and concrete floors didn't provide the strength. It was the steel.

The accepted model does account for what happend to the steel.

It was not turned to dust.

Hans

 

[aggle-rithm]

The WTC was, among other things, destroyed by heat.

Thermodynamics is about energy. All kinds of energy. Your suggestion that an energy weapon could create its own energy violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Hans

Does anyone remember that quote that says in effect, "Your theory may fly in the face of all conventional thinking, but if it conflicts with thermodynamics, it is doomed"?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You can't ignore the steel. Any mechanism of destruction of the WTC must account for what happened to the steel that made up the supporting structures of the building. In terms of building strength, you could ignore everything that wasn't steel, because the glass windows and concrete floors didn't provide the strength. It was the steel.

Indeed. And the steel failed and the building failed. Its what happens if you stress structures beyond the designed limits. no mystery.
But would can't ignore the concrete because it was the mass of the concrete floors that played a large part in why the collapse progressed as it did.

 

[Gamolon]

The video evidence and the eyewitness evidence is the best evidence we have of planes. You cannot deny that many people say they saw a plane overhead, and many of the videos and still images seem to corroborate this.

Yet despite this evidence, you still believe there were no plane impacts.

 

[Gamolon]

The data on Hurricane Erin presented in her book is solid and unassailable. Remember field effects, Dr. Wood's specialty? Hurricanes produce changes in field effects. You can continue to talk about weather fronts, but you'll be missing what she says is important about the hurricane. Back to the book! Have you read it?

Really?

Below is the type of bullcrap "evidence" and rantings Judy tries to use to purvey a sense of mystery, awe, and unbelievable effects that can only be explained by her equally fantastical theory.

Just like the claim that the toasted cars all the way over on FDR, which is a supposed weird occurrence, can only be explained by a super secret and science-fiction-like weapon. This in fact was just damaged cars being towed to the FDR location as has been shown.

Here's another example of her carnival/side show type garbage. This is from her website here. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Everyone gather 'round for the Greatest Show on Earth! Even better than the Man with Lizard Skin, or the Bearded Lady, Judy presents... THE MYSTERIOUSLY SKEWERED CAR!!!!

Figure 29. (Tornado or Hurrican) It appears this car was dropped down onto this tree like a shishkobob, except the tree is undamaged higher up. The rescue workers appear shocked by what they see.

You have to be kidding me. Dropped from the TOP of the tree and skewered? Looks to me like the the car wrapped around the tree from the right. I love the "The rescue workers appear to be shocked by what they see." Like she can see that expression from the photo. Nothing like adding more "shock and awe" to her claims. Her bloated head (due to her own personal delusions of grandeur) is so far up her own rear end, she can no longer see the obvious and practical explanations in front of her.