Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Gamolon]

More from Judy's circus side show.

Here is another photo with her caption beneath.

Figure 16. How did this car get here? Why is the fence still vertical?

Mysterious!!!! This HAS to have been some sort of crazy effect! This ties into what was seen at ground zero. SECRET WEAPON!!!!!

Upon further review. It was probably nothing more that a car FLOATING there in the flood waters and getting caught on the fence. Here is another photo of the same car that I found. Notice the flood water lines on the garage to the right and behind the car.

Cars don't float/move in flood waters though right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HJrNYJ2xKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiY1ZdIzEI

 

[CompusMentus]

She doesn't say it was from space

Wrong.

From a November 11 2006 interview with Jim Fetzer:-

(About 35m)

Fetzer: I'm gonna make a wild guess Judy, I'm gonna presume that these beams had to be located in Building 7.

Judy: No. I don't think so.

Fetzer: Really?

Judy: They came from above

Fetzer: Really? Planes?

Judy: No I, I, that's, I'm not comfortable speculating that far.....

Fetzer: Yeah?

Judy: I believe, it's probably, It's very likely in orbit.

Fetzer: Oh really!? Oh ho oh ho.....

Judy: A stationary, you know, geosynchronous.....

Fetzer: Oh Judy, oh my oh my oh my. This is huge!

Judy: They tried it out in 1991....

Fetzer: This is huge Judy! This is huge!

Judy: Yeah! Oh yeah!

Later (about 47m) Troy phones in with a question:-

Troy: Were you saying that from outer space they were sending in
lasers to cut a few buildings? I understand you right?

Fetzer: That looks as though that is the most probable explanation given
the data that Judy has been examining.

Troy: Lasers? You said lasers from space?

Judy: No, no I'm saying energy, an energy beam, a beam of energy.

Fetzer: I used the phrase laser.....

Troy: Energy beams or lasers from space?

Judy: Yes.

You can find a recording of this interview HERE (MP3 File 13.5 MB)

Compus

 

[tsig]

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.

What happened to the foam?

 

[twinstead]

If we could destroy buildings the size of the WTC from space the US would be the masters of the Earth right now

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Man, can you get anything right??

Woods specialty isn't "field effects." She learned about that scam from John Hutchinson.

 

[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.

How far from a hurricane's eye can these field effects occur?

 

[Stellafane]

Easily and quite effectively, I'm afraid. But even before we get to that, I need to point out a rather important misstatement you've made, because I suspect it's rather critical to the context of this discussion: You say "all you've got so far is Mackey," but of course that's not even remotely true unless one defines the entire universe as the JREF forum -- and even then it isn't true. So if indeed you're imposing a limitation of that order of magnitude upon yourself, and wilfully excluding the vast preponderance of other irrefutable evidence out there, then that may be a major contributing factor towards your sympathetic views on Dr. Woods' work.

As for DEW, debunking it couldn't possibly be simpler: There is absolutely no evidence whatseover that such a weapon with the capabilities Dr. Woods attributes to it exists. None, whatsoever. Indeed, there is a great deal of doubt that such a thing even could exist, given the current state of our science and technology.

Here's the whole thing in a nutshell. Variations of the following statement have been posted in this forum literally thousands of times, but I'll say it again anyway: When someone makes a claim, the world is under no obligation to disprove it. Instead, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence that the claim is true. Dr. Woods may indeed be mystified by what happened on 9/11, but her attempt to come to terms with her personal bafflement by imagining a fantastic, unknown, and utterly unprecedented space weapon simply is not the sort of thinking that deserves serious consideration by anybody, not without a scintilla of evidence that such a thing exists. No pictures (although it should be easily photographed with a telescope, since it's up there in the sky for all to see like any other satellite), no blueprints or functional specifications, no images of prototypes. In short, nothing at all other than Dr. Woods' belief that it's there, and her assertion -- vigorously challenged by qualified multitudes, even by many within the ranks of fellow 9/11 Truthers -- that a DEW is the only explanation that fits her very idioscyncratic interpretation of the evidence. Not really a lot to go on.

I really don't need to go any further than that, although of course I could. Dr. Woods' ideas and claims provide a virtual embarrassment of riches to the debunker, since they fail many ways in so many areas (science, technology, logic to name a few). But doing so would be like machine-gunning an already bullet-riddled corpse, which would be silly and a waste of time.

As for insults, you needn't worry overmuch about that from me. I'm not usually given to hurling insults -- and when I do, they're generally done so subtly that the recipient doesn't even notice.

Easily, perhaps, but not effectively blasted away. All you've got so far is Mackey, who insists (unlike Wood) that the weapon would have been located directly above Ground Zero.

How about a real debunking? Insults will disqualify your response.

 

[Mudcat]

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.

Since you seem to have been asleep at the oar during science class, the laws of thermodynamics for your benefit:

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. While energy is invariably conserved, the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero.

 

[grandmastershek]

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.

Anyone who thinks that because there was dust that the building therefore turned to dust shouldn't be commenting on basis of questionable sanity alone.

 

[jammonius]

LashL sought to provide a very detailed discussion of Judy Wood's federal court case in which she accused certain MIC stalwarts, including SAIC and ARA, of fraud in the preparation of the NIST NCSTAR1 report; and, in which she demonstrated that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

Here is the link to LashL's post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8248975&postcount=311

A detailed response to LashL's post can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8250065&postcount=352

There is one element of LashL's post that merits a bit more discussion; namely, LashL's apparent ferverent wish that Wood and/or her lawyer had had sanctions or costs imposed upon them. None were; zero, zip zilch, nada.

LashL can fairly be said to have been sorely, deeply, truly disappointed that no sanctions or costs or money penalties of any kind were imposed on either Wood's lawyer or on Wood.

LashL said:

"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."

It might interest LashL to know that a review of public information reveals that Dr. Wood's lawyer has been involved in cases where money sanctions were imposed.

On the other side's lawyers, that is.

There may not be many public references to such matters, but it has happened.

Here, for instance was what a federal court had to say in one such case:

"For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to compel
(dkt. #40) is GRANTED. Furthermore, the defendant is ORDERED,
within fifteen (15) calendar days of this date, to show cause in writing why it should not be ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court
for the District of Connecticut the sum of $5,000 to partially
reimburse the public for the time and public resources it forced
the Court to expend as a result of the Bank’s unjustifiable
recalcitrance. At the conclusion of all proceedings herein, on
application, the Court will consider the amount of attorney’s fees,
if any, that should be awarded to the plaintiff as a result of his
meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37." Source: 3:09cv1028 #53 pgs 15-16"

So, in addition to suing MIC stalwarts, Dr. Wood's lawyer also sues banks and has gotten sanctions imposed against the bank!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

Wow. Just... wow. Forget 9/11. If either you or Judy Wood could identify and publicly reproduce this process which is more than 100% efficient, you would literally change the course of human history.

 

[twinstead]

LashL sought to provide a very detailed discussion of Judy Wood's federal court case in which she accused certain MIC stalwarts, including SAIC and ARA, of fraud in the preparation of the NIST NCSTAR1 report; and, in which she demonstrated that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

Here is the link to LashL's post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8248975&postcount=311

A detailed response to LashL's post can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8250065&postcount=352

There is one element of LashL's post that merits a bit more discussion; namely, LashL's apparent ferverent wish that Wood and/or her lawyer had had sanctions or costs imposed upon them. None were; zero, zip zilch, nada.

LashL can fairly be said to have been sorely, deeply, truly disappointed that no sanctions or costs or money penalties of any kind were imposed on either Wood's lawyer or on Wood.

LashL said:

"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."

It might interest LashL to know that a review of public information reveals that Dr. Wood's lawyer has been involved in cases where money sanctions were imposed.

On the other side's lawyers, that is.

There may not be many public references to such matters, but it has happened.

Here, for instance was what a federal court had to say in one such case:

"For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to compel
(dkt. #40) is GRANTED. Furthermore, the defendant is ORDERED,
within fifteen (15) calendar days of this date, to show cause in writing why it should not be ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court
for the District of Connecticut the sum of $5,000 to partially
reimburse the public for the time and public resources it forced
the Court to expend as a result of the Bank’s unjustifiable
recalcitrance. At the conclusion of all proceedings herein, on
application, the Court will consider the amount of attorney’s fees,
if any, that should be awarded to the plaintiff as a result of his
meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37." Source: 3:09cv1028 #53 pgs 15-16"

So, in addition to suing MIC stalwarts, Dr. Wood's lawyer also sues banks and has gotten sanctions imposed against the bank!

Sanctions or no sanctions...what was the court's opinion of Judy's case?

 

[plague311]

LashL sought to provide a very detailed discussion of Judy Wood's federal court case in which she accused certain MIC stalwarts, including SAIC and ARA, of fraud in the preparation of the NIST NCSTAR1 report; and, in which she demonstrated that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

Here is the link to LashL's post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8248975&postcount=311

A detailed response to LashL's post can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8250065&postcount=352

There is one element of LashL's post that merits a bit more discussion; namely, LashL's apparent ferverent wish that Wood and/or her lawyer had had sanctions or costs imposed upon them. None were; zero, zip zilch, nada.

LashL can fairly be said to have been sorely, deeply, truly disappointed that no sanctions or costs or money penalties of any kind were imposed on either Wood's lawyer or on Wood.

LashL said:

"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."

It might interest LashL to know that a review of public information reveals that Dr. Wood's lawyer has been involved in cases where money sanctions were imposed.

On the other side's lawyers, that is.

There may not be many public references to such matters, but it has happened.

Here, for instance was what a federal court had to say in one such case:

"For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to compel
(dkt. #40) is GRANTED. Furthermore, the defendant is ORDERED,
within fifteen (15) calendar days of this date, to show cause in writing why it should not be ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court
for the District of Connecticut the sum of $5,000 to partially
reimburse the public for the time and public resources it forced
the Court to expend as a result of the Bank’s unjustifiable
recalcitrance. At the conclusion of all proceedings herein, on
application, the Court will consider the amount of attorney’s fees,
if any, that should be awarded to the plaintiff as a result of his
meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37." Source: 3:09cv1028 #53 pgs 15-16"

So, in addition to suing MIC stalwarts, Dr. Wood's lawyer also sues banks and has gotten sanctions imposed against the bank!

So? The case you bring up could be completely different circumstances. What does that have to do with absolutely anything? It's not even in New York, it's Connecticut.

I mean, thanks for the completely useless and unwanted information. It was real. It was fun. It was real stupid.

Did you just include this to let us all know that the lawyer doesn't always take cases from tin foil hat wearing nut cases? Good on him I guess.

 

[X]

You're stuck in the thermodynamics box when heat played almost no role in the destruction of the WTC.

I hope you can see this.

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.

Here's the thing: You have a PhD. Good for you. But it is not in physics or engineering. While you may be very smart regarding plant genetics, your familiarity with physics is lacking.

This is shown by the above quotes.

Thermodynamics is about energy and work, not just heat. Any first year engineering student will be able to tell you that.


Now, I don't know how things work in the biomedical sciences. Maybe there, it's acceptable to propose radical processes without needing to explain how those processes work.
Not so much in the physical science. If you want engineers and physicists to accept the existence (and use) of a weapon capable of tremendous destruction, you have to be prepared to explain how it works, where it is and what it does.
If you aren't willing to do that, then you are not going to be taken seriously.

Remember: the physicists and engineers of the world are under no obligation to accept, or even respect, new ideas until and unless the ideas pass muster.

And should someone be kind enough to explain the problems with the concept, whining about how they make assumptions (necessitated by the utter lack of explanation from the hypothesis' proponents) is a sure way to earn yourself scorn.

Further, harping on misinterpreted "evidence" (often intentionally misinterpreted) is a sign of someone so ideologically bonded to their notion that they cannot accept correction even when the mistakes are obvious. Don't be surprised if people treat you like a bad smell for it.



In short: While bombast and warped burdens of proof may be de rigeur in genetics, things are not so laissez-faire in the rest of science. Put up, or shut up.

 

[alienentity]

More from Judy's circus side show.

Here is another photo with her caption beneath.


Mysterious!!!! This HAS to have been some sort of crazy effect! This ties into what was seen at ground zero. SECRET WEAPON!!!!!

Upon further review. It was probably nothing more that a car FLOATING there in the flood waters and getting caught on the fence. Here is another photo of the same car that I found. Notice the flood water lines on the garage to the right and behind the car.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/800px-WestendWoodFenceCar.jpg[/qimg]

You've exposed yet another example of gross incompetence by Judy Wood. No doubt Dr Blevins will excuse this and continue to keep Judy on her dusty pedestal - that's her prerogative.

Just wanted to add that the water lines are visible on the car as well (in both pics but more obviously on the lower one you found) and show that the car indeed floated there and came to rest on the fence.

The fence is still vertical because it is strong enough to support part of the car's weight. Because the car is front-wheel drive the majority of its mass is at the front, which is resting on the ground, and the centre of mass is well below the fence top.

Please, Dr Blevins and Dr Wood, don't make us show the pictures of boats resting in weird places after floods with captions 'how did this boat get here?'
I'm quite certain I could find hundreds of examples of bogus Judy Wood-style 'field effects' if I wanted to.

But it would be a waste of time. Dr Wood's observations are at best incompetent.

 

[alienentity]

She doesn't say it was from space, and she doesn't say it was powered by a hurricane. Her DETRACTORS say that about her.

What does Judy think the hurricane had to do with it then? Please explain.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Ah! Very interesting. So why are my WTC dust samples so full of iron fragments?

Tell Me about flyash WTC Dust. What's in flyash? Iron? Perhaps we can also consider how much iron is in ink for printer cartridges and how many printers were in these towers. Human blood..there is iron in human blood. Dust...How much drywall was in those towers, WTCDust? Have you addressed any of those points?

 

[alienentity]

No. I did not give Jones any samples, but I did get to examine some of his samples in 2011. They didn't contain thermite, remember? They contained iron oxide, remember? Just like my samples.

Iron oxide in this large amount needs explaining, only thermite doesn't do the job.

The Jones samples contain very little iron oxide. Perfectly and exactly consistent with the amounts of oxidized steel attached to tiny flakes of anti-corrosion paint.

The buildings were made of structural steel, remember? Some 200,000 tons of it. It would be very strange indeed if we didn't find some iron oxide in the dust.

However, perhaps you can enlighten us *boxed-in thinkers* as to the physical process by which the WTC steel became converted, almost instantly, into foam or is it dust? What happened to the molecules of steel to make them dissociate, how much energy would that require, and where did the energy come from?

Please give us the math behind this to support your argument, if you do not wish to be ridiculed for believing in pseudo-science.

Note: Neither you nor Dr Wood has competently or scientifically demonstrated that ANY structural steel from the WTC was turned to dust or foam; that it has ever happened in the universe; that there is any kind of coherent scientific theory to explain this alleged process; nor that there was steel missing from that which should have been recovered from the WTC.

Your claims thus far are not validated by any accepted or recognized scientific method, and as such are to be treated as pure and scientifically unsupported speculation - nothing more.

If you cannot offer anything else than 'have you read the book?' then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[TSR]

The video evidence and the eyewitness evidence is the best evidence we have of planes.

What about the radar tracks?

 

[alienentity]

Tell Me about flyash WTC Dust. What's in flyash? Iron? Perhaps we can also consider how much iron is in ink for printer cartridges and how many printers were in these towers. Human blood..there is iron in human blood. Dust...How much drywall was in those towers, WTCDust? Have you addressed any of those points?

Dr Blevins has FAILED to perform any rigorous and complete analysis of her material, which btw has NOT been proved to be from the WTC.

The samples she has are unknown in origin.
The samples are unknown in chemical composition.

Almost all Dr Blevin's claims thus far are uninformed speculation. (Uninformed by the necessary facts regarding the samples, that is. She is very well informed in the realm of the incessant and fraudulent claptrap produced by Judy Wood)