Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[jaydeehess]

You know when they test the airframe of an aircraft on that machine Boeing call 'the Big Shaker' ? It cycles the airframe through up to 2,000 cycles a second. Would the frame turn to dust if the frame (and it's molecules) could be vibrated at (say) 1 million cycles per second ?

Short answer is no, it would not turn to dust. You would pop rivets perhaps. It is vibrating the components and seeing if the bond between components (such as rivets) hold. If it was somehow increasing the collisions between molecules in the aluminum it would heat those molecules up, not turn them to dust. Moreover you need to know the amplitude of the movement as much or more than just the frequency, and that is part of the calculations for the amount of power required. Got anything at all concerning that bill? Does J.Wood? Answer: Not a spect!

On another subject. How does a microwave work ? Is it true that it vibrates the molecules of the food together causing them to create heat by friction ?

It causes the WATER molecules in the outer few centimeters of the object to become excited (vibrate is one way of putting it) and that increases collisions between molecules thus transfering that kinetic energy to adjacent molecules.
A normal oven inputs energy to the food simply by conduction. It causes the molecules of food to become excited and they collide with other molecules thus transferring their kinetic energy.
The biggest reason why things heat faster in a microwave oven is that the energy is delivered directly to the food rather than by heating the air in an oven and transfering that energy to the food by conduction.

It is dangerous to put metal objects in a mircowave oven because it induces a current in the air between the object and the metal walls of the oven due to the ionization of the air around the metal object. The effect is an arcing between the object and the walls of the oven. This current then can cause the metal to heat up.

A microwave oven works at a frequency very close to that of Ku band satellite signals and terrestrial microwave communications. In fact the reason why a rain storm can cause your satellite reception to become impaired is that the intervening rain is absorbing the signal.

If you found a frequency of EMR that was absorbed by steel as efficiently as water absorbs the radiation used in a microwave oven then you would not turn the steel to dust. You would heat it and melt it.
If such a device were produced and directed downward at the towers then the very first effect would be a heating of the cell phone or TV tower on the roof and the hat truss. One would see these topmost components turning red and sagging. It would affect the smaller components in the towers first, not the large columns.

Suppose the space-based Directed energy microwave energy system could be powered by harnessing the billon watts of the HAARP stations on Earth ?


See where I'm going with this ?

Well you would have to flesh that out quite a bit more and I do not believe that you have the slightest clue how to even do that especially given that you started the quoted post with a description of a mechanical motion imparting energy into the system and then start talking about using EMR. These are two very different phenomena.

 

[jaydeehess]

If the physical and other characteristics of the 'collapses' do not match the government theory then that has no merit either. So you dig for your new explanation and we will dig for ours and we will see who comes up with the best one. Deal ?

Fine, you wish to investigate magical causes. Got it.

 

[jammonius]

Dr Wood's work is neither "comprehensive" nor "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination. The woman can't even do the most basic power calculations to even prove the feasibility of such a weapon.

Oh and jammonius, I actually work on space based power systems. Space based DEW weapons of any kind do NOT exist. Anybody who thinks we have THAT kind of technology is delusional.

Dear Rocket_Scientist (RS),

I noticed your post a bit earlier. I had a task to attend to, plus I wanted to address your 2nd post on this entire message board from a fresh perspective and to help insure that we might get off on the right foot, so to speak.

First impressions are lasting, correct?

I want to assure you that based on your stated background, which I will address further hereunder, I assume you can add a lot of substance to this and related discussions and I do look forward to fruitful exchanges with you on the topic at hand, and, perhaps, others.

Dr Wood's work is neither "comprehensive" nor "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination. The woman can't even do the most basic power calculations to even prove the feasibility of such a weapon.

Non sequitors of the type you engaged in as quoted above only demonstrate that Dr. Wood has postulated something that strikes an emotional chord within you, the poster of the above. Permit me, therefore, to inquire, what is it about the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC that you find so jarring?

Do you admit and acknowledge there is no official explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex?

If not, what explanations do you claim exist as to what caused the destruction of the WTC complex and where can any such official explanation be found?

Do you admit and acknowledge that NIST did not analyze the interval of destruction of the Twin Towers of the WTC, despite having a mandate to determine why and how they "collapsed"?

If you find these questions offensive, permit me to ask you why you find them offensive?

Oh and jammonius, I actually work on space based power systems.

I have met with a few people who work on such systems. I am not at liberty to say how many or to name the companies they are involved with. I can, however, say that one of them has a name that includes, but is not limited to the initials "A R I" and includes other letters. The persons I have met with indicated they had security clearances that they would scrupulously honor; and, I, of course, respected their situation and assured them that I was not seeking confidential information of any sort, let alone classified information.

And, I received no classified information and no person I have met with has decided to take the path of a "whistleblower" as yet.

Mind you, however, if the WTC complex was destroyed by classified weapons systems, then it is likely that sooner or later a whistleblower will materialize as what was done on 9/11 is so horrific that sooner or later a crack in the edifice of silence will occur, I am sure. It obviously won't be easy and that path may be a dangerous one, indeed.

Needless to say, I am not here asking you to say whether you have a security clearance or not. I am only saying that some individuals I know of and/or have communicated with who work in the area you work in have such clearances.

Space based DEW weapons of any kind do NOT exist. Anybody who thinks we have THAT kind of technology is delusional.

The publicly available information comes close on to contradicting the first sentence of the above quote. Among the types of publicly available information that comes close to contradicting it includes the fact that the USA adamantly opposes making the Outer Space Treaty more specific in its general ban on space weapons.

Another type of publicly available information that contradicts that sentence is the recent bombing of the moon on an experimental basis with what was described as a kinetic device but which was, by any rational definition, a weapon.

A third type of publicly available information source that casts doubt on that first sentence is the extent to which such weapons have been investigated for decades in both publicly acknowledged budgets and so-called 'black' budgets that nonetheless let it be known that such weapons are a part of such budgets.

Further, those who would know the answer to questions like that obviously won't say. For my part, I can tell you that in the early 1980s, I made inquiry concerning the capacity of satellites to defend themselves at a public meeting and was given the following answer: "You cannot have that information."

That answer, given nearly 30 years ago, was not as definitive as yours. Thus, in my range of experience, the information is clearly inconsistent.

As to the second sentence, it should be noted that Dr. Wood does not claim the source of the weaponry is necessarily space-based. It is true that she entitles certain sections of her website with the name "Star Wars" but that is a generic reference to the 1980s program that sought to advance the development of DEW. It is not a claim as to where the weapon(s) used on 9/11 were located.

In that respect, I have elsewhere posted the eyewitness testimony of a number of witnesses, including, by way of one example, Patricia Ondrovic, who saw objects in the sky do strange things. She said:

"I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions."

See: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF

Given your background, would you care to comment on the possibility that what Patricia Ondrovic saw had something to do with the attacks on 9/11, consistent with any obligation you may or may not have concerning confidential information, of course?

By the way, persons with security clearances have cautioned me to be on the look out for "cover stories."

Thanks again for your post.

 

[carlitos]

???

Greetings carlitos,

and thank you for your suggestion as to where I might post information about the claims and the evidence and the proof of validity of Dr. Judy Wood. I respectfully decline to post there. After all, the claims made by Dr. Wood made it to the USSupreme Court, so the thread you recommended does not seem worthy to me.

Here is the result of my search of SCOTUS files for "Judy Wood."

Searching for judy wood.
No documents matching your query were found.
For suggestions on how to broaden your search, see Search Tips.

Perhaps you could help me by citing the case name? I would love to see what the Supreme Court had to say regarding Dr. Wood. Thanks!

But, there was a thread that I seem to recall that dealt with the issue of DEBRIS HEIGHT at Ground Zero. As I recall it, that thread caused, shall we say, quite a stir around here. For my part, suffice it to say, the evidence in support of the claim ground zero was flattened, thus confirming, among other things, that the steel had been pulverized and turned to dust, was rather overwhelming.

Did you participate in that food for thought fest, carlitos?

I did not. And I'm not interested in your thoughts about the debris pile now, either. Unless you are willing to tell me how that evidence ties into your broader explanation of the events that day. Over at the other thread, where it will be on topic.

You see, carlitos, there was never any need for me to declare 'victory" or to assert "I am right, you are wrong" or anything like that. All we need do here is LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

I don't recall suggesting that anyone "declare victory," or even that you are "right" or "wrong." You won't tell me what you think happened on 9/11/2001, in the appropriate thread to discuss it. Since you refuse to claim anything at all, you are neither right or wrong.

 

[BigAl]

Non sequitors of the type you engaged in as quoted above only demonstrate that Dr. Wood has postulated something that strikes an emotional chord within you, the poster of the above. Permit me, therefore, to inquire, what is it about the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC that you find so jarring?

The basic physics that says we could hook all the electric power plants in America up together and still not have enough juice to do what Wood's claims happened.

The basic physics that says that if any beams or nukes were used at WTC, a couple million people would be sunburned and blind or worse. I would be one of those people.

 

[jaydeehess]

You mean the gant hurricane that was off the New York coast on 9/11 ? The one they say was weakening ? maybe somebody can post a photo ? What a BIGGIE eh ? Still, it didn't appear on the weathermaps of the TV stations that morning and was not even mentioned. Though it was a few hundred miles away at the time and was only slightly bigger than Katrina.

Funnily enough the crew of the Space Station that passed overhead and must have had a terrific view of it didn't mention it either. Though they did say that they could see the smoke of the Towers and all the rest..

Is that the Hurricane you mean ?

Yep that's the one. The same hurricane that was apparently causeing clear skies and very light winds in NYC.

Perhaps they did use the field effects that are known to accompany hurricanes to influence the collapse of the towers but I haven't really looked into that yet.

You mean the electric feilds that are the result of the fact that there is a lot of lightning occuring in a storm? Yeah, it causes the reception of AM radio stations to get bad because you keep hearinga burst of static. I had a lightning strike occur 30 feet to the side of the road I was driving on in the early 1980s. I did not hear the static from the radio because the thunder was as loud as anything I have ever heard. The radio did not catch fire, the car did not burst into flame or turn to dust. In fact the radio continued to work. I on the other hand almost jumped out of my skin.

 

[jammonius]

Wow! That is the type of high quality thinking that is shown only in such rarefied thinks tanks like the flat earth society! The Earth is also flat as pancake! No wonder you attract savants like Bill

Wait until I show you a picture of Everest from K2! It ain't so freaking tall!

The Himalayas are also an inside jobby job!

16.5

Your hyperbolic assertions are made in response to PHOTOGRAPHS that show the flatness of the World Trade Center, right after its destruction. Can you please get a grip on your emotions and look at the evidence?

You do know that the mound seen here is WTC 7 that was higher than the remnant of the Twin Towers; and, as to WTC 7, these firefighters are walking right in front of it, on the sidewalk. GZ was flat, as is shown:

 

[bill smith]

Short answer is no, it would not turn to dust. You would pop rivets perhaps. It is vibrating the components and seeing if the bond between components (such as rivets) hold. If it was somehow increasing the collisions between molecules in the aluminum it would heat those molecules up, not turn them to dust. Moreover you need to know the amplitude of the movement as much or more than just the frequency, and that is part of the calculations for the amount of power required. Got anything at all concerning that bill? Does J.Wood? Answer: Not a spect!




It causes the WATER molecules in the outer few centimeters of the object to become excited (vibrate is one way of putting it) and that increases collisions between molecules thus transfering that kinetic energy to adjacent molecules.
A normal oven inputs energy to the food simply by conduction. It causes the molecules of food to become excited and they collide with other molecules thus transferring their kinetic energy.
The biggest reason why things heat faster in a microwave oven is that the energy is delivered directly to the food rather than by heating the air in an oven and transfering that energy to the food by conduction.

It is dangerous to put metal objects in a mircowave oven because it induces a current in the air between the object and the metal walls of the oven due to the ionization of the air around the metal object. The effect is an arcing between the object and the walls of the oven. This current then can cause the metal to heat up.

A microwave oven works at a frequency very close to that of Ku band satellite signals and terrestrial microwave communications. In fact the reason why a rain storm can cause your satellite reception to become impaired is that the intervening rain is absorbing the signal.

If you found a frequency of EMR that was absorbed by steel as efficiently as water absorbs the radiation used in a microwave oven then you would not turn the steel to dust. You would heat it and melt it.
If such a device were produced and directed downward at the towers then the very first effect would be a heating of the cell phone or TV tower on the roof and the hat truss. One would see these topmost components turning red and sagging. It would affect the smaller components in the towers first, not the large columns.



Well you would have to flesh that out quite a bit more and I do not believe that you have the slightest clue how to even do that especially given that you started the quoted post with a description of a mechanical motion imparting energy into the system and then start talking about using EMR. These are two very different phenomena.

Assume you are right and the energy was directed downwards in a kind of wave. It looks like aluminium was not greatly affected as it was mostly steel that was missing from the rubble.. The antenna was mostly aluminium. So the hat truss would have gone first- and it bloody well did as can be seen in the attached video. Good one JD.

***This video is super slow motion. Put it on fullscreen and be patient. Press F11 if you want to toggle complete fullscrren on/off. In this you will see withoout doubt that the antenna drops first which means the steel hat truss on which it sat had collapsed under it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna

 

[beachnut]

Dear Rocket_Scientist (RS),
...
Thanks again for your post.

Like 911 truth cult members spreading lies without evidence, you are off topic as you dish out deluisons freely.

Judy has insane ideas on 911, did the Supreme court declare her insane too?

ABC said it was provided 2,779 pictures on nine CDs. Many of the photos, taken from police helicopters, have never been released before.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9dpd...rade-centers-dramatic-collapse-aftermath.html

The photos were obtained by ABC News, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Institute of Standards and Technology last year. The NIST collected the images as part of its investigation into the terrorist attack.

Not much to challenge!

Many of the photos, taken from police helicopters, have never been released before.

Many, I wonder what truther math does with many?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

All it ever does boil down to it is: Does Jammonius & Bill Smith have any evidence to support their kooky theories?

No they do not, why is that, because they are incompetent & ignorant. Like most Truthers are!

 

[BigAl]

You do know that the mound seen here is WTC 7 that was higher than the remnant of the Twin Towers;

That's because much of WTC collapsed into the 7 basement levels that WTC7 didn't have. WTC7 was built on existing infrastructure and as far as I've ever heard had no basement levels.

The height of the WTC pile was also reduced because much of the debris from the towers was spread over about 24 acres of open plaza.

The rubble from WTC7 was constrained on three sides by buildings that survived. The streets that separated them were decidedly narrow two-lane roads.

 

[jammonius]

Here is the result of my search of SCOTUS files for "Judy Wood."


Perhaps you could help me by citing the case name? I would love to see what the Supreme Court had to say regarding Dr. Wood. Thanks!

I'm surprised at the limits of your research capability. However, rather than ask you to do a better job, in this instance, and only in this instance, I will provide you with the information you seek. Mind you, I am here doing this reluctantly because in 9/11 discussions, the defenders of the common myth seem to think they can get away with merely assuming what they claim is true on one hand, while almost endlessly demanding proof from those who cast doubt on the common myth. That is what you are, in effect, doing here. Cleverly, I might add.

That said:

"WOOD, JUDY V. APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOC., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."

Now, you go find the source and do your own homework from here on.

I did not. And I'm not interested in your thoughts about the debris pile now, either. Unless you are willing to tell me how that evidence ties into your broader explanation of the events that day. Over at the other thread, where it will be on topic.

It was recognized by many that in the absence of a huge pile, there would be no adequate explanation of what happened to the steel beams for not one but two 1/4 mile high buildings. The proof that GZ was flat confirms pulverization of the steel and debunks the (false) claim that the destroyed steel from the WTC was shipped to China.

Every part of the common myth requires willy nilly acceptance of some stupid claim; as in: China wanted the remnants of WTC steel. It seems no one ever thought to ask, why on earth would China want such steel? What, were we giving it to China; if so, why?

I don't recall suggesting that anyone "declare victory," or even that you are "right" or "wrong." You won't tell me what you think happened on 9/11/2001, in the appropriate thread to discuss it. Since you refuse to claim anything at all, you are neither right or wrong.

The above quote amounts to game-playing. Go post where and how you want to post, carlitos. However, you are not going to get away with characterizing my posts in some way or another, let alone one that involves some form of ridicule. As I said, the Wood claim has been to the USSupreme Court and had to be vigorously opposed by some expensive legal talent to boot for about 3 years.

 

[jammonius]

That's because much of WTC collapsed into the 7 basement levels that WTC7 didn't have. WTC7 was built on existing infrastructure and as far as I've ever heard had no basement levels.

The height of the WTC pile was also reduced because much of the debris from the towers was spread over about 24 acres of open plaza.

The rubble from WTC7 was constrained on three sides by buildings that survived. The streets that separated them were decidedly narrow two-lane roads.

Prove your assertions and source your claims. As is typical of common myth defenders, you assume all you need do is make lame assertions that don't require proof.

I here assert that you cannot prove your claim and you will not do so, no matter what. At most, you will continue to use tricks and deception to avoid having to provide proof. Among the tricks used typically in this kind of situation is that of attempting to shift the burden of proof. You, and those like you, almost never offer up proof and when they try, the result is pathetic.

Post your proof, Big Al.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow, I have climbed a few towers in my job and been next to even more. I have never seen a large tower made of aluminum. The antenna maybe, but not the tower.

Perhaps you'd care to back up this assertion with some evidence?

The antenna tower moving before the roof is seen to move in this view can just as easily mean that the hat truss tilted away from the camera bill. Another explanation would be that the core columns had failed first pulling the center of the hat truss down.

But you would prefer to invoke a magical, unspecified, unknown weapon and not bother trying to find alternate explanations that do not invoke magic.

Got it.

A "kind of wave" how wonderfully unscientific and indicative of the fact that you have no technical or scientific education.

Perhaps you mean a 'pulse'.

 

[jammonius]

All it ever does boil down to it is: Does Jammonius & Bill Smith have any evidence to support their kooky theories?

No they do not, why is that, because they are incompetent & ignorant. Like most Truthers are!

Lame burden of proof shifting and endless demands for more proof, without posting up anything at all to prove the common myth.

Your post is, to put it kindly, a poor example of its kind. One would have thought that a more refined approach would be forthcoming.

Do better next time.

 

[A W Smith]

16.5

Your hyperbolic assertions are made in response to PHOTOGRAPHS that show the flatness of the World Trade Center, right after its destruction. Can you please get a grip on your emotions and look at the evidence?

You do know that the mound seen here is WTC 7 that was higher than the remnant of the Twin Towers; and, as to WTC 7, these firefighters are walking right in front of it, on the sidewalk. GZ was flat, as is shown:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_07ffcotten_wtc_100212_ssh.jpg

That's building Seven, it had no basement to collapse into, Also the velocity of the collapse when it hit the ground was less than the towers because it had less distance to accelerate. Less than half that of the towers. Not to mention, two different types of collapse, Top down versus from near the bottom up.

 

[carlitos]

I'm surprised at the limits of your research capability. However, rather than ask you to do a better job, in this instance, and only in this instance, I will provide you with the information you seek. Mind you, I am here doing this reluctantly because in 9/11 discussions, the defenders of the common myth seem to think they can get away with merely assuming what they claim is true on one hand, while almost endlessly demanding proof from those who cast doubt on the common myth. That is what you are, in effect, doing here. Cleverly, I might add.

That said:

"WOOD, JUDY V. APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOC., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."

Now, you go find the source and do your own homework from here on.

Well, thanks for posting that. As I mentioned though, it's completely off topic in this thread about ABC news and 3,000 photographs. I'm reporting all of this off-topic stuff so I can be moved into somewhere appropriate. I would bet that, if you used the search function here as well as you searched Dr. Woods' site, you could find the appropriate thread for your thoughts.

Here is the link to what jammonius posted.

The above quote amounts to game-playing. Go post where and how you want to post, carlitos. However, you are not going to get away with characterizing my posts in some way or another, let alone one that involves some form of ridicule. As I said, the Wood claim has been to the USSupreme Court and had to be vigorously opposed by some expensive legal talent to boot for about 3 years.

I note that you fail to characterize "the Wood claim" in your own words, in the appropriate thread. That is your choice, but I'm not interested in going to her site to research something that you can't even describe in a few sentences in a thread that would be appropriate. So, as it stands, I don't know what "the Wood claim" is, so I can't comment on it one way or the other. Up to you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Lame burden of proof shifting and endless demands for more proof, without posting up anything at all to prove the common myth.

Your post is, to put it kindly, a poor example of its kind. One would have thought that a more refined approach would be forthcoming.

Do better next time.

Judy Wood is making the most extrodinary claim but instead of following that up with anything close to evidence or proof she offers up page after page of pure speculation and conjecture that would be more relevent in a bad sci-fi novel.

Unless that is, she has shown the world something with actual calculations and references akin to that used by NIST or Bazant.

 

[bill smith]

That's because much of WTC collapsed into the 7 basement levels that WTC7 didn't have. WTC7 was built on existing infrastructure and as far as I've ever heard had no basement levels.

The height of the WTC pile was also reduced because much of the debris from the towers was spread over about 24 acres of open plaza.

The rubble from WTC7 was constrained on three sides by buildings that survived. The streets that separated them were decidedly narrow two-lane roads.

How did the rubble get in there Al ? After all the hole to the basement was plugged by the building stump right until the very last second wasn't it ? Just like a cork in a bottle ?

 

[HannibalGroup]

Here is the link to what jammonius posted.

See? Right there on the document - the sleazebag lawyer Jerry Leaphart, who is taking advantage of a delusional, retarded woman (Judy Wood) in order (I assume) to scam money and/ or notoriety.

Or maybe he's doing it for the sex.

It includes his address and phone number, also. Scumbag.