Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

parky76 said:
this has been fun, but I realize we are giving this idiot a lot more attention than he deserves.
Click to expand...

Just as long as it gets its ass handed to itself, it'll have to deal with that by itself. I find it extremely funny that gullible people like Jammonius clearly can't think right when they have clearly debunked their own pathetic CTs with their own pictures & videos.

They have no clue that they're doing themselves a huge favor by providing us with their educational background. I'd say that over half of the people who are in the Truth Movement haven't got an education higher than 6th or 7th grade.
 
jammonius said:
Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.

beachnut, you do realize you are engaging in a dire form of misleading propaganda in your 95% air claim, don't you?
[qimg]http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/9-11%20Picture5.jpg[/qimg]
beachnut. Please do better next time.

And I suppose they were struck by alleged jetliners that were solid missiles, rather than hollow aluminum tubes, right?
Click to expand...

Ok wise guy let's see a calculation.

Each level was 3 meters high. Tell us how thick the floor slab was, how wide the floors were, the area of open space between core and perimeter, and how much floorspace there was in the core.
 
Here's another truck turning to dust...

1694742671_9a35f81a2f.jpg


And...

http://www.4x4offroads.com/image-files/offroad-blonduos-2009-541.jpg

Yikes! Why in the world would anyone use a DEW on an off-roader?!
 
Last edited:
In fact, I'm very concerned about the implications of these space-based energy weapons. Have they been operating for years dustifying buildings, but no one noticed? Could this picture have been an early trial of these weapons?
150407_demolition_immeuble_begles18.jpg

or what about this one?
building-implosion-gone-wrong.jpg

The implications of this 'discovery' are endlessly frightening.
 
Now you've got me thinking, I am reminded of another mysterious building collapse.

Here's the spontaneous collapse of the Sampoong Deprtment Store which I have been in many times and at one time lived next to.
1995+Sampoong+Collapse+6.jpg

As you can see, even some time after the initial collapse, there was a huge amount of dust. Truth sites have discarded the similarities between this and the collaspse of the WTC, but that's because they were focusing on the wrong characteristics.

Now that we have this straightened out, I think I'm going to begin a worldwide search for other places where these Weapons of Mass Dustification have been used.
 
Last edited:
Rocket_Scientist said:
Had to answer this as we just got back from my daughters girl scout international night. In a word MAGz......no. But an excellent question as compared to the tripe that Bill and jammonius are just throwing out there.

Again it all comes down to size and weight. You should see the size of the solar panels that are required for a 25Kw spacecraft bus. The space industry uses the most efficient solar cells available. The type of solar array that you're referring to would be measured in tens if not hundreds of square miles to provide that kind of power not to mention the losses involved in "beaming" it down from space. It would take years to build an array like that. Just look at the ISS and how long it took to get it built

Microwave energy is still RF energy and no matter how tightly focused the beam, the recieved energy is still going to be just a small fraction of the transmitted energy when it travels a few hundred miles. But in order for something like that to work, the solar arrays would have to be in a GEO orbit to maintain their position above the receiver, which means a 22,000 mile orbit...so even bigger losses.

I'm not even going to address jammonius's post about what someone saw up in the sky or his coy reference to "secret" or classified projects ( I know a friend of a friend of a friend who knows someone nonsense). The type of weapon that's being implied here requires power that just can't be produced on a scale that would make it portable (as in aircraft) or launchable into space. The ABL the Judy woods keeps showing as "proof" of DEWs can only punch a small hole through the very thin skin of a missle...not "dustify" steel.
Click to expand...

Come on now RS. You are being way too tough on good old jammonius. I mean what is real experience and education compared to movie education?



And that jet she saw must have been one of these


I mean if HOLLYWOOD can do it, it must be real.
 
Update: Truthers have now found information that a giant microwave oven was the main cause of the Towers' collapses & that the Towers' were placed inside the massive microwave oven to produce the fires & smoke that were seen.

:dl: If any Truther takes this as gossip, I'm gonna die with a smile on my face from pure laughter.
 
Last edited:
I've been sitting back and enjoying the frantic gathering and scurrying of debunkers since Judy Wood came up. Let's face it girls.....you are SCARED STIFF of her. It stands out a mile,
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
Of course I think Dr. Judy is a joke, but let's take this seriously. Let's summarize the properties this energy beam is supposed to now have.
1. It instantly turns metal in to dust.
2. It does this without sound.
3. It is an invisible beam.
4. It does this without generating noticeable amounts of heat.
5. It is not radioactive.
6. It leaves behind no identifiable signature traces except the dust.

Have I missed anything?
Click to expand...


Yeah, a couple things.

7. The energy is attracted to only one building, leaving all the steel in adjacent buildings, near-by cars, stainless steel silverware, etc untouched.

8. The steel dust has a memory to it. After the dustified steel hits the ground, it reassembles itself into near perfect replicas of the column as they were before being dustified.

9. The dust has the ability to predict what the solid steel would have gone thru if it had not been dustified, and incorporates this damage into the new, reconstituted columns. Thereby perfectly mimicing columns that had really been thru the meat-grinder of the collapse.

C'mon, guys. This clown doesn't believe ANY of this trash. He is simply a verbose version of bill smith & the old, banned & unlamented Bob the Analyst.

This is the only thing that he craves: :catfight:

Laugh along with his "joke". Agree with him. Pat him on the head & send him on his way.

But reason, logic & evidence is pointless.

Tom
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
jackanory,



Surely you realize you aren't refuting anything and are merely engaging in empty denial, right?
As things stand, the "all above" you have referred to stands as being true and accurate as you've done nothing whatever to show otherwise.



You've opened yourself up here to a requirement to source your claims. When you do so, please also include what part of your claimed admissions stem from the 183 instances of waterboarding torture KSM was subjected to. In addition, of the 31 listed crimes that you are going to point to, some of which were committed while someone named KSM was attending college in North Carolina, what part did he play in them?



Because a) the confessions are a joke, evidenced by the content of them, when and how they were given and their contrived context that included the use of a 'spokesperson' for KSM who was actually making the admissions; and b) as they were obtained through torture, they are invalid and will not be used; and c) the whole point of the trial is to help the USA rid itself of the "rogue state" label it has earned by virtue of torture; and d) by showing the world there's evidence that can convict KSM separate and apart from torture, the USA hopes to redeem its image; and e) unfortunately, the administration appears not to have been informed that 9/11 was not done by way of the common myth and that the evidence to that effect is available.



Wait a minute. Please source your claims and be clear as to what you are claiming. If a so-called 'truther' were to post up banter like the above, those who require precision in explanation would be posting up a long list of epithets and put downs here. I am not going to do that as it demeans the posters who find it necessary to do that, not the poster who has been imprecise.

So, anyway, please provide quotes, documents and sources for your claims.



Once again, you cannot presume what you have not shown via quotes and sources to be true. Those who support the common myth seem to have this terrible habit of presuming they can just post up elements of the common myth with no proof whatever. Ironically, you are doing this in a context of asking me to prove the converse of what you haven't shown exists.

Once again, that is rich.



Source your claim then I will respond. Please name KSM's defense team and the source of your declaration concerning truther evidence.



Thank you for your advice. I have seen no information that the KSM trial will be a "show" trial; i.e., one that intends to look like a trial but isn't. I think that is what you mean when you say "unless...you believe that these law firms are 'in on it' too". So, no, as far as I can tell, the KSM trial is intended to be a real trial and not a fake show trial.

What is your view on whether KSM will be given a fair trial?

Out there in mainstream land, sentiments callling for "hanging KSM first and trying him later" are quite common.

A google search shows, for example, the following freeper discussion:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2445064/posts

Excerpt:

"Execute KSM and the 9/11 Killers; Give them what they want
National Review Online"
...
"This fiasco disgusts Americans. A February 1 Rasmussen survey discovered that only 16 percent of likely voters want terrorists to enjoy the same legal rights as U.S. citizens, while 74 percent disagree. Meanwhile, HumanEvents.com (which often posts my columns) has gathered 126,665 signatures on its online petition demanding KSM and company’s ejection from civilian court."

So, if KSM were to have a phony show trial, that would apparently please a lot of Americans. Are you one such?
Click to expand...

Typical response from a showboating truther. I could go into the falsehoods and misinterpretions you clearly make above. We all could. I will simply highlight just one hilarious example that made me piss myself. Bolded above. So KSM was being waterboarded and confessed but confessed using a spokesperson. Classic stuff. lol.

I dont and wont post to links and reams of evidence like others do. I wont do your work for you, ever. I dont need too. The burden is on you. Always will be. 911 was a terrorist attack planned and executed by KSM, OBL and 19 lunatics. The burden is on you to show this is not the case. So far you fail and will continue to fail.

Ever ask yourself why you continue to fail? I will give you a clue - your wrong!
 
beachnut said:
You are open-loop delusion posting. You can't even stop to correct your errors; how much of the WTC was air?

You say the WTC pile was flat then you say 40 to 50 feet; when I say 95 percent air you say I am tell a lie but fail to back up your delusion with evidence.

What is low is your steel turning to dust lie; a big lie you can't back with anything but more lies.

Dust?
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg[/qimg]
More dust
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg[/qimg]
What exactly turns steel to dust? Please explain your discovery; details and sources.
Click to expand...

beachnut,

Look, do you or do you not acknowledge there's no official and valid explanation for what happened on 9/11?

Merely disagreeing with me serves no useful purpose. We are doing different things here. I am showing evidence consistent with the DEW explanation of what destroyed the WTC. And, you are saying, no, no, no.

What proposition do you assert your pictures of steel and of rebar show?

Why is that steel and rebar just sitting there, whereever the 'there' is.

What happened to cause the deformities in the steel in the pictures you've posted up?

Of course, these questions are rhetorical because the answer is known:

No one analyzed the steel in the pictures you are showing. That is the issue. That is the problem that ALL OF US HAVE, could we but recognize it.

There is no valid explanation as to what happened. The issue is unsolved, unresolved and unexplained.

Here, then, is one of the most important statements about the lack of explanation of what destroyed the WTC, in the context of the issue of steel in the entire body of 9/11 research work. This is a key passage, posters, do grasp this:

"The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001)—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion… are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.… It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ] "

And, with respect to this unexpected and unexplained, other than Dr. Wood's DEW explanation, that is, erosion phenomenon, this is the key visual evidence:

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/632_eutectic.jpg
There is no explanation of what happened to the steel. Your photos are good ones for a certain proposition, or rather a certain question. Your photos are good for the proposition that why was none of it analyzed by a competent authority?

Further, the pile of steel in your pictures appears, from your post, to be standing for the contention that no steel was turned to dust, despite the visual evidence I continue to show that demonstrates the process in action. We now add to the visual evidence the documentary evidence that the steel that was not turned to dust showed unusual erosion and decomposition that has not ever been explained.

I have posted two types of visual data:

1--That showing the process of steel being turned to dust; and'
2--That showing that GZ was flat.

Here is yet another example of the latter:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/after.gif

And now I have posted evidence of unusual decomposition shown in the steel that remained.

The photos in beachnut's post also show unusual erosion, but none of that has ever been explained or analyzed properly, other than in the work done by Dr. Wood based on the visual component.

It was up to the properly empowered governmental authorities to determine what happened on 9/11. That was not done.

That is why we remain, to this day, vulnerable to other, further and more horrific false flag ops, posters.

Is anyone concerned about this; or, is the preferred methodology that of denial that 9/11 was a false flag op so that no one has to worry much about it happening again?

I understand that on many levels of being, especially emotional ones, denial of the false flag possibility is the preferred way to think.

So, posters, from this post forward, hadn't we ought to just focus on the real issue; namely: The emotional compenent of 9/11 that forces us to take certain positions because of our predisposition to do one of two things:

We either:

1--think critically about 9/11 with a willingness to consider that authorities we trust are lying to us; or,

2--we dare not consider the possibility that trusted authroities are engaging in deception.

Edited by Locknar: 
Breachs of Rule 4 removed; do not hotlink to copyrighted material.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jammonius said:
beachnut,

Look, do you or do you not acknowledge there's no official and valid explanation for what happened on 9/11?

Merely disagreeing with me serves no useful purpose. We are doing different things here. I am showing evidence consistent with the DEW explanation of what destroyed the WTC. And, you are saying, no, no, no.

What proposition do you assert your pictures of steel and of rebar show?

Why is that steel and rebar just sitting there, whereever the 'there' is.

What happened to cause the deformities in the steel in the pictures you've posted up?

Of course, these questions are rhetorical because the answer is known:

No one analyzed the steel in the pictures you are showing. That is the issue. That is the problem that ALL OF US HAVE, could we but recognize it.

There is no valid explanation as to what happened. The issue is unsolved, unresolved and unexplained.

Here, then, is one of the most important statements about the lack of explanation of what destroyed the WTC, in the context of the issue of steel in the entire body of 9/11 research work. This is a key passage, posters, do grasp this:

"The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001)—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion… are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.… It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ] "

And, with respect to this unexpected and unexplained, other than Dr. Wood's DEW explanation, that is, erosion phenomenon, this is the key visual evidence:

[qimg]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/632_eutectic.jpg[/qimg]
There is no explanation of what happened to the steel. Your photos are good ones for a certain proposition, or rather a certain question. Your photos are good for the proposition that why was none of it analyzed by a competent authority?

Further, the pile of steel in your pictures appears, from your post, to be standing for the contention that no steel was turned to dust, despite the visual evidence I continue to show that demonstrates the process in action. We now add to the visual evidence the documentary evidence that the steel that was not turned to dust showed unusual erosion and decomposition that has not ever been explained.

I have posted two types of visual data:

1--That showing the process of steel being turned to dust; and'
2--That showing that GZ was flat.

Here is yet another example of the latter:

[qimg]http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/after.gif[/qimg]

And now I have posted evidence of unusual decomposition shown in the steel that remained.

The photos in beachnut's post also show unusual erosion, but none of that has ever been explained or analyzed properly, other than in the work done by Dr. Wood based on the visual component.

It was up to the properly empowered governmental authorities to determine what happened on 9/11. That was not done.

That is why we remain, to this day, vulnerable to other, further and more horrific false flag ops, posters.

Is anyone concerned about this; or, is the preferred methodology that of denial that 9/11 was a false flag op so that no one has to worry much about it happening again?

I understand that on many levels of being, especially emotional ones, denial of the false flag possibility is the preferred way to think.

So, posters, from this post forward, hadn't we ought to just focus on the real issue; namely: The emotional compenent of 9/11 that forces us to take certain positions because of our predisposition to do one of two things:

We either:

1--think critically about 9/11 with a willingness to consider that authorities we trust are lying to us; or,

2--we dare not consider the possibility that trusted authroities are engaging in deception.
Click to expand...

As is often the case - the answers you seek are held within your own research and post. The problem is that you dont read it, you just think you do.
 
jammonius said:
beachnut,

Look, do you or do you not acknowledge there's no official and valid explanation for what happened on 9/11?
Click to expand...

That's silly. The work of the 9/11 Commission is official and is certainly valid. The worst that can be said of it is that it is incomplete.

Nothing you can bring up against the Commission report discredits massive amount of evidence we have for the core conclusion, that 19 Islamist Arabs lead by bin Laden hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into three buildings and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
350,000 tons of steel recovered from GZ.

each tower had 100,000 tons of steel.

NO steel was turned to dust. case closed.

sorry Charlie.
 
Last edited:
Jackanory said:
As is often the case - the answers you seek are held within your own research and post. The problem is that you dont read it, you just think you do.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Are you ready to discuss the real issue?

9/11 is an emotional matter that involves either a willingness to question authority or a need to trust authority.

Posters, I've had my say on this matter. Like bill smith, I am now going to stand back for awhile and not respond further to posts. There exists within this thread an adequate basis for discussion and for the forming of conclusions.

For what it's worth, my conclusion is that there is no valid explanation of what happened on 9/11. The work done by Dr. Judy Wood stands as among the best and most comprehensive 9/11 research done to date and her evidence provides proof of the proposition that DEW of some kind destroyed the WTC. Other and more comprehensive testing needs to be done by those who have access to DEW, to its lethality effects, types and so on.

Competent military and civilian MIC authorities need to be queried in a context where they are mandated to answer questions about DEW and the WTC. Needless to say, that is not something that can be done by ordinary citizens without access to powers to compel answers and other resources that are only available to governmental authorities who, supposedly, represent and work for us.

For her part, Dr. Wood litigated the MIC aspect for 3 years.

Two companies that are key developers of DEW, among other companies, were sued.

They are: SAIC and Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA).

Google them and their work, respectively on DEW and on PSYOPS. Also google and do, please, review the website of, in detail, the Directed Energy Professional Society. The cream of the military-industrial-complex crop are the founders and the members of DEPS. Therein lie the clues as to DEW.

SAIC and ARA led the NIST investigation of what destroyed the WTC complex, posters. I'm sure some of you knew that, but maybe not all of you. This is a key factor, posters.

NIST's investigation was flawed and fraudulent. SAIC and ARA manufacture and develop DEW. They knew or should have that the destructive effects seen were caused by DEW. SAIC's lead investigator for NIST is a DEW scientist, posters. ARA's lead investigator for NIST is a materials engineering scientist with credentials that are almost identical, but not as good as, those of Dr. Judy Wood, who is a materials engineering scientist. How ironic is that, posters? The NIST investigation fraudulently curtailed the scope of investigation to the time period that ENDED as the destruction was beginning. That is fraud. That trick of science fraud resulted in there being no answer to the question of what destroyed the WTC. None.

That is why Dr. Wood sued SAIC and ARA.

Dr. Wood's case did not get to the stage where she could question those MIC individuals who could have been required to reveal information that might well have cracked open the mysteries of 9/11.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom