Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

Dustify sounds like something Chuck Norris would do to you.

 

Hmmm . . . maybe it Marvin and his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.



When asked about the controlled demo theory Marvin discounted it with one of his favorite quotes . . . "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

 

Thank you for your opinion. Maybe I should forward your concerns to the person who has been advising me on my work out routine. He is the head of the physical rehabilitation department at a local hospital with nearly two decades of experience in physical therapy. I thought that you would like to see what one of the gifts are for a $75 donation to public radio station WBAI of New York City. שָׁלוֹם

http://www.give2wbai.org/product_p/pd0441.htm

 

Just remember Goldstein, the bigger your muscles, the smaller your dick will look.

 

I've never had that problem. Now back to the subject of this thread...

In regards to the people involved with dismissing Dr. Wood's research,"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance". It's also a red flag, admitting one is actively participating in a cover up. "Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic." Not the other way around. Desperate attempts to promote a "competing theory" to the overwhelming and compelling evidence presented by Dr. Judy Wood that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex is a reflection of human nature. Desperate people do desperate things. Being obsessed with referring to the evidence Dr. Judy Wood has presented as "a theory" is the only way to discount it by using the only perception management tool left holding the cover-up together.

If Jim has nine (9) gold coins and Clare gives him eleven (11) more gold coins and Gordon gives him seven (7) more gold coins to make a total of twenty-seven (27) gold coins (9+11+7=27), is the quantity "27" a theory or a conclusion?

Is it a "theory" or "empirical evidence" that the buildings are no longer there?
(This could be asked about all of the evidence presented in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?)

The truth is not found by creating a theory that does not mimic the actual events. Empirical evidence is the truth! A theoretical model is wrong if it cannot mimic the actual events. Example: NIST's attempt at a theoretical model of the demise of WTC7 did not mimic the empirical evidence, therefore it is false. I repeat, empirical evidence is the truth. A forensic study of the evidence is not a theory. Dr. Wood presents empirical evidence and empirical evidence is the truth.

The best ops are those who do their business in broad daylight, right in front of you, and don't attempt to hide it.

 

No one has referred to evidence Wood presented or didn't present as "a theory." What is referred to is her claim that this evidence points to the existence of directed free energy weaponry. This is most certainly a theory. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you should review what a scientific theory actually is.

What you have demonstrated is Elementary number theory Yeah, it's clear you don't understand what it means to form a theory.

If this is true, then why does Wood's claim not match the empirical evidence? If steel had turned to dust there is specific empirical evidence that we should have observed. The iron in steel ignites when exposed to oxygen. We did not observe this. So clearly her claim must be false. Why do you keep dodging this point? If her book addressed this issue and I missed it surely you would have responded by now. Clearly it doesn't address the issue and you failed to investigate Wood's claims. Perhaps you should spend less time advising others to think for themselves and do a little of your own.

 

Does the evidence lead to the conclusion that Fangbeer is human, or is that a theory?

Dr. Judy Wood’s research and collection of overwhelming and compelling evidence leads to the conclusion that a Directed Energy Weapon "dustified" the World Trade Center complex. She is not presenting a theory. Dr. Judy Wood's evidence is based on at least the following:

1 ) Photographic Evidence

2 ) Video Evidence

3 ) Witness Audio Testimony

4 ) Audio features (e.g. relative silence of towers turning to dust)

5 ) Weather data

6 ) Seismic Data

7 ) Official reports – such as dust analysis (Cahill).

8 ) Photos from places like FDR drive ½ mile from WTC.

9 ) personal trips to the WTC site. On each of her visits to the site, for example, she has

a. taken her own photographs (See Figure 154, page 153 of Where Did The Towers Go?)

b. sampled air quality

c. made observations about the material characteristics and documented anomalies and changes

d. documented unusual treatment of the site

e. spoken with first responders, victims' family members, and survivors who were in the towers shortly before they were turned to dust.

f. directly observed and documented structural and material changes

You are acting as though you are the defense attorney for the perpetrators of 9/11 by creating doubt in the juries mind. Assisting in the cover-up of the crimes of 9/11 is treason. Too bad the fox is guarding the hen house.

Dr. Judy Wood is mentioned in Richard Hall's new video, posted Sunday evening, 5/20/12, I thought you would have an interest viewing it since this is the subject of this thread
http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

It's Monday and I must get to the gym for my 3 hour work out. Have a great day!

 

Doesn't look 'dustified' to me.

 

This thread is about me? I didn't realize. And it appears you still don't know what a theory is. Rather then take my word for it, why don't you investigate the topic yourself? That is what you claim to be able to do, correct?

You just described her theory and then claimed it wasn't a theory. It's funny to me when truthers can't help but contradict themselves right in adjacent sentences. What's even more hilarious is that Wood can't even demonstrate the principal that she claims "dustified" the towers. Do you really think that Dr Wood's picture book establishes the law of Directed Energy Weapon "dustification?" How ridiculous.

What's compelling is what is not included in her paper.

a. The effects of steel being turned to dust: ie the combustion of iron.

b. A reproducible demonstration of the principal that she thinks caused this "dustification."

This thread is about me again? How interesting.

No I was wrong. It's about you.

 

Here is the YouTube post of the video that was previously mentioned. There is also another bit of evidence that can be added to Richard Hall's analysis. There were no visible navigation, anti-collision beacon, or strobe lights on the recorded plane image. As Dr. Judy Wood points out in the video, jet wing tips are very fragile and could not penetrate steel. The evidence of magnetic fluctuation occurring simultaneously with the creation of each plane shaped hole was also mentioned. Additionally, there were two more magnetic fluctuations when each tower was "dustified".

[video=youtube_share;b5DgFcpsxes]http://youtu.be/b5DgFcpsxes[/video]

 

When will Wood and her advocates address these issues?

 

Who knows. They had the chance to buy Hutchinson's lab. It was on Ebay for 50k. Seems like a steal to me if he was really able to produce "free energy." But what do I know. Apparently he ended up selling it over seas with the admonishment that it wouldn't work.

http://pesn.com/2010/07/11/9501660_Hutchison_selling_anti-gravity_lab_on_eBay/

 

If a forensic pathologist was conducting an autopsy on your body, the evidence collected would lead to the conclusion of the cause of your death. It doesn't lead to the theory of your death. Theory is not admissible in a court of law. Only evidence is admissible. Dr. Judy Wood's overwhelming and irrefutable collection of evidence as contained in her textbook leads to the conclusion that a Directed Energy Weapon "dustified" the World Trade Center complex.

​

 

Is this the kind of empirical science that Judy presents in her so called text book as well? I think it's shameful that anyone would be suckered into paying a cent for such nonsense.

All objects have a shear strength. This strength is a measure of the ability of the material to resist separation along a plane that is parallel to the direction of force. The object applying the force is immaterial to the strength of the object the force acts upon. Any object with mass and velocity can apply a force to any object it strikes.

To calculate whether an object can shear steel all you need are: The shear strength of the steel, the cross sectional area of the steel at the point of impact, the velocity of the material applying the force, the mass of the material applying the force, and the cross sectional area of the material applying the force. The strength of the impacting material is not needed at all.

With the velocity of the material and the mass of the material you find the material's kinetic energy. The formula for this is one half the mass times the velocity squared. You don't need a math degree to figure out that velocity affects the amount of kinetic energy in an object much more then the mass. For example, 1 kg of "plane wing tip" traveling at 500 MPH (224 meters per second) has 25088 Joules of kinetic energy. That's a huge amount of energy focused in a very small amount of area.

Consider an axe head. Let's say you're a Paul Bunyon lumberjack that can swing an axe that weighs 1 Kg at about 80 miles an hour (35.76 m/s) Nothing would stand in your way after a blow from that, and that's only 639.5 Joules of kinetic energy. The super Paul Bunyon axe swing only represents 2.5% of the energy delivered by a 1Kg wing tip hauling ass at 500 MPH. Not only would the steel fail under shear, but there would be plenty of kinetic energy remaining in the 1Kg mass of wing tip to continue on into the building.

If you don't believe me, you should read the structural study conducted by MIT. They did out all the math. If you can find fault in it, let me know.

web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

Civil law itself is a theory. Man, you really don't know what you're talking about here. It's getting painful to see you flounder.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+theory

 

Wow Are you saying they should use thin aluminum foil to cut steel on a lathe? Are you claiming that if lathe turns the steel at a rate that gives the surface speed of the steel at 580 mph, aluminum foil would be able to be used as a cutting tool and shave off the steel? After all, the cutting motion is tangential to the workpiece, applying a shear stress to cut thin layers of steel. I wonder why they don’t use aluminum for cutting tools? That is, you are assuming no damage to the thin aluminum wingtip as it continuously slices through steel columns.

If you are found dead with a gun hole in your head and your neighbor owns a gun, can your neighbor be convicted of your murder with theory or evidence?

​

 

Your argument just keeps getting weaker and weaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_jet_cutter

No one said anything about the preferred method for cutting steel, rotating steel around a lathe, or using aluminum to shave steel. You're just trying to change the subject. Let me remind you. You said Wood made a claim that an aircraft wing tip was too fragile to cut steel. This is quite undeniably false. When you're wrong you should admit it.

You're also wrong about criminal law. First of all. an autopsy report is an opinion, and is presented as such. Secondly, the prosecution presents a theory, the defense presents a theory, and the jury decides which theory is most credible. You keep giving examples that show you have no idea what you're talking about.

In the case of Wood's theory of the events of Sept 9/11, it's quite easy to show that her opinion is completely unsupported. She opined that steel was turned to dust, but seems to be completely unaware that steel turned to dust catches on fire at room temperature. She also is of the opinion that the steel was turned to dust by a technology that cannot be demonstrated to actually function.

What sort of person would accept such premises at their face value? Shouldn't she explain these glaring flaws in her theory?

 

Dr. Judy Wood presents evidence that leads to a conclusion. She does not present a theory. From the viewpoint of the protagonist, your role as the antagonist would be eliminated by simply reading Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. But as we both know, this will never happen because it will make your activity irrelevant. Technically, what you are doing is giving aid to the enemy within and is treason as defined by law.

​

"We stand today at the dawn of an entirely new age. Man has in his hands a method of disrupting the molecular basis for matter and the ability to split the earth in half on a moments notice. (It gives the term, "scortched-earth policy" a new significance.) The technology that was demonstrated on 911 can split the earth in half or it can be used to allow ALL people to live happily ever after with free energy.

However, he who controls the energy, controls the people. Control of energy leads to destruction of the planet.

But we have a choice. And this choice is real. Live happily ever after or destroy the planet. This is why I have been studying the evidence of what happened on 9/11. This evidence is central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy. It can be used for good, but we need to make that choice and help others to as well.

We have a choice." - Dr. Judy Wood

​

 

Well, we've learned two things with this thread.

1. You are not able to substantiate Wood's false conclusion by resolving any of the glaring flaws in science and logic that she presents.

2. You have no idea what the word theory means.

 

Wow....you're smart. Can you teach me to be as smart as you?

 

I don't know. Do you believe that "free energy" weapons were used to turn steel to dust without any resulting chemical release of heat? Do you believe this free energy weapon was powered by a hurricane? Do you believe the majority of this steel dust floated away?

 

Should the evidence that is presented by Dr. Judy Wood become a contributing factor in the development of cognitive dissonance to the point where your guilt, anger, or embarrassment creates an unmanageable schism, there are other options besides suicide.

Veterans Crisis Line
1-800-273-8255
http://www.veteranscrisisline.net/

​

 

Been at this 9/11 research for almost 7 years and I concur with Emmanuel Goldstein. I have personally worked with Jim Fetzer and Richard Gage. I would also put Dr Steven Jones on this list. There are others, but these are three popular names in the 9/11 Truth Movement that many recognize.

 

Wood provides NO 'evidence', just half baked theories....

 

The problem I pointed out is not resolved within the book. If Dr Judy Wood discusses the pyrophoric nature of steel somewhere in that book and how that chemistry was inhibited by her imaginary death ray I'm sure I could not find it.

Please provide me with a page number.

 

7 years of 'research' and you're still getting it wrong?.......pity