Discussion in '9/11' started by Hunter Rose, Aug 15, 2011.
Still no response.
Film stills and photographs are not empirical evidence.
Do you know why they are not empirical evidence? The answer will help you to understand the quality of Dr. Judy Wood's conclusions. I won't shame scientists by calling what she has done "science."
What research? Show me her data. Show me her calculations. Show me her methodology. Then we'll talk about her science.
For example: She claims that cars were "toasted" in odd ways. Did she try at all to recreate this "toasting?" Did she measure the temperatures and conditions required to cause this toasting? Did she experiment on different types of materials, or automotive designs? Did she eliminate all conventional means by which these car could have been toasted before she lept to the conclusion that the government has a secret weapon system currently unknown to conventional science?
That would be science.
Staring at some photos in disbelief is not science.
So many attacks against the esteemed PhD Judy Wood, yet not one iota of argument against her evidence.
Methinks you protest to much. Jealousy?
I think that you can't defend any of her so called work.
I'll ask again, what do you think is the most compelling piece of evidence for the theory that the government possesses a direct energy weapon capable of doing the damage that Dr. Judy Wood claims.
Start posting the 'evidence' then,truther.....not some half baked allegations called 'evidence' by you.
And by the way,champ, If she wants to start championing the notion that super secret energy weapons 'vaporized' around 70% of the WTC structure,she ought to be used to a fair amount of ridicule by now,as well as you.
Methinks you are not well enough informed to be brave enough to pick out, let alone defend one of her claims. As you would know if you had even a glimmer of understanding of science/investigation/analysis, YOU (/Wood) has the burden of proof. As has been asked of you *many* times now, pick your most convincing evidence as presented by Wood.
Then we will address her specific claim, the evidence she shows, and look in detail at her 'investigation'. Even you may begin to see how real science works...
The fact that you haven't got the cojones to even pick out the best evidence, speaks volumes about your knowledge of the topic. You are ill-informed and rightly afraid to do so, as I think you know what will come.
Far better to sling around ill-informed and often insulting garbage, to try to shift the burden of proof, or present flowery but meaningless prose (aka 'spam') like the tripe coming from Emmanuel.
BTW, perhaps it would be worthwhile if one of us pick out 'the best' of Wood's claims? I'll give you a couple more days to pick your best, Hunter Rose - may I suggest you use the time well...
That gives you two very clear choices:
1. Walk the walk. Show that you know your stuff, and be prepared to enter into a full discussion about the issue and how it *should* have been investigated.
2. Run away, making it very clear that you are nothing but an empty vessel on the subject, and let one of us pick the topic and show the readers what is wrong with Woods GIGO approach.
Good luck. And some advice - don't enter a battle of wits only half-armed.
On March 16, 2007 NIST logged the receipt of a Request for Correction (RFC) to their WTC reports by Dr. Judy Wood. This RFC sets out the evidence of 1 or more Directed Energy Weapons being used to destroy most or all of the WTC Complex.
On April 12 2007, NIST logged the receipt of a Request for Correction (RFC) to their WTC reports by Dr. Dr Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Richard Gage. This video shows how you can search their documents for the word "Thermite" and "Molten" and you will find their original RFC does not mention Thermite or Molten Metal.
Their RFC appeal *does* mention Thermite, but NOT in the context of their research" and only as an arbitrary example of a hypothetical analogy.
There seems to be a global effort to convince people that Thermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC. If this was true, then why is this not stated, with evidence, in the RFC submitted to NIST?
The answer seems to be that the Thermite is an "alternative conspiracy theory" which has no real evidence to support it. The proponents probably did not put their research in the RFC because this in itself would have been fraud.
We are looking at documents which are over 2 years old, which shows how successful the operation to promote thermite has been.
You can access the documents on this page from these links:
Copies of "Jones et al" Documents:
Dr Judy Wood's original RFC
*** There is a small mistake in this video - the WORD thermite does NOT occur in the original RFC, but there is a WEB LINK to a version of the SE Jones paper. *** (This is revealed by unchecking the "whole words only" search option.) Would you believe someone made a whole video about this mistake!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zp3wEm0R5k"]The Thermite Free RFC - YouTube[/ame]
You know what's missing from that post?
A defense of the so called work of Dr. Judy Wood.
its called a phd
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
the same can be said then about the gubafia at large
Unsurprisingly, you don't even know what the logical fallacy I just cited actually is.
Gee, a 9/11 Denier can't properly apply logic? What a surprise.
Your inablitiy to debunk her science is showing.
YOu are welcome to hold onto yoiur delusionas as long as you can.
Third and final time:
Please post your most credible evidence to support the theory that a directed energy weapon exists, and was used to destroy the WTC towers.
So far you have shown me NO science to discuss.
The first post in the thread has a link to everyting you need.
No it does not.
It contains the ramblings of a woman who looked at some photographs in disbelief.
It does not contain evidence for the existence of a directed energy weapon capable of causing the claimed damage.
It does not contain repeatable experimentation
It does not contain repeatable data.
It does not contain repeatable observation.
It does not contain science.
Hold on to your delusions as long as you are able. When you are ready for truth, you have a link to find it.
I pray for you.
It looks like prayers are all that you and Judy have. Literally.
Disillusion is easy to discredit.
If Dr. Judy Wood has done some science, go ahead and discuss it. As of this far you've posted links to a woman who looked at some photos.
She did nothing can be verified and tested by anyone else. That's not science.
She took her science to court. What have you done?
This is a general reminder to all members about the forum rules and standards of behaviour:
Hunter Rose, can you at least verify that you do not wish to pick out any part of Wood's claims as your 'favorite'?
I'm quite happy to randomly pick a section and go through it, but if I do the choosing, you won't be able to complain that I was selective at some later date.
Last chance to pick your most compelling evidence...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFdcPv3XXI"]New: Fox News 5 reports WTC 7 collapse BEFORE it happens - YouTube[/ame]
and so on...
It is not surprising that so many are unable to choke down the official explanation...considering it doesn't even bother with WTC7, or that it leaves much to be desired in the way of rationality.
The problem I see is that every time anyone DARES to question this BS, out come the "patriots" who shout you down, call you names, and basically heckle you for having an independent mind. Its as if, post 9/11 ushered in the age of blind acquiescence. Don't question...just obey.
Why is questioning so bad? I mean really people...use your eyes!
I think these questions require a full and independent investigation. At least then we can put this to bed.
Her case case was dismissed. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of her "science."
And this thread is not about me and what I have done.
Just like Orly Taitz did?
They appear to have something in common.
Separate names with a comma.