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

Dr. Judy Wood's kangaroo court appearance lasted less than 5 minutes. The judges admitted they were ignoring the law and gave no opinion as to why.

​

 

I find that awfully difficult to believe....do you have a link to the case?

 

Umm... The NIST devotes an entire webpage to the results of their investigation, frequently answers questions from people who are clearly insane, and has gone out of their way, frankly, to educate people about WTC7.

Completely unlike tales of death beams from space and "holographic" planes or doctored video footage that somehow slipped past the tens of thousands of on-the-scene eyewitnesses, which of course is completely rational...

Nonsense. This is typical 9/11 denier horse(*)(*)(*)(*). It's a red herring.

No one accuses you of any malfeasance when you're truly just asking questions. However, none of you are. You all have your preconceived notion of a big government conspiracy, and you refuse to seriously consider any evidence which suggests otherwise.

There have been several investigations, spending millions of dollars, by various agencies, some affiliated with the government, some not.

The simple fact of the matter is, your confirmation bias (a mental defect shared by conspiracy theoriests) is not seeking an independent investigation. You're seeking an investigation that will confirm your preconceived notions of what happened.

And, as I've said before... Why don't 9/11 deniers, with all the money they've spent on books and DVD's and seminars and everything else, simply get together and fund their "new" investigation themselves?

Of course, we wouldn't be so silly as to assume you have proof of any of this.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

I located "Dr." Wood's case in the federal court ECF. 16 page Memorandum of Decision from the District Court.

Those judges must be geniuses to be able to write 16 pages of legal thought in 5 minutes...

 

They wouldn't have to is the commission had just discussed it. Perhaps the cover story wasn't ready yet? Who knows...they certainly don't.

Ya admittedly there are allot of crappy theories out there. This one is...interesting...
No what I don't like is the idea of the collapses themselves. I just do not buy the idea that a fire made the WTC towers...let alone WTC7...collapse. I saw what happened...and I believe my eyes more than that hoakie commission. There is something wrong with the official story there.

We BOTH know that's simply not true. YOU may try to be even with people with questions...but the VAST majority simply jump down your throat. Its as if...someone were paying them to shut truthers up...no?

errr...what was it you were saying about not being accused of any malfeasance ? Nice one...almost had me believing you might be a little more rational there...but no cigar eh?

Great idea...I would donate.

 

Do I really need to repeat myself?!!

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182771-general-warning-about-section.html

Please read the above general warning thread, and take note of what it says.

Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

The 9/11 Commission was not charged with investigating the structural failure of WTC7. They were charged with investigating the reasons and methods of attack, as well as the U.S. security failures that allowed the attacks to succeed.

As WTC7 was not attacked, there was nothing for them to investigate there.

NIST, on the other hand, WAS charged with investigating the structural failures in the WTC buildings, including WTC7. And they did, in what is undoubtedly the most thorough and painstaking investigation of any building problem ever.

In point of fact, all of the theories outside of the generally accepted one are pretty crappy. That's because, first and foremost, they are not supported by a whit of evidence. Secondly, and nearly as important, they all add ridiculous and unsustainable layers of complexity onto the events of that day.

And what is your qualification to make this assessment? Your gut?

Let me ask you... If you go to the doctor, and the doctor says you have cancer, which is asymptomatic. He shows you test results and other records documenting your cancer. But you don't feel anything.

Do you begin treatment, or do you assume he's wrong? Why?

Because, after 10 years, people that still claim they Just Have Questions are, quite frankly, either lying, or haven't done their homework. We all are quite rightfully dismissive of the former.

I am willing to accept that the latter group exists, and politely explain that there really aren't any major unanswered questions, and point them to the various reports and investigations that answer their questions.

Some people here aren't as willing to think that latter group exists, and just assume everyone who says they're Just Asking Questions is lying.

No. It's as if 9/11 Deniers are clueless, condescending, people, who insist that they and they alone know What Really Happened, and people get annoyed at that.

The thought that the government, or some similar conspiracy, is paying people to respond to posts on message boards is just silly. Without intending to insult you, I would just say it goes to show you're not rationally thinking about this.

Why wouldn't this same conspiracy simply bribe the owners of the message boards to ban these users, or erase their posts? Better still, why wouldn't a conspiracy that obviously has no qualms about killing thousands of Americans simply "disappear" anyone who gets too close to The Truth?

The fact that we are able to have free and open discussion about the so-called "alternate" theories of 9/11, that people talk about it openly and even make careers off of it, shows that no conspiracy exists.

I am rational. The confirmation bias of conspiracy theorists is well-documented in psychological journals. It's a fascinating, though altogether somewhat sad, trend.

Of course it's a great idea. But the 9/11 Denier "leadership" hasn't pursued it, because they're too busy selling books and DVD's and seminars.

Imagine how their world would be shattered if they funded an independent investigation which confirmed the generally accepted account. Who would they then blame?

 

My link is to the people that witnessed the proceedings. I don't do the bidding of other people. Do your own research.

 

I have. Wood's theories and essays are devoid of reality. The lawsuit was a joke, and was treated as such.

 

HIGH-EXPLOSIVE NANOTHERMITE MORE BARK THAN BITE?
No Contenders for The Nanothermite Challenge
_________________________________________________________
On May 1, 2011 chemical engineer and AE911Truth petition signer T.
Mark Hightower of San Jose, CA presented The Nanothermite Challenge,
calling for peer-reviewed scientific documentation that nanothermite
could be "formulated as a high explosive." This claim was made in
April 2009 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a growing group
of professionals calling for a new, independent 9/11 investigation,
in part based on the research of physicist Steven Jones.
The Nanothermite Challenge: "Find and document peer-reviewed
scientific research that demonstrates that a gas-generating
nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum
(Al), where the gas-generating chemical added to the nanothermite is
not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with
at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper
will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can
be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000."
The deadline of June 20 for The Nanothermite Challenge passed with no
entries received. On June 19, 2011, retired NASA executive and
AE911Truth petition signer Dwain Deets stated, "What I would like to
see is AE911Truth retract their claim, as well as any other 911Truth
advocates who now make this claim. It would be great to see the
documented research come forward in the manner outlined in The
Nanothermite Challenge before the 10th Anniversary, so those who make
these claims can do so with a solid basis."
http://www.spingola.com/HighExplosiveNanothermiteMoreBarkThanBite.pdf​

 

Nanothermite. Free fall. Confiscated photos. Buried, invisible planes. Walks like a duck....it just might be a duck!

 

Well, that's progress. (Sort of)

You both admit that 'nanothermite' was a false claim. Good for you.

Now let's discuss the reality of planes crashing into the WTC towers.

 

Were those 1,400 cars "toasted" with the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite that produces no visible light or heat?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite destroy over one million tons of two quarter mile high buildings but left the foundation that kept the Hudson River from flooding lower Manhattan and the New York City subway system totally enact?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite reduce the seismic recordings to that of a building 20% of its original mass?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite make the Earth's magnetic field fluctuate at the same time each plane-shaped hole opened and each tower was "dustified"?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite make odd round holes in window glass that should have shattered?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite bend massive steel beams like pretzels without stress cracks?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite make the controlled mass media put the lives of millions of people at risk because they under reported Hurricane Erin's approach to Manhattan Island on 9/11 or didn't report it at all?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite turn concrete and steel to dust before it hit the ground but left office paper densely spread throughout lower Manhattan?

Did the same invisible super-duper-micro-mini-nanothermite turn the "9/11 Truthers" into a Medusa?

​

 

No. A bunch of pissed-off Muslims flew planes into the buildings, causing them severe damage which led to their collapse.

 

Hurricane Erin never approached Manhattan Island. It was hundreds of miles off shore on 9/11. It wasn't even cloudy over Manhattan on the morning of Sept, 11. Why would news outlets hype up a hurricane that never had any danger of striking mainland on a day when planes were hijacked and slammed into buildings?

But let's think about what you're implying here.

Man can control hurricanes?
Man can harness the energy of hurricanes to power direct energy weapons?
Direct energy weapons that harness the power of hurricanes are directly undetectable?
Direct energy weapons powered by hurricanes can destroy buildings?
Millions of people can be convinced that planes destroyed buildings when it was really a direct energy weapon?

Man, your story relies on a lot of science fiction.

You do realize Dr Judy Wood is trying to prove established science false with nothing more than a bunch of assumptions?

She does not name or describe the energy weapons she's talking about.
She does not establish any credibility to the claim that hurricanes can be harnessed or controlled.
She has no proof to her claims, just disbelief of some photographs.

 

All three airports in the area reported lightning from the storm. That is a reported fact. True? I do not know, I was not there. Photographs do not show turbulent weather in the area at the time, so who knows. The fact remains there was a massive storm just outside NYNY and it was not on the morning news as a breaking story.

Why? This satellite image shows it should have been on the news. Before the towers were struck, why was this not on the news? Why the news black out of this storm?

 

Let's see if I have this right:

Long Island is about 120 miles long. That means that the eye of the storm was at least 400 miles off to the east and there was a front moving through the northeast that was pushing the storm further out to sea. Weather on the whole eastern seaboard was pretty great that day.

You think the dominant news of the day should have been a storm that had no chance of hitting shore? Storms that don't hit shore don't typically make big news. You know the storm that sunk the Andrea Gail? Do you think anyone heard about it before Junger wrote a book about it? The national hurricane center didn't even bother to name it.

Think that hurricane was a conspiracy too?

Regardless, the idea that the storm wasn't in the news at all that morning is false.

WJLA in DC shows the storm on long range, but there's no chance it's going to affect DC weather.

http://www.archive.org/details/911/...d_Morning_America/start/12:00:00UTC/chan/WJLA

On the 12th there's mention of it in the NY local news, but I doubt anyone with half a brain would think a story about a weakening hurricane in the middle of the Atlantic is a bigger story then a terrorist attack that killed thousands.

http://www.archive.org/details/911/..._Legend_of_Tarzan/start/11:50:00UTC/chan/WSBK

 

You meant to say thunder was reported. Thunder is associated with lightning but it does not mean there was lightning. Bombs explode but not everything that explodes is a bomb. Metal glows when it is hot, but not everything that glows is hot.

"Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic."

High Definition Clip of WTC Turning to Dust on 9/11 (Slow Motion/No Sound)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz05oLFzII"]WTC 911 Blows Up TOP DOWN not a structural collapse - YouTube[/ame]​

Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair and do not reach the intersection below. There was a 500,000-ton building here just a few minutes ago. "Where'd it go?" (Looking south, Vesey & West Streets.)​

​

Why don't we see much more than paper in the image below? "(Looking west, Vesey & West Streets.)​

​

 

How can you tell what material the dust is composed of from a video? I don't notice large pieces of steel turning to dust. I see a large pile of debris crashing through the plane of collapse. The dust that you see in the video is made up of lots of things, samples of the dust show that it was mostly gypsum wallboard and concrete. Iron microspheres found in the dust afterward can be attributed to clean up effort cutting.

Do you have any empirical evidence of "iron dust" in the rubble pile? Or are you just making assumptions based on a video?

That picture is not on the location of the 500,000 ton building. In fact, it's quite distant from the footprint of the 500,000 ton building. Satellite images taken on the day after the collapse show exactly how wide the debris pile was. The satellite photos are the only photos to show the entire pile at once. This picture was taken on the edge of the debris pile, so one could assume to look for the rest of the building is in the middle of the pile.

Because the photo was taken from the edge of the debris pile. Paper is lighter and would be expected to be carried further from the building's center of gravity then more dense materials due to two factors. 1. Large volumes of air were ejected from the building as collapse took place. These volumes of air carried lighter materials further from the building's center. 2. Once on the ground, the lighter paper would be expected to blow around. Large chunks of debris would be expected to remain in place.

 

Some of the principal data that must be explained:​

1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."

2 They underwent mid-air pulverization (dustification) and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.

5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.

6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.

8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.

9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.

12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.

13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.

14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.

15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.

16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.

18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.

19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.

20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.

21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.

23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.

24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.

25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.

26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.

27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.

29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.

31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.

32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.

33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.

35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.

36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.

37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.

39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.

40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.

41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

(Please Note: This remark is not directed to any particular person. When people viciously attack Dr. Judy Wood and her research, all I think about is a blindfold and last cigarette.)

 

41 lies and misdirections

 

Didn't JayZ mention something about 41 problems but Judy Wood wasn't one?

 

What you have are random bits of trivia, and completely false statements, not data. Since it's obvious you're only interested in disseminating someone else's work, rather then responding to comments on the information, I'll only respond to the first 10.

This is not "data" Data is the speed of the collapse. You did not give the speed of the collapse. You made a false assertion. The towers did not violate our known laws of physics. We do not require space based energy weapons to explain the collapse of the towers, wtc7, the damage to the pentagon, or the crash in PA.

Dustification isn't even a real word. You just made it up. Just like you made up the claim that the towers underwent total mid air pulverization. Structural steel was not pulverized during the collapse, and all of the steel was accounted for. None of it was "missing."

Trivia. What would lead you to believe that the bathtub should have been damaged by the collapse as NIST described it? The answer to this question would contain data. It's also false trivia. The south side of the bathtub was displaced more than 10 inches, and tieback tendons had to be replaced along the entire south side.

Trivia. What would lead you to believe the rail lines should have been damaged by the collapse as NIST described it? The answer to this question would contain data. It's also false trivia. The PATH station was completely destroyed. A temporary station was completed in 2003, and the completely rehabilitated station will not open until 2014.

Trivia. What would lead you to believe that the rail lines should have been damaged by the collapse as NIST described it? The answer to this question would contain data. It's also false trivia. The underground mall was completely destroyed.

Trivia and unsubstantiated opinion. What should have been the seismic impact of a collapse as NIST described it. Why should the seismic impact of the WTC structural failure have mirrored the seismic impact of a controlled demolition? The answer to these questions would contain data.

Trivia. How should the twin towers have been destroyed by the collapse as NIST described it? Planes hit the tops of the building. The subsequent fires degraded the steel's modulus of elasticity and the steel failed at the top of the buildings. It makes sense that the buildings would have collapsed from the top down.

Trivia and an unsubstantiated opinion. How loud should the demolition of the WTC7 have been? What should the seismic signal have been? The answer to those two questions would be data. This is not data, it's an opinion.

This claim is your closest attempt at data, but it's outright laughable. Videos clearly show significant sections of core columns which remain standing long after the outer spandrels and floor trusses have fallen away. large sections of spandrel sections are seen falling away from the plane of collapse, causing those round holes you reference later. They were clearly not fine dust as they crashed through the buildings.

Another completely false claim. WTC7 damaged all of the surrounding buildings as it collapsed. This damage was not caused by dust.

 

One propaganda attempt and dodge. Check.

 

"Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f928i-n9kP4"]WTC 911 Is this a structural collapse? 2 of several - YouTube[/ame]
Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair, ​

yet small pieces of aluminum cladding from the building's exterior are not.​