Judy Wood and her 'Energy Beams'.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
video.google.com...


You can watch the video, its an interview starting about 3 minutes in. I don't usually like to draw attention to such things, but it seems more and more people have been asking about this lately, just the other day someone asked me about it at work.

There are some very outlandish things, also there is some interesting things. But I see this as a way to 'discredit' the search for truth.

You can hear Jim Hoffman in an interview talk about these things
media.libsyn.com...

The more outlandish these things are, the more it is brought out eventually everyone gets the idea that everyone who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy is believing in energy beams etc.

It is important to note, I want to keep an open mind however there has to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and what I am seeing is a lot of speculative things going off into many different directions.




posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
The video linked above it to an "ambush interview" conducted by Greg Jenkins. An article describing this ambush interview is here: www.911researchers.com...


Jenkins previous work was funded by the NSA.

Proof:
=============================
www.csr.umd.edu...
www.physics.buffalo.edu...
www.physics.buffalo.edu...

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA.
=============================


Both Jenkins and Steven Jones have direct ties to Los Alamos Labs where directed-energy weapon research is conducted. Steven Jones has already been shown to be a government plant put in place to distract people from Judy Wood's evidence: www.911researchers.com...

Dr Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon paper takes into account all the available evidence: janedoe0911.tripod.com...

Directed-Energy Weapons DO exist, as it proved here: www.911researchers.com...

An excellent interview with Dr Wood is here: janedoe0911.tripod.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Wow, CB, quite a retort. And here I was about to unquestioningly agree with Talisman. I still do basically, but who knows? If they have weird things we don't know about, holograms, wormholes, time travel, perhaps 9/11 was the day to break them out. why bother flying the attack in "under the radar" when you can just up the weirdness and blow the radar up?
Anyway, one thing we agree on if we can't agree who: the "movement" has plants, distractions, and psyops embedded in it. The footing is tracherous.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
The video linked above it to an "ambush interview" conducted by Greg Jenkins.



He says he was genuinely interested in what scientific basis was actually behind it. Wood speaks for herself; I thought Jenkins was rather reasonable.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Dear talisman:

Of course energy beams exist. They’re one of the more important mechanisms of weaponry. They’re more commonly called ‘shaped charges’. Surely you’ve heard of them!

Ten years ago a Lawrence Livermore research team blasted a two inch hole through an eleven(!) feet thick row of blocks of armored steel. That would be four years prior to 9-11. There’s nothing outlandish about energy beams at all.

www.llnl.gov...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Judy Wood is disastrous as a credible spokesperson. Her personality and speaking manner are off-putting and grating. Such is life, unscripted and unmediatized.

However, the photographic evidence she has assembled on her website is comprehensive and highly disturbing. Go on over and simply study the photographs and do your own thinking. Don't even bother reading the accompanying text.

Then come back here and explain what in the world caused all those incredible but nonetheless documented anomalies. I still don't know, but I DO know it wasn't jet fuel.

And as for "loony Judy," her basic point is dead on-target: look at the evidence and account for how it occurred--all of it.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
CB_Brooklyn

I couldn't care less who Jenkins worked for. It's not who he worked for, or what his agenda was.

She speaks for herself during that interview and she is a 'loony tune'. Plain and simple. She has enough experience I am sure to handle what people call an "AMBUSH" but that wasn't an ambush, she was given plenty of time to speak and she was evasive and making huge leaps of logic and showed poor rational skills.

If she can't handle that type of an 'ambush' then goodness gracious what would she ever do if someone really went after her in an interview?

I've seen Steven Jones put up with far worse and he did much much better and makes much more sense.

The ambush is a poor excuse for this interview.

Also Jenkins has simply refuted her claims in his paper here

Jenkins


In the article above you can read about the stuff that was going up.The smoke they were talking about going up was clearly from the North Tower!!

That is irrefutable and is clearly seen in that photo on the link I provided.

At the end of the day it was Judy Woods who spoke for herself and it was obvious what happened.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Wizard_In_The_Woods

My contention isn't if 'Energy Beams' exist. But this is about Judy Woods and her 'Energy Beams' as my thread states. The science she is using and her logic is ridiculous. Let me give you an example;

She talks now about it being 'Energy Beams', but when interviewed by Fetzer on his show a while back she said maybe the beams were fired from a Space Satellite!

That is a space weapon effectively and her and her people are arguing silly semantics. Now Fetzer is running around and saying the "BEAM" was fired from Building 7!

He thinks this because Building 6 had a big hole in it??

Now it is one thing to start wondering about things, but it is entirely different when you start making wild conclusions absent of any facts.

Frankly I think Steven Jones is on to something and his work is getting bogged down with ridiculous attacks.

The day in question we all saw Buildings fall in ways that didn't look right intuitively, some of us started to really question this years later but we have to let our better sense of judgement come to conclusions.

For one thing if our contention is "BEAMS" took down the Towers we would have to back up our claims with some real hard science, we would have to get into exactly what type of "Beams" they were, what was their energy source, exactly how much energy was needed.

We would then have to answer to, why or how could we know about Classified Weapons?

Its a no win situation. At best we could put forth a hypothesis that the buildings and their collapse were caused by mechanisms unknown, but that the collapse were not the result of Fire and Damage alone.

I mean it is clear to me, there is a vast difference when I read Steven Jones and his work vs Judy Wood's and her work.

Steven Jones who has been accused of being a disinfo agent at least tries to back up the things he is saying.

I heard him on a radio program
www.911podcasts.com...

Where he debates Les Robertson.

It is clear from the above discussion that Steven Jones is not some 'dis-info' agent and that he is making some real sense.

AT times during the above Roberston just hid behind 'I haven't looked at that so I can't talk to that'.

Before we get to 'Energy Beams' taking down the Towers we must make every effort to examine other possibilities as well.

Just to add, here in this article I thought Jenkins does a fine Job at refuting Woods completely.
www.journalof911studies.com...








[edit on 14-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Talisman

Yes Jones is more far articulate than Wood but when he first appeared on the scene he also was made to look a fool on Fox--and they didn't browbeat him down, he was simply too green a public speaker at that point, too professorish and totally unaware that he wasn't in a university seminar and had only 2 minutes to marshal and present a cogent argument. The piece was a disaster and you still have to cringe watching it. (Sorry no link, the piece eems to have been scrubbed.)

Today he's learned and is much more articulate before the cameras, but his hypothesis takes account of only a portion of the documented destruction going on that day.

Toasted cars but unburnt paper, micronized structure and building contents, neat holes and missing sections in the secondary WTC buildings, sublimating metals showering down, the smoking, collapsing spire, and on and on--all cry out for an explanation beyond conventional explosives.

Wood is the poster girl for inarticulateness; I agree she doesn't help in advancing the cause, but she raises important questions that need to be answered, and Jones' work goes only so far in answering them.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This lady is a train wreck!!! Just because someone has a PhD doesn't make them "Smart" - it makes them able to complete a body of academic study. All one need do is be able to read, write and remain focused long enough to complete the academics involved.

She isn't even able to articulate her "Theory" if you can even call it that. Every time she is challenged she responds with "Why bother..." Well, bother because YOU NEED to back up your assertions. EVERYTHING is a generalization with her.

She is the one of the biggest htis against the 9/11 truth movement. If anything, I think that SHE is a government plant to make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like Kooks!



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Do you have any references for technical info on how exactly the team you have pictured accomplished that feat? I'm curious as hell as to how they did that.

Nvm, I missed the link. I'm reading it now.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
CB, tell me you're not Nico Haupt!

"Stop axotic vaponry, POST ON VIKIEPEDIA!"

I'm sorry, now that thats out of the way...

Im certainly no big proponent of the energy beams angle. I try to keep an open mind and i know directed energy is real, but is it really plausible that space based weapons really did this?

Theres too many things that sound way to wild for this to work.

It deserves to be debated, and to be scrutinized, but it does not make a good starting point for raising public awareness...

I was aware that Jones screwed with cold fusion, but not to discredit it. Apparently he was trying to claim credit for it himself, stealing the idea from the other researchers. When ponds and fleichman found out jones was trying to steal it out from under them, they went public with their findings immediately to the press.

This pissed off a lot of scientists. Instead of going through the traditional process of submitting scientific papers to peer reviewed journals and waiting for feedback, they were forced to cut some corners and became quite famous for it.

A lot of scientists were jealous, especially physicists that have wasted so much on hot fusion and suddenly two no-name chemists come along and figure it out?!?! MIT Hot-fusion researchers that were about to loose billions of dollars in federal grants for their toys that have not yet generated one milliwatt of energy.

MIT fraudulently conducted a joke of an experiment and immediately claimed it was false. They got a positive result and forged their final paper to hide that fact. Even though its clear they were biased and wrong, people still dont believe in cold fusion, especially my colleagues, and thats sad.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The jenkins guy is kind of a douchey putz. I had noticed in videos that the smoke is rising from the core below the crash zones as the building collapsed and always assumed that to be more evidence of somewhat conventional demolitions, not energy beams...



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
gottago

I never thought Fox made Jones look like a fool, all I saw was the refusal of Tucker to play the collapse of Bldg-7, which seemed very suspicious to me.

Now having said this, I still don't think Jones is the most articulate speaker and I agree on this, but when you actually look at what he is saying, he is making the most sense and he is trying to back it up.

Judy Woods on the other hand comes across as someone who isn't playing with a full deck in regards to her logical reasoning.

When Jenkins tried to get a conversation started about the Kingdom it was obvious she was being evasive and hiding behind 'I can't remember', after all this is on her site and was a large part of what she was saying, she came off completely 'wacko'.

Now I am not saying Jenkins was completely fair and honest, but really he wasn't all that bad either. He looked genuinely frustrated earlier in the interview and from then on everyone can see what happened. Later he looked sarcastic, but really he didn't cross any lines, he gave her time to speak and just let her put herself into a tangled mess.

No matter his intention, no matter who he works for etc, she was the one who did a lot of talking and it sounded quite frankly like a load of rubbish it really did.

The people that are supporting her are left to proclaim 'Ambush'! 'Ambush'!

That is ridiculous, anyone could see she is an adult and being one she can offer some coherence to her ideas, and as an Adult and a professional she should be able to handle something like this.

She looked, evasive, intimidated, lost and argumantetive.

At the end of the day it was Judy herself who vaporized her own theory.



[edit on 14-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
talisman: It has already been proven that Steven Jones is a lying fraud. He uses known doctored photos and hides the fact that's there were doctored. This has already been proven: www.911researchers.com...

Steven Jones is a government plant: www.911researchers.com...

Any papers on Jones Journal site are not trustworthy.

I have the scientific evidence to back me up. What do you have?

Judy Wood was fired and her student was murdered.... the one student who was doing 9/11 research with her to prove Steven Jones' work faulty. Check the 2nd link above for details.

You should start looking at information instead of shouting insults



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
CB_Brooklyn


I know you want to attack Jones at any chance, you can start another thread on that. But let us put that aside here since this thread is about Woods and her 'Energy Beams'.

Judy Wood and her story is ridiculous. She had a chance to talk about it, and quite frankly she did a very poor job. I'm being as honest as I can be.

BTW it isn't an insult what I said earlier about her, it is the truth. That is exactly how she came across. Look we are dealing with 9/11 where people lost loved ones and many things happened.

If people want to go public with outlandish things then they are fair game, since 9/11 isn't just another topic, the search for truth is of paramount importance.

I don't think tolerating people like Woods who are doing nothing but discrediting the search for truth is wise.

Jenkins did a very fine job of refuting the 'science' in his article which got into some technical language. I don't defend Jenkins, but he sure as hell was reasonable 90% of the time.

If you don't accept Jenkins or Jones, then fine. Don't accept them, but this surely isn't the reason to jump on the Judy Wood's and Fetzer train.

Jenkins might have been a little sarcastic, he might have been a little bit of everything and nothing, it doesn't change the fact that anyone with a fair and open mind can see clear as day how she behaved, her logic and her evasive answers were enough.

She looked to be right out of it. That is exactly how she looked and I think most would agree. The film speaks for itself.

What you were saying earlier in another thread is deceptive, she did in fact offer on the Fetzer show the idea that these 'Beams' could have been fired from Space, arguing that she doesn't call them 'Space Weapons' or 'Space Beams' is just playing word games.

An Energy Beam fired from Space to me is a space weapon end of debate.

Fetzer then comes along and starts talking about the source being Bldg-7.

I mean come on, for the love of God.
From what source did the Beam come from???
So either it came from above in space-- from a satellite, or from Building 7!?

This is absolute hogwash.


What Science do you have? What peer reviewed accepted article or paper saying:

ENERGY BEAMS TAKING DOWN THE TOWERS is a viable hypothesis.

Show me this.
























[edit on 15-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I must say, i have often seen prominent 'truthers' being accused of being disinfo agents by relatively unknown 'truthers' that have no established credibility on the subject.

Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Steven Jones, Sibel Edmonds, David Ray Griffith, etc etc etc have done enormous things for the 'movement' and have woken a lot of people up to inconsistencies in the official story. If they are working for the CIA then they are doing a terrible #in' job!

If it werent for them then there would be no room for these energy beam and hologram plane theories to begin with. Nobody, not even you CB, would be willing to hear 911 conspiracy theories if it werent for all the groundwork layed by these people causing people to begin having doubts about the story. These people drew national attention to these issues. These people have provided the medium for the very discussions we are having now.

Of course they distance themselves from these far-out ideas. These ideas have no evidence, they only harm the movement, not help! That doesnt make them CIA agents.

Sure, perhaps both Alex and Steven Jones have made some mistakes or stupid comments. That doesnt mean they did it intentionally as CIA COUTERINTEL PRO OPS!

Now, im not suggesting that CB is a disinfo agent either. However i do believe hes been fed disinfo. CB, if you cant see that these wild accusations are dividing us, and setting us up to be conquered, then you are blind. Dont you realise that your actions are achieving the very results that you are accusing others of pursuing?

If you want to present your evidence you are free to do so. If we dont buy it that doesnt mean that Steven Jones is a disinfo agent.

Claiming that you have scientific proof of your claims is a very far stretch. Id like to see you set up these energy beams in a lab and "dustify" steel, whatever the hell that means.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
talisman,

I agree 90% with your assessment. Wood is her own worst enemy. She's an inarticulate disaster.

The whole Kingdome bit is totally superfluous, has really no relation at all to 9/11 and Jenkins showed it up for what it was. That was child's play.

And Jenkins, though I found him a distasteful character, was at least articulate. However, even he fell apart when Wood simply asked him, holding the photo of the "snowball," something to the effect of, "So where is that 2/3s of the building?" You saw he was cornered, and simply squirmed.

It's an excellent question, and cuts to the heart of the matter, which is what I saw her ineffectually trying to articulate.

I think in the end, to be effective and move the debate to the heart of the matter, someone has to come forward with serious creds and a reassuring presence and begin to ask questions like these. Basic questions that must be addressed to understand the physics at play in the destruction of the towers and throughout the site.

We've nearly forgotten the ancillary buildings--everyone's fixated on the moment about WTC7, but the others are just as bizarre, with neat holes and missing sections like they were carved out with a huge scalpel. This will come, too.

Someone's got to demand explanations for this host of bizarre anomalies, for toasted cars and shriveled I beams on buildings off-site, etc. But he or she shouldn't propose answers for them. Simply ask, "How?" and you get people to think about the extreme weirdness of the physical evidence. And don't let up. Keep asking these basic questions, and you'll win many converts.

Wood is trying to do that, she's on the right track in identifying them, but her conclusions are too far-out to be taken seriously and she shouldn't be allowed within a 1/2 mile of a microphone or a TV camera. My 2c.

PS. Thinking further, it would be an extremely valuable project to catalogue all these anomalies, explaining the reasons they are so anomalous, and reference them with the photographic/video evidence--since the physical has been destroyed. Create a white paper on the assault upon reason displayed in the physics of the destruction of the WTC site.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by gottago]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

PS. Thinking further, it would be an extremely valuable project to catalogue all these anomalies, explaining the reasons they are so anomalous, and reference them with the photographic/video evidence--since the physical has been destroyed. Create a white paper on the assault upon reason displayed in the physics of the destruction of the WTC site.


Yes, exactly. If you think there is something to this, please do provide some pictures for us to look at. Ive never seen shriveled ibeams, sublimated metal, scooped out 'neat' holes, or anything like that...

IF you guys want to discuss energy beams, that should be your approach. Show us your evidence instead of accusing other prominent truthers of being disinfo agents just because they disagree.

Theres nothing steven jones can do to prevent you from showing us your evidence. Attempting character assassination instead of providing your evidence is not the way to go.

I find there are some things about jones that are somewhat suspect. I think it is critical to be skeptical of all sources of information. I am just as critical of what jones says as i am of what the media say.

I think it was shady the way he tried to 'steal' cold fusion, and then kinda tried to downplay F&P's results when he wasnt going to get credit for it himself. I think he suffers from feelings of inadequacy. This is probably why hes so driven to the 911 issue, because now he's a hero. I never suggested his work was entirely selfless, but he has done more to discredit the official story than anybody else. He formed a large organization of scholars, with numerous advanced degrees, and provided a sort of credibility to the movement that had never been seen before.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Thermite is a red herring. Even if Professor Steven Jones' findings were confirmed by other scientists, sceptics could still argue that what was detected was thermite used by workers at Ground Zero to cut up girders. There are, indeed, photos suggesting that thermite was used in the clear-up. See Fig 14(a), (b) & (c) at nomoregames.net... . So, if you think the alleged discovery of thermite by Professor Jones is a smoking gun, you are sadly mistaken. It is NOT going to prove the case for an inside job. Besides, it is not explosive and could not account for the way most of the North and South Tower was turned to dust. The intellectual fight between Jones and Fetzer is a battle for leadership of the 9/11 truth movement in America by two alpha-males. The former, who imagines himself as another Brigham Young, exploits his scientific reputation for what it is worth but offers poor scientific work and cannot think outside the box of his lab. The latter, a doyen of conspiracy theorists, has never touched a test tube but thinks all possibilities - however speculative or far-fetched - should be considered. The trouble is that 1. thermite is politically acceptable but exotic, high-energy beam weapons is not; 2. thermite cannot account for the degree of pulverisation into fine dust of most of the towers, whilst these weapons possibly can. The two people are forcing the 9/11 truth movement to choose between what is credible to those still unconvinced about the real facts of 9/11, and what may be the hard truth about how the towers were destroyed. If you want to push a lie because it is more easily believed, then go ahead along the Jones path. If you want to establish the truth however more difficult it will take to get people to believe it, then take the Fetzer-Wood route.

BTW, Wood is wrong in her statement (below Fig 62 at janedoe0911.tripod.com...) that there is no sign of a piece of United Airline fuselage on top of the WTC 5 in Fig 62. If you magnify the area in the red circle in her Fig 62(c), you do, indeed, see what could be this piece of metal (the resolution of the photo is insufficient to identify it as such, but it IS in the right place). I think this is a case of Wood wanting to believe that it was planted and not being careful enough to spot it.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join