"Star Wars Beam Weapon"

Although still under construction, the website is highly informative concerning 9/11/2001.

www.drjudywood.com...

reply to post by OrionStars



Hi Orion,

Just a little information about Dr. Wood. To put it nicely, her elevator does not reach the top floors. Her works have been debunked not only by skeptics, but but most of the CT'ers as well.

Her students where she taught (or still may teach) don't give her a very positive review.

TY/TY

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


With all due respect, would you care to substantiate that claim, rather than simply making a vague general claim?

Dr. Wood appears to have aptly applied the use of current technology available since the 1980s, when Reagan was promoting his version of DOD and Pentagon Star Wars tech. The theories have been proved, including those of Tesla and Einstein, long before 1950, when the technology was first tested in laboratories. Dr. Wood is quite knowledgeable concerning applied physics and quantum mechanics, including molecular structure of biological organisms and geological elements.

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

reply to post by OrionStars


Hi Orion,

First of all, I hope you do not think I am attacking you. I have done a little research on this "Doctor". While her credentials are somewhat impressive, she is not accurate in her assesments.

I will start by posting the ratings and comments her students gave her. Allow me to stress that this should be taken with a grain of salt. The authenticiy of this site may be questionable. Just the same, here is what her students think of her:

7/23/07 ENGE1 5 5 5 4 Open minded

/2/07 nineo101 5 1 1 5 This woman is very smart. What is with the 911 Conspiracy Garbage? This woman should not be teaching students her bologna!

5/22/07 ENGE1 2 1 1 4 911 nutter.

4/27/06 EM 201 3 4 2 1 Hard to understand at times, and is kinda boring. Definetely get the hw solutions to follow so you can become professient and make sure your doing it right. Hw assignments are a pain in the . Due every class, and graded on correctness (get the solutions!). Tests aren't too bad though and grading is reasonable.

4/6/06 ME 302 1 2 1 3 Does not need to be teaching.

12/12/05 EM 201 4 3 3 2 Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

4/6/05 em201 and
em304 2 3 1 5 Dr. Wood has good intentions, but she is not wound too tight. Not a good teacher if you are looking for orgainization and structure. She gives lots of real world examples and tries to illustrate topics more than most teachers. However, this will not help you are her tests. They are difficult.

/12/05 EM 201 1 1 1 5 ok um... what's a good word that will describe her... She um.... SUCKS!!!! SHE IS SO HORRIBLE! WOW! I MEAN I WAS LIKE WOW, WHY ARE YOU STILL TEACHING?

1/4/05 EM 304 1 1 1 2 VERY VERY VERY unorganized and unprofessional. Avoid her at all cost. I did not belive a professor could be this bad until I had her. She gave my first exam back three and a half weeks afte I took it. She expected homework to be turned in at the beginning of class yet she was always late. Always!!

12/7/04 EM 201 2 1 1 3 Very bad teacher, never organized, can't understand a question and if she can, refuses to answer it. Need a microscope to read the board. Looks to take off points rather than to give you points. Refuses to answer her door when you knock on it. I want my money back for the lack of teaching.

12/5/04 statics 2 2 1 2 what they said... dont take her and if you must, go to SI

11/15/04 Statics 3 1 1 4 She is unwilling to help you understand the material in class. She is not an effective teacher. I depended on my book to pass the class. I do not suggest her for anyone! She ridicules students in class when they ask questions.

www.ratemyprofessors.com...


Again this is only what some of her students are saying about her. Give me some time to get some other material together that refutes her research.

TY/TY

Unfortunately, you start out by creating your own problem. Other people's unsubstantiated opinions can turn into stifling air.

What you and they are going to have to do, in order to prove the plural your opposition points, is to comprehend the physics and quantum mechanics of DEW.

Then the plural you are required to scientifically explain your assumed contention of errors in Dr. Wood's presentation. Lacking that, everything the plural you present is only the plural your unsubstantiated non-scientific opinions.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Well, imagine that. Students failing to grasp material of their own volition complaining about their professor. I have no doubts Einstein had the same negative opinions expressed about him, by some of his students as well. Einstein was not notable for being overly helpful to all his students - only those showing great promise in understanding of their volition. He was well-known for his impatience with illogical people.

LOL

This is another sorry attempt by ThroatYogurt/Soloist to discredit someone's credentials, totaly ignoring the information provided.

Lets look at the simularities.

Originally posted by Soloistwww.abovetopsecret.com...
"Dr" Wood lol...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I have done a little research on this "Doctor".

Can I ask why two supposidly different people use quotes for the word "doctor"? It's like they both don't understand that Judy Wood has a Ph.D. which makes her a real doctor.

What makes me laugh the most is ThroatYogurts disinformation. I like how he is using a website as a resource, when the stuff on the website is no better than graffiti in a public bathroom. Ex:

www.ratemyprofessors.com...

1/23/08 smoke420 5 5 5 5 OMG! ANYONE WHO IS ANYONE CAN LEAVE A MESSAGE. THAT MEANS THIS ENTIRE WEBSITE IS B.S. THROATYOGURT AND SOLOIST ARE DISINFO AGENTS.

LOL




[edit on 23-1-2008 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I surmise, in part, it is because some people do not understand doctors of philosophy (PhDs) are legitimately entitled to use the word doctor in front of their names, the same way physicians (MDs) are.

Otherwise, people may presume, with or without justification, someone is behaving as a pseudo-scientist with a PhD. The quotation marks are deliberately used to designate that observation. I tend to do that sometimes, but only after I am certain someone is behaving as a pseudo-scientist. I note others doing it simply in subjective disagreement with another, based on nothing but what may be their mere pre-conceived opinion(s).

To see what kind of teacher Dr Wood is, watch the presentations here:

drjudywood.com...

You might also want to check out some videos of Dr Wood, linked from here:



And I "teamed up" with her here
www.drjudywood.com...

as I think what she is doing is of tremendous importance and may be of benefit to us all in the long term.

www.drjudywood.com...

I wish to thank those showing such confidence in the capabilities of Dr. Judy Wood. After observing her lectures, concerning 9/11/2001, plus, reading her website, I have no doubt she is more than qualified to evaluate and assess what transpired 9/11/2001.

She was qualified enough to become an associate professor in the field of structural and mechanical engineering (architect). She has appeared quite qualified to speak and write concerning the field of physics and quantum mechanics. Both studies would be a necessity for anyone entering the field of structural and mechanical engineering (architect).

It was reported the college, at which she teaches/taught, refused to give her full professorship, with tenure, because of her work on 9/11/2001, which swings to 180 degrees opposite of the official reports.

People on the opposing side of the 9/11/2001 demand experts to testify using their expertise. When they come forward, all they do is maliciously criticize them for saying and writing what the opposition does not desire to read and hear. Yet, at the same time, do nothing to refute their opposition. Think they do but obviously do not comprehend what it takes to refute another's arguments. All we seem to receive is the mimicking voices relentlessly feeding us the "official" reports. That is not refuting argument. That is mimicry without substance.

If not for Dr. Wood, I most likely would not have given DEW consideration anymore than H- or A-bombs. Dr. Wood has definitely described the immediate and after effect of DEW, which could fit, in some ways, the immediate and after effects of H- and A-bombs, but not exactly. DEW has the highest probability of explaining exactly what happened to the twin towers on 9/11/2001.

In order to be convinced of that, I had to, over several years, study physics and quantum mechanics myself. I still study it if it is something I have not already learned. I will not simply take anyone's word base on nothing but his or her own self-evalution claims or touting with no substance. In order to know if someone is qualified, I have to be qualified in study in the same areas myself. If I do not know, I always go in search of to learn what I do not already know.

reply to post by OrionStars


we have to be smart to get the right points about the work/position of Dr Wood.

-she seems to work for the 9/11 truth movement, together with Jim Fetzer.
(Reynold´s lawsuit inclusive)

-on the other hand side she maybe a part of a 9/11 disinfo campain (by the gov´t or intelligence, whatever you call them).
(Reynold again?)

she has a real degree. no way around that (or?)
that could be used for both sides.right?

for me , if the NWO exists (as we think of it), all these possibilities must be considered, because its all about CONTROL.

so, when I looked at her site, I thought, DEW is maybe a possibility.
but on the other hand side, I realized she tries to debunk Dr Jones completely.


Discretion is the better part of valour.
dont forget the dead.






[edit on 24-1-2008 by anti72]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by anti72]

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Woods last year when she visited. And yes, I say honor because she seemed like a sincere person.

DE is still in my plausability list.

Dr. Jones does have a point against him because of his work at Los Alamos dealing with DEW. Conflict of interest for Jones? Could be why he's so adamant about thermate and nothing else IMO.

reply to post by anti72


You bring up some legitimate points. With all due respect, I have some counters to your points.

Is she actually trying to debunk him, or explain the most probable cause of almost complete molecular disintegration including steel? Thermate cannot accomplish that.

I still consider a partial conventional demolition at the top of the south tower, in order to make people think some alleged plane and jet fuel were all it took to drop those towers into their own footprints. I do not recall Dr. Wood saying anything about that one way or the other.

The south tower actually had a 23 degree rift to the outside before DEW hit. I and others were able to measure it in a photograph on the Internet. Then the top dropped back inside, when the DEW implosion took place. The powerful implosion vacuum, caused by DEW, is the only factor that could have brought that top back to the inside. It had already lost the center of gravity when the hat trusses and other weight shifted to outside. Conventional explosives could not have brought that top back in. They cannot create a powerful enough implosion vacuum to accomplish that.

I contacted Dr. Jones about the south tower lean. He said they were aware of it, and wondered about it also. He said they were going to study it. I never heard back from him as to whether or not they did. Dr. Jones' field is nuclear physics. Why did he pick conventional demolitions over DEW?

The argument between Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Wood vs Dr. Jones is over the method. Dr. Jones is dead set thermate was used on both towers, and he refuses to consider any other method though DEW is included in his field of nuclear physics.

I am no longer convinced it was completely conventional. Not since I studied the science of DEW, in comparison to my long-term study of controlled demolitions physics and quantum mechanics.

I was always aware from 9/11/2001 that controlled demolitions demolished the twin towers. Until recently, I was not able to solidly preliminarily conclude the method. Conventional never seemed completely right for a number of valid reasons involving physics and quantum mechanics.

I have no way of validating DEW. However, all the documented evidence I have been able to gather points to DEW. Before, I kept it on hold, and waited to see where it fit. It all fit DEW.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by anti72

 

Is she actually trying to debunk him, or explain the most probable cause of almost complete molecular disintegration including steel? Thermate cannot accomplish that.

molecular disintegration / pulverisation was considered by none till now.
Dr Wood is he only one, that does.


I still consider a partial conventional demolition at the top of the south tower, in order to make people think some alleged plane and jet fuel were all it took to drop those towers into their own footprints. I do not recall Dr. Wood saying anything about that one way or the other.

why? because it first toppled? I have a thread about that ´impossible´ effect.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


The south tower actually had a 23 degree rift to the outside before DEW hit. I and others were able to measure it in a photograph on the Internet. Then the top dropped back inside, when the DEW implosion took place. The powerful implosion vacuum, caused by DEW, is the only factor that could have brought that top back to the inside. It had already lost the center of gravity when the hat trusses and other weight shifted to outside. Conventional explosives could not have brought that top back in. They cannot create a powerful enough implosion vacuum to accomplish that.


see above.


I contacted Dr. Jones about the south tower lean. He said they were aware of it, and wondered about it also. He said they were going to study it. I never heard back from him as to whether or not they did. Dr. Jones' field is nuclear physics. Why did he pick conventional demolitions over DEW?


good question.

The argument between Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Wood vs Dr. Jones is over the method. Dr. Jones is dead set thermate was used on both towers, and he refuses to consider any other method though DEW is included in his field of nuclear physics.


I think thermate was used, too.

I am no longer convinced it was completely conventional. Not since I studied the science of DEW, in comparison to my long-term study of controlled demolitions physics and quantum mechanics.

I was always aware from 9/11/2001 that controlled demolitions demolished the twin towers. Until recently, I was not able to solidly preliminarily conclude the method. Conventional never seemed completely right for a number of valid reasons involving physics and quantum mechanics.

I have no way of validating DEW. However, all the documented evidence I have been able to gather points to DEW. Before, I kept it on hold, and waited to see where it fit. It all fit DEW.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by anti72]

Originally posted by anti72

molecular disintegration / pulverisation was considered by none till now.
Dr Wood is he only one, that does.

That has been in consideration for quite a while. I knew it but was not considering the lack of intact steel which should have been piled high inside the footprint and above. It was not there. Too few pieces of steel for all the redundant steel skeleton of both towers. The majority were individual molecular granules of steel no different than individual grains of sugar, salt, or sand.

why? because it first toppled? I have a thread about that ´impossible´ effect.

No, because it was leaning long enough to be measured before being molecularly disintegrated. One side had dropped down on the lower wall, and the cores and inside steel framing, inside the core, was still holding it on at opposite side. I measured it. I know it existed. Others have measured, and stated they know it existed.

911research.wtc7.net...

"Watch the top third of Tower 2 leaning outward, about to topple. Then -- suddenly -- it disintegrates in mid-air. What causes this giant slab of steel and concrete to turn into dust before our eyes?"

Actually, it was pulled back inside before it disintegrated.

I think thermate was used, too.

May have partially been. I will not argue that. Thermate did not completely demolish both buildings into granules of steel. Thermate could not do that. No conventional explosive used in controlled demolitions can do that.

Originally posted by Griff
I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Woods last year when she visited. And yes, I say honor because she seemed like a sincere person.

DE is still in my plausability list.

Dr. Jones does have a point against him because of his work at Los Alamos dealing with DEW. Conflict of interest for Jones? Could be why he's so adamant about thermate and nothing else IMO.

glad to here this, griff.

woods is a personal hero of mine. even if she turns out to be wrong in the end, she at least has very solid reasons for ALL of her assertions, 'crazy' as they may seem.

i agree about jones. he came out swinging, but then, he lost for me when he ignored evidence of nuclear reaction leftovers like the elevated tritium. thermate doesn't explain flipped or half melted cars, either.