Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

originally posted by: Dolour
but why doesent she get her own entry(even if it were one that states shes a nutcrack)?

en.wikipedia.org...:Articles_for_deletion/Judy_Wood

The result was delete. Single-purpose account arguments have been disregarded, and most of the keep arguments given by those accounts are attempts to defend the subject's theories without addressing the notability of the subject per any guideline or policy. This is not a debate on conspiracy theory; Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battleground. --Coredesat 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that kind of doesent really answer the question at all.
so ok, it wont be included in the 911 entry due to the discussion being hijacked and the article itself would need "some polishment" to put it politely.
i still fail to see why dr wood and her theory dont get an entry on their own...
she DOES have this legal RFC filed against NIST, doesent she?

a reply to: Dolour

i still fail to see why dr wood and her theory dont get an entry on their own...
she DOES have this legal RFC filed against NIST, doesent she?

For the same reason Billy Bob Thornton doesn't get mentioned in the JFK wiki.
No first hand knowledge or basis on the subject.

Would you accept Grand ma Smith as an expert on aliens just because she claims to have been probed by one?]

It's just as many have mentioned here she's a crackpot with a degree.

It's just as many have mentioned here she's a crackpot with a degree.

shes been called a crackpot by ppl who look at her claims without taking the time to review the material.
her observations are undeniable and the conclusions logically consistent.

if you actually DO consider her a crackpot, i suggest watching her presentation and website.
...and afterwards(!) watch that famous video wich is so often used to redicule her.
This interview is actually very interesting by itself.
Letz do a quick sweep, and beforehand id like to quote from one of the science articles on this board:

The simplest explanation is that we just don't know, yet. There is nothing in Science that says it is wrong to say "we don't know". Observations are made, an hypothesis is formulated. If more observations and experiments support the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. If observations or experiments contradict the theory, it is changed or discarded. This is how science works, there is no final "We know everything" state.

So what does Dr. Woods do exactly?
"Observations are made" - check
"an hypothesis is formulated" - check
"If more observations and experiments support the hypothesis, it becomes a theory" - particular check
"If observations or experiments contradict the theory, it is changed or discarded" - particular check
experimental verification could proove difficult, due to the unknown nature of the effect observed.
its possible the do the opposite tho, and falsify the assumption commonly available means were used.

all she really does is examine the remains(wich is physical evidence) and draw the conclusion that no known weapon or explosive type matches the pattern found at the 911 site.
"There is nothing in Science that says it is wrong to say "we don't know".
Yet Jenkins beats the "what exactly was used" horse to death, arguing that presently known technology reacts differently, totally ignoring the statement that she says "i dont know how the darn thing works".
Hes arguing about energy levels needed for vaporization of metals utilizing photons, despite the facts that Woods blames some sort of electromagnetic field distortion device, and stressed to the extend that its not been VAPORIZED(no thermal event), but that she had to come up with a new term to describe the event, in order to prevent it from beeing mixed up vith vaporization.

Jenkins then goes on about her aproximation of the rubble pile that SHOULD have been leftover, even agreeing with the reference building used being a good choice, and the total leftover-mass approximation.
...to then state the rubble wouldnt be all piled up because (i paraphrase) "it didnt collapse in on its footprint either".
wait what? isnt one of the MOST suspicous things about this whole thing that the towers DID pinpoint collapse?
Jenkins argues about an area of 6x the buildings footprint wich is not consistent with photos from the site, taken shortly after the event.
Theres clearly too few rubble left, even if you distribute the 1.2mtons evenly across the area in question.

Jenkins then goes on trying to "rationalize" the collapse scene, pointing out the building was on fire bc theres been lots of smoke(im pretty sure its been burning, but merely for the showeffect, so no idea how that could proove anything wrong.), arguing that theres been pieces of rubble beeing visible during the collapse, ignoring pretty much everything that was exhaustingly discussed during the presentation.
whats really interesting about that part of the "defraud" video, is that during the analaysys of the collapse jenkins in pretty speechless about how allready DURING the collapse theres apparently alot material missing.
not stuff beeing smashed to bits by upper floors crashing on them, but debris turning to dust long before it hits the ground.
he argues that he could imagine the buildings mass being visually covered withing the dust cloud, wich is arguable, but inconsistent with the lack of, at least, the steelframe parts of the structure.
i can indeed imagine how the force from the collapse could shatter the concrete parts to dust, but not the roughly 30% steel.

he then resorts back to beating the "what exactly was used" horse to death, wich is where ive had enough...
seriously, i dont see any disproove here, other then that shes got no clue what weapon was used.
...see initial quote.

the video implies that communication isnt her strenght(or shes been a bit fuzzy that morning), and she sucks at memorizing numbers, wich in my book isnt a capital crime.

in case youve been sucessfully distracted from the work of this woman, i suggest you indeed do go and watch her presentation, go on to that defraud video, wich imo doesent defraud anything(up to min 25 where ive seen enough, lol), and then maybe proceed to this tit-for-tat response, wich makes jenkins look like a twat(guess hes been a bit fuzzy too :p).

/edit: as a personal sidenote: she really should be beaten with a stick for mentioning the hutchison effect.
talking about labeling yourself a crackpot. awkwardly reminds me of "cold fusion". *sigh*

all she really does is examine the remains(wich is physical evidence) and draw the conclusion

No she looked at pictures.

I saw a picture of a unicorn once.
Should I scour the woods in search of the beast based on what I thought I saw?

There was no evidence of such a weapon before 911.
There hasn't been any evidence since 911.

originally posted by: samkent
No she looked at pictures.

when you exceed speedlimits, a photos enough evidence to sue you, so...
allso you forgot to mention the eyewitness reports, amoungst some other "things".

claiming it would just be a "couple pictures she looked at" clearly comes from someone who didnt even watch the stuff.
whats with seismic readings?
magnetic-field readings?
bunch of photos, huh?

a reply to: samkent

There was no evidence of such a weapon before 911.

actually, there is......remember the first gulf war with Bush Sr....remember that MILES long line with Saddam's Army of burnt tanks, trucks, people.....drivers still sitting in their seats, burnt to a crisp......and NO allied forces in sight....no holes in the ground from artillery....

There hasn't been any evidence since 911.

GREAT!!!!!...then PROVE the OS!


NO one has to prove "space beams"....but YOU MUST prove the already in-place claims FIRE did all this work.

well, the OS is FIRE, and a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon"...as stated by the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew with Shyam Sunder steering the boat....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing



so, which NEW science do YOU want to prove...the OFFICIAL one or the alternative one???

if the official one, tell me how fire alone removed globally, BEFORE 1.74 seconds, 105 vertical feet of continuous steel support columns; 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams; lateral , cross, and diagonal bracing throughout; tens of thousands of bolts and welds; interior partitions; utilities; office contents.....tell me how fire [we can't see], REMOVED this resistance AHEAD of the collapse wave to attain the unified collapse @ ZERO RESISTANCE found by the 2005 NIST, accomplished by a claimed NEW science phenomenon by the 2008 NIST, they refuse to prove through science.

I saw a picture of a unicorn once.
Should I scour the woods in search of the beast based on what I thought I saw?

...oh please do, and when ya find one, ask it to tell you bout the OFFICIAL CLAIMED new physics that fell 7 equal to g.

....since they are both magical!!!!!!

I can give one major example of her theories that turned me off right away.

"steel turns into dust". She has video and photo examples. It took me all of 2 seconds to say that they didn't turn into "dust" but were obscured BEHIND the dust.

Somehow there is a magical force that can turn steel to dust? Umm.. no. What is more plausible? Explosives in the buildings (c4, thermite, thermate, whatever).. or some mystery, physics bending device that can turn steel to dust?

Some of her stuff is okay.. but most I group into the whole "there were no planes only holograms and mini nukes" category.

I'm still shocked at the naysayers' pseudo-"responses" to Dr Judy Wood.

Time after time, virtually every blinking one of them demonstrate great ignorance of her evidence as well as the quality of her evidence and the careful descriptions of the evidence WITHOUT leading the audience.

NIST was obviously a sham from the git-go.

The MSM were obviously out-to-lunch and complicit from the beginning.

imho, Dr Wood does better than the Architects and Engineers group at explaining what was observed and found.

However, EITHER GROUP only has

TO BE RIGHT ABOUT ONE SIGNIFICANT FACT

FOR THE NIST FANTASY TO BE TRASHED.

And to me, Dr Wood alone is right about dozens of very significant facts.

The Architects and Engineers are right about dozens of very significant facts.

Yet the naysayers slobber all over themselves dronning on and on mostly incoherently and unrelated to the hard facts and evidence of the case.

a reply to: PookztA

Judy Woods work seem far out but I think it may well have some credibility to it. It is the only theory so far that explains some of the stranger anomalies. ie the disappearing building materials and the scorched vehicles.

a reply to: samkent

There was no evidence of such a weapon before 911. There hasn't been any evidence since 911.

Something made those buildings disappear and turn into dust in the air. Would you care to explain what could have done that..?

originally posted by: purplemer
and turn into dust in the air. Would you care to explain what could have done that..?

As no building turned into dust in the air.... how can we explain something that did not happen?

a reply to: hellobruce

how can we explain something that did not happen?

how about your bunker sites?!?!?!!?

I heard they can make ANYTHING happen.........with pics, lines and arrows with red circles.....

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: cantonear1968

It suffered a progressive collapse due to the falling upper mass.

WHERE is the engineering report ....

WHERE is the engineering report ....

You're not serious with this question, are you?

uhm......using the collapse to EXPLAIN the 'collapse'?

yes we ALL see that, now PROVE it's the building itself doing it.

I don't really understand this. Lambros claimed the building "disappeared". This clearly didn't happen as we can see the progressive collapse downwards.
Do you see something different? Do you see the Towers "disappear" all at once? What about the cores of the Towers which stood for about 20 stories for about 30 seconds after the collapse ended.

Both cores of approximately 20 stories stood for 30 seconds after the collapses finished

[sound of screeching brakes]......WHOA there........uhm, doesn't the OFFICIAL STORY pushed by the masses, [by Bazzant], claim that a 'top block' is pushing the towers to the ground....

so HOW does that magical top block, not only stay PERFECTLY centered, but them magically MISS the middle of the building???????.......x2?

Are you saying this didn't happen? Please, we can get to Bazant's simplified explanation after you answer this question.

....AGAIN......where's that engineering report to SHOW this is possible??

Again, are you serious with this question?

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."

And this proves......what to support your theories?

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: hellobruce

lmao.....duhbunking911 ?!?!?!?!?!

how bout from the 10,000+ page official NIST report.....why can NONE of you duhbunkers quote that???
why can you ONLY point to duhbunking sites that...[uhm]...TELL us all what the reports really mean??

.....specially since they are the only entity within this Country to scientifically investigate 9-11.....

YOU point to a duhbunking site explaining free fall.....how bout an ACTUAL science text???????

significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

....any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. ZERO resistance.

free fall acceleration has ONE prerequisite....a 'clear' path below.

tell me how fire at one end of a building allows that to occur globally and unified for 105 vertical feet within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse?

as the 2005 NIST found it did.......and the 2008 hypothesis crew tries to hide with new never before seen physics.

NIST never stated the Towers collapsed in 10-12 seconds. They stated in a FAQ release that the debris from collapse initiation impacted the ground in this time. This was debris that was falling outside of the progressive collapse wave. Proving the Towers did not collapse at FFA.

Quote accurately Bob.

a reply to: plube

since to this day we don't have ANY facts....other than theoretical mumbo jumbo.

Plube, because you don't understand it doesn't make it mumbo jumbo. There is no controversy or debate in the engineering community about the collapses of the WTCs. If you would like a layman's explanation about how the collapses occurred I am happy to explain it.

originally posted by: PookztA
Dear BoneZ,

I see you are still making your non-evidence-based assertions that Dr. Wood never received a Ph.D. I am literally amazing by how unscientific and dishonest your logic is...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt?

Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing. See here: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

Why do you attempt to convince people Dr. Wood does not have a Ph.D, when in fact she does? How come you blatantly ignore the evidence and continue to try and convince people of something that is not true? If you are this dishonest in your attempts to refute Dr. Wood, who says you are not being dishonest about other things? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just show where she is wrong? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just explain to the forum how thermite-alone can account for all the photos, graphs, videos, and documents at her website? Why are you spreading so much dishonesty and lies, when you should be encouraging scientific analysis and careful scrutiny of the evidence? Why lie to others when you could simply encourage them to view all the evidence and make up their own minds about it? Why are you lying to the people of this forum???

I already know why...

...the same reason why so many 9/11 "Truth" groups and Wikipedia censor discussion about Dr. Wood, the same reason why there is an organized campaign to discredit Dr. Wood and divert people away from the evidence she has gathered, and the same reason Dr. Wood's graduate student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered in 2006. See here: www.iamthewitness.com...

Checkmate.

Lastly, I wanted to quickly address a common concern regarding the reality of Directed Energy Weapons:

I know 'Directed Energy Weapons' sound far out there, but in reality they are not. This is why we must not let skepticism prevent us from viewing all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, because the evidence will show us exactly what happened on that day.

Here is a short documentary discussing the reality of DEWs:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3):

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3):

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3):

and one of my favorite videos just for fun:

For those of you who want to view all the evidence and make up your own mind about it, a good place to start is the outline of evidence I have compiled, which can be found in my signature.

Thanks again for taking the time to look deeper into this topic, for those of you that do.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

seems you have been busted bonez. makes us wonder what else you have just made up during your time on ats? shame on you

a reply to: cantonear1968

NIST never stated the Towers collapsed in 10-12 seconds.

uhm...neither did I, so WHY is your first line something I did not say in the post you are responding to???....distraction maybe?????

Proving the Towers did not collapse at FFA.

yet my ENTIRE post is discussing WTC7 that DID accelerate equal to g.

and YOU come in to the conversation, DISTRACTING, making claims irrelevant to the conversation.....typical bunker move.

There is no controversy or debate in the engineering community about the collapses of the WTCs

oh then please tell us ALL about the claimed brand new never before seen physics of Low Temp thermal expansion the 2008 NIST claimed caused the unified FFA in WTC7

and why the authors REFUSE to prove this NEW science.......

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

PROVING the OS automatically nullifies ALL OTHER CLAIMS!!!

wanna prove NO space beams.....prove the official claim yet undone.



WOW!!!!

a reply to: hgfbob

yet my ENTIRE post is discussing WTC7

Except Bruce's comment, which you responded to, where you claimed "10 to 12 seconds", was all about WTCs 1 & 2. And how they didn't collapse at FFA. That you want to switch to WTC 7 when you are losing the original argument is irrelevant.

uhm...neither did I

But you DID claim the Towers collapsed in "10 to 12 seconds". This is clearly wrong. Every video of the collapse proves this wrong. Please provide evidence of your claim considering NIST DID say the initial panels, which fell at FFA, impacted in about 9 & 11 seconds, well ahead of the collapse wave, proving the Towers DID NOT collapse at FFA.

tell us ALL about the claimed brand new never before seen physics

Thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon. Dr. Sunder does not claim this. You are quoting out of context.

.prove the official claim

It's been proven. You have not provided anything calling this into question.

a reply to: cantonear1968

Thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon. Dr. Sunder does not claim this. You are quoting out of context.

but they are on video, 'LOW TEMP thermal expansion'.......thermal expansion that works at LOW TEMPS.....if I am out-of-context as YOU CLAIM, why can you NEVER show the correct since YOU seem to recognize it's wrong........resolved to forever telling., never showing.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

so, WHICH fantasy do ya want to push/SUPPORT......the NEW science that the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claim ONLY occurred on 9-11 never rearing it's ugly head again, or 'space-beams'?