It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quite interesting interview with Dr, Judy Wood on Coast to Coast on 911 and the death of Osama Bin L

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
There werent fires, there was red glowing hot steele, there is a difference. No flame. And not all of the steelebeams kept staying red hot either. So you are saying the conspiracy theory of laser beams do not account for the red hot steele that has been digged up a week after the demolition not to mention the molten steele before and during the collapse and I agree.


Incorrect. Everyone who worked at ground zero whose report I read specifically stated there were massive fires burning underground. Joel Meyerowitz was a cameraman documenting the cleanup process at ground zero and he reported that pulling debris out of the pile frequently resulted in guysers of hot soot and ash erupting out of the ground.

It would be one thing if you were debating that underground fires wouldn't be able to damage the steel in this manner, but your claiming there were no fires *at all* only undermines your credibility, not anyone else's. Just because you disagree with the events of 9/11 doesn't give you license to rewrite it to your liking.


The pot calling the kettle does not work for you either, if you intend to keep defending the official conspiracy theory, that all we have seen is the effect of airliners smashing into the tower. But please explain to me how the official conspiracy theory of towers brought down by airliners and office fires account for molten steele and a pit staying hot enough for weeks to turn steele red hot, so much so that some of the dump trucks with a steele bed couldnt take it.


You are overlooking a critical issue here- I don't particularly care what caused the the underground steel to be molten as it is an irrelevent component of debate. It is not for discussion that the initial structural failure of both towers began at the precise locations where the planes struck the buildings, so at the end of the day it necessarily means there's a direct correlation between the planes hitting the towers, and whatever the chain of events were that caused the collapse. The obvious cause and effect is still there regardless of whether you want to admit it or not.

Granted, it's important research to know what the chain of events were that caused the collapse, but the fact remains that documenting these chain of events is NOT a point of debate for whether the towers were destroyed by a terrorist attack or by a false flag operation. Researching this is filling in the undocumented components of the overall accounting that it was a terrorist attack. Our not knowing the exact physical progression of the sinking of the RMS Titanic in no way invalidates the fact that it was sunk by an iceberg so our not knowing the exact progression of the collapse of the towers in no way invalidates the fact that 9/11 was a genuine terrorist attack. Bickering over frivolous details like the exact temperatures of the fires burning underground, or of combustible fuel distribution, or of measurements of underground air intake, or of the exact chemical composition of structural steel, whatever, is nothing but grasping at straws out of desperation on your part.


No matter how big the energy discharge, steele does not store energy, at least not long enough to burn red hot for weeks, so it must have kept coming from somewhere. If you have a pit unreacted thermate and you stir it all up it might very well react with the steele it comes into contact with.


I notice you're using a lot of IFs and MIGHT VERY WELLs in your conclusions. I don't need to tell you that IF and MIGHT VERY WELL can be used to promote anything from controlled demolitions to lasers from outer space to heat rays from Martian war machines. There should be little wonder as to why the rest of us all lump you conspiracy proponents together into the same bucket.


Not to mention that like I said before, the official conspiracy theory is a theory supported by a small circle of conspiracy theorists, which includes you and the people who composed the NIST report, the laser beam theory has even less traction. So I will go with what every other scientist on the globe with a related education in the field says, controlled demolition.


If that delusion were even remotely true, you conspiracy people wouldn't need to be hiding away in private little circles like ATS while constantly fending yourselves from incredulous public scrutiny. Plus, dedicated public truth proponents such as Julian Assante wouldn't be complaining how silly you 9/11 conspiracy theorists are behaving pursuing all this make believe when there are all these real and demonstratable conspiracies going on. This is simply propaganda you're using to bolster your ever diminishing faith in your conspiracy dogma and it will be disregarded as such.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by spacevisitor



Figure 7(a). burned NYPD car Police car I've not seen before.
Why the back end and not the front?

www.drjudywood.com...


Er, because red hot embers crashed down just on the back end?

No DEW, No nukes. Just common sense.


How do you explain with your common sense then that when all those fires on the cars were started due red hot embers the surrounding paper doesn’t even burn.


A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. [Reference] These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not.


That is clearly visible in this picture?



Figure 66(o). Why doesn't the paper burn?

drjudywood.com...

www.drjudywood.com...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The paper in the picture did not burn because it was not in physical contact with any flames.


No doubt, there WAS paper that burned because red hot cinders fell on it. But the dark ashes created would become scattered in the breeze and would not be conspicuous.

Again, just common sense.

The trouble with Judy Wood (with whom I have had dealings, as I am a highly qualified theoretical physicist who has researched 9/11 in depth) is that she sees mysteries where there are none - witness her absurd claim that magnetic field variations at the time Flight 17 hit the North Tower were abnormal, whereas in fact they were just average background fluctuations. And why? Because she desperately wants to create the impression that physicists like Dr Steven Jones have missed or deliberately ignored lots of physical anomalies photographed on 9/11, quite apart form wanting to counter his thermate/nanothermate hypothesis with her own equally redundant hypothesis of directed energy weapons.
edit on 5-5-2011 by micpsi because: to add more reasons for my views.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Judy Wood has been "installed" into a position, or in actuality paid, to purposely and deliberately peddle the disinformation of energy weapons destroying the towers on 9/11. Nowhere in the 9/11 Truth Movement is her "work" accepted, or given any credibility whatsoever.

I would like to direct those in seeking the real truth, as opposed to a one-sided "truth", to visit my thread below to view a handful of many critiques and debunkings of Judy Wood's "work":

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



Now, I'd like to direct everyone to an interview of Dr. Judy Wood by Dr. Greg Jenkins (PhD in Physics). From this interview, we can deduce that Judy Wood's "work" is not hers or her own. She cannot quote any of her numbers or calculations. In fact, she doesn't even know what she's talking about at all when it comes to physics:


Google Video Link



It is more than abundantly clear that Judy Wood was "given" this "work" to peddle as a plausible theory on what happened to the towers on 9/11. And solely to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, or make the Movement look ridiculously nutty so that people won't even consider other theories proposed either.

Without "her" numbers, calculations, or theories in front of her to read off of, she's just a plain Jane who hasn't the slightest idea of what she's saying, nor the most simple knowledge of physics.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Judy Wood has been "installed" into a position, or in actuality paid, to purposely and deliberately peddle the disinformation of energy weapons destroying the towers on 9/11.


If that is so, I assume that you can show me the evidence for that?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nowhere in the 9/11 Truth Movement is her "work" accepted, or given any credibility whatsoever.


Regarding the out of the extraordinary speed of the collapse of both Twin Towers and also not to forget WTC 7, she is clearly not alone.

AE911Truth on Detroit Fox News TV Channel 2 - 4-18-11



What is your explanation for that extraordinary collapse speed?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I would like to direct those in seeking the real truth, as opposed to a one-sided "truth", to visit my thread below to view a handful of many critiques and debunkings of Judy Wood's "work":


Well, I do seek the real truth and I did visit your thread, and therefore I starred this reply, sorry.


reply to post by ATH911
 



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Now, I'd like to direct everyone to an interview of Dr. Judy Wood by Dr. Greg Jenkins (PhD in Physics). From this interview, we can deduce that Judy Wood's "work" is not hers or her own. She cannot quote any of her numbers or calculations. In fact, she doesn't even know what she's talking about at all when it comes to physics:


Now, I'd like to point everyone interested in this matter to those articles about that interview.


Dr. Greg Jenkins' "Directed Debunking-Energy" and Prof. Judy Woodby Andrew Johnson


www.drjudywood.com...


The Greg Jenkins Analytical Method Ignores the Facts


www.drjudywood.com...
edit on 5/5/11 by spacevisitor because: made some corrections



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The paper in the picture did not burn because it was not in physical contact with any flames.


But you said earlier that those cars did start burning because of falling down red hot embers right, so don’t you find it strange then that those red hot embers did only fall on those cars and not on all that paper around it as you can clearly see in this picture?




Originally posted by micpsi
I am a highly qualified theoretical physicist who has researched 9/11 in depth


Then you must be able to explain to me how it was possible that those Twin Towers and WTC 7 did collapse with that extraordinary speed as concluded also by all those other architects and engineers in that video, AE911Truth on Detroit Fox News TV Channel?

Because it seems clear that the so called pancake theory does not fit for that.

edit on 5/5/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
What is your explanation for that extraordinary collapse speed?

There was nothing in that interview that talks about the "extraordinary collapse speed" of any of the three towers that collapsed on 9/11. There was nothing even extraordinary about the collapse speeds themselves, unless you take the official theory into account.

The only thing that makes the collapse speeds "extraordinary" is if the official theory were true; that all three buildings collapsed from fires without any assistance from explosives. That's because steel-structured highrises cannot collapse in the manner that the three WTC buildings did on 9/11 from fire alone.

If explosives were used, like all available evidence shows, then the collapse speed was not "extraordinary". Not even close. A collapse speed of free-fall or a little less than free fall would be considered normal for a structure being brought down with explosives. The only thing that would be considered "extraordinary" is if the buildings fell faster than free-fall.



Originally posted by spacevisitor
Dr. Greg Jenkins' "Directed Debunking-Energy" and Prof. Judy Woodby Andrew Johnson

That article can claim "ambush" over and over all it wants, and list every excuse in the book, but Judy made herself look like the disinformation artist that she is when directly questioned by Dr. Jenkins.

What scientist in their right mind would not be able to cite their own numbers, calculations, or theories? Or have difficulties (or inabilities) citing anything that deals with the most basic principles of physics?


Just as surely as the no-plane/CGI/tv fakery disinformation has finally ended up in the HOAX bin, this DEW disinformation will also end up there one day soon as well.

She proves in the very interview with Dr. Jenkins that she doesn't even have a clue on anything unless it's in front of here to read off of. Like a script.


ETA: All the other times Judy Wood's disinformation has been spammed on this forum, nobody has bought it and those threads die a quick death. This thread will be no different. Continuously spamming her disinformation all over the net will not give it any more credibility.





edit on 5-5-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


Wow, you guys are really into character assassination, IMO. Knock an idea all you want, but when you stoop to personal levels, I tune out.

I do not have the educational kahunas to disprove her theory of beam weapons, but one unexplained thing does stand out for me and that's the large circular holes seen from above in the tower debris (as well as the unexplained burned cars one mile from the towers.) I almost forgot about this until I saw a similar hole on an airshot of the Fukushima plant. And darn, I had forgotten her name by now. But I just had to make this observation. If I can locate that photo, I'll try to post the comparison, but I've never posted photos before.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this...very interesting. Still watching...

This, however, cracks me up...


He suggested this might reflect the percentage of non-Democrats who mistrust the Obama administration.


Does anyone else see the irony here? What the hell is it that compels people to this line of thinking?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
I do not have the educational kahunas to disprove her theory of beam weapons

But there are those that do and were linked to in my post above.



Originally posted by aboutface
but one unexplained thing does stand out for me and that's the large circular holes seen from above in the tower debris

You must be talking about these holes:






Those holes are the result of large chunks of the towers raining onto the buildings below. Those chunks weighed dozens and hundreds of tons a piece. You can clearly see the heavy steel columns from the towers inside those holes as well.

But I could say that Godzilla came along and stomped on those buildings with his feet to make those holes and you have to believe me, even though I don't have any evidence to support my claim.

Judy has no real scientific evidence to support her claim that space beam weapons did anything on 9/11 and there are plenty of papers and debunkings to further prove it. She even proves it herself when she was interviewed by Dr. Jenkins in the video above. She doesn't know jack without her script in front of her.





edit on 5-5-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is evidence to suggest that Dr. Judy Wood has been "installed" into a position, or in actuality paid, to purposely and deliberately peddle the disinformation of energy weapons destroying the towers on 9/11.



Google Video Link



It is more than abundantly clear that Judy Wood was "given" this "work" to peddle as a plausible theory on what happened to the towers on 9/11. And solely to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, or make the Movement look ridiculously nutty so that people won't even consider other theories proposed either.

Without "her" numbers, calculations, or theories in front of her to read off of, she's just a plain Jane who hasn't the slightest idea of what she's saying, nor the most simple knowledge of physics.


1- Where is this evidence that she has been installed or paid to peddle disinformation?

2- The video interview didn't go well because the guy was trying to put words in her mouth. First, he started talking about a debris field and where it fell. She tried to ask the guy what do you consider debris. She has been very clear that she doesn't think the tower collapsed and some molecular dissociation process was used and the dust was part of the debris field. Then he went straight to a laser beam theory and what amount of energy it would take to heat the steel and vaporize it. She isn't saying a laser beam was used. She is implying some sort of unknown technology that causes molecular dissocation was used. She doesn't claim to know what exactly this technology is other than it can causes molecular breakdown and could be possiblely something similar to the Hutchinson Effect or unknown Tesla technology using magnetic fields and radio waves.

3-Her main point is "Where did the Towers Go". We all heard the steel was shipped to China and she suggests that in her opinion that there was no steel to ship based on ground observation of the material left over.

We get it. You don't agree with her, fine, but stop coming into everyone of these threads that discusses her material. Some people have intrest in what she says, especially since she's probably the most qualifed person to speak out about this.

By the way, again, please show me this evidence of your latest comment against her, because imo you're now becoming more suspicous than ever. Implying this woman is a total quack with her qualifications doesn't make "your group" sound any better.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
1- Where is this evidence that she has been installed or paid to peddle disinformation?

I posted some in my post above. There's also something called "Google" where you can find more.



Originally posted by curious_soul
2- The video interview didn't go well because the guy was trying to put words in her mouth.

Blah blah blah. Every single time this interview is posted, her (very few) "supporters" spew every imaginable excuse in the book as to why she made herself look like the most ridiculous person in the world, and nary deserving of the title "Dr." or of the PhD. she claims to hold.

And then she asked the question of why doesn't a microwave burn paper. Huh? What physicist would ask such an elementary question, the answer of which a middle-schooler can easily come up with?



Originally posted by curious_soul
3-Her main point is "Where did the Towers Go". We all heard the steel was shipped to China and she suggests that in her opinion that there was no steel to ship based on ground observation of the material left over.

Again, huh? What ground was she looking at, the desert? If she (or anyone else) can look at the pile and say there was no steel to ship, she is the one of the biggest frauds, liar, disinformation artist, hoaxer, con-artist, that ever walked the face of this earth.

That, or she needs a new prescription on those glasses and a discussion with a mental health professional. Because there was mostly nothing but steel to look at on that pile. Stories and stories of steel.



Originally posted by curious_soul
stop coming into everyone of these threads that discusses her material.

That will never, ever happen. Well, as long as I'm still breathing, anyway.



Originally posted by curious_soul
Some people have intrest in what she says

Some people? You mean the whole 5 that flagged this thread? 5 people out of the millions that visit this site every month? I would beg to differ. Every single other DEW disinfo thread has died a very quick, and UNinteresting death. This one will be no different.



Originally posted by curious_soul
especially since she's probably the most qualifed person to speak out about this.

A person who asks why a piece of paper doesn't burn in a microwave, or claims that there was no steel at ground zero after the collapses, isn't qualified to speak about anything sane, logical, or scientific.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I agree with you bones
and the fact is millions of people do visit many of ATS 911 threads daily, only five flags, that tells us that most people do not support or believe in the disinformation that Judy Wood spreads. The only reason for Judy Wood interview on OBL is to discredit the Truth movement.
No science or scientist supports Judy Wood deceptive imagination of laser beams bringing down the WTC and most Truthers ignores her hypothesis because it is based on her delusions.

edit on 5-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Because could that energy weapon have been responsible for all those strangely toasted cars?

Figure 7(a). burned NYPD car Police car I've not seen before.
Why the back end and not the front?


So what is your expertise in evaluating vehicle fires?

Just how many car fires have you been to?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by curious_soul
1- Where is this evidence that she has been installed or paid to peddle disinformation?

I posted some in my post above. There's also something called "Google" where you can find more.

No, you didn't post any information and i'm not seaching google for some claim that you made.



Originally posted by curious_soul
2- The video interview didn't go well because the guy was trying to put words in her mouth.

Blah blah blah. Every single time this interview is posted, her (very few) "supporters" spew every imaginable excuse in the book as to why she made herself look like the most ridiculous person in the world, and nary deserving of the title "Dr." or of the PhD. she claims to hold.

Blah, blah, blah, really, that's the best you can do? Tells me a lot, not to mention you're making another claim against her by questioning her credentials. What's your credentials?

And then she asked the question of why doesn't a microwave burn paper. Huh? What physicist would ask such an elementary question, the answer of which a middle-schooler can easily come up with?

What, are you really that dense? She was using the microwave to explain how microwaves have different effects on different materials. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?



Originally posted by curious_soul
3-Her main point is "Where did the Towers Go". We all heard the steel was shipped to China and she suggests that in her opinion that there was no steel to ship based on ground observation of the material left over.

Again, huh? What ground was she looking at, the desert? If she (or anyone else) can look at the pile and say there was no steel to ship, she is the one of the biggest frauds, liar, disinformation artist, hoaxer, con-artist, that ever walked the face of this earth.

That, or she needs a new prescription on those glasses and a discussion with a mental health professional. Because there was mostly nothing but steel to look at on that pile. Stories and stories of steel.

Really, how about this picture from the day of 9/11? You can see WTC 7 in the background with the firefighter standing on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Maybe it's you that needs glasses.




Originally posted by curious_soul
stop coming into everyone of these threads that discusses her material.

That will never, ever happen. Well, as long as I'm still breathing, anyway.

Go right ahead, but you acting like this towards her isn't proving your theory on what happened either. How many leagal cases has your group filled?



Originally posted by curious_soul
Some people have intrest in what she says

Some people? You mean the whole 5 that flagged this thread? 5 people out of the millions that visit this site every month? I would beg to differ. Every single other DEW disinfo thread has died a very quick, and UNinteresting death. This one will be no different.

Wow, so if people don't log on and flag and star it, it can't have intrest?



Originally posted by curious_soul
especially since she's probably the most qualifed person to speak out about this.

A person who asks why a piece of paper doesn't burn in a microwave, or claims that there was no steel at ground zero after the collapses, isn't qualified to speak about anything sane, logical, or scientific.

Again, you attack her, but not her information. She never said there was no steel at all.




edit on 5-5-2011 by curious_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
microwave energy weapon really seems plausible and possibly why we were seeing molten steel that was pouring out the building like an induction foundry and microsphere particles in all the dust. just the open end tear in the building could have created a great enough weakness/softening of the material for the induction device to liquefy and pool like burning a welding rod.

the initial pre-explosives were used to shock the concrete and the planes were used to weaken and open a channel for the energy device to osculate the frequency like an induction coil to liquefy the alloy


check the electric bill on 911 and see if there any energy spikes for those 2 buildings



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
No, you didn't post any information and i'm not seaching google for some claim that you made.

I posted a link to my thread with several critiques and debunkings of Wood's "work". I'm not going to hold your hand. Speak for yourself and research for yourself.



Originally posted by curious_soul
Wow, so if people don't log on and flag and star it, it can't have intrest?

That's correct. Why do you think the whole star and flag system was put into place? So others could see what topics are popular and how they gauge interest among readers.



Originally posted by curious_soul
She never said there was no steel at all.

Whether she did or not, you did:

Originally posted by curious_soul
she suggests that in her opinion that there was no steel to ship based on ground observation of the material left over.

No steel to ship means there was no steel at all. And how do you keep speaking for her or know what her opinions are or what she's thinking? Are you her?



Originally posted by curious_soul
How many leagal cases

And if you want to have even the slightest bit of credibility, please use some sort of spell checker. My spell checker is lighting up like a Christmas tree when quoting your posts.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
just because a person has a doctorates does not mean they cannot suffer from delusions.

She is very delusional.

Probably called in from the mental institute.
.
George even sounded like he did not believe her malarkey.

She was right about one thing.

A lot of magnesium was used in the construction and it will burn hot until oxygen in removed.



Correct the reason i believe she was a government Dis-info agent is because alot of times she would chuckle under her breath, you could hear it alot of times she said some really fringe science things about the energy weapon and John Hutchison the Proven Hoaxer.

I too noticed that the Coast to Coast host sorta had nothing to say when she wandered off into the fringe science "Energy Weapon John Hutchison Anti-Gravity" Part. Then i just stopped listening....



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I agree with you whole-Heartedly i was the first to post that she was and sounded like a Paid Dis-info agent. I was subsequently and Vehemently attacked by several people on the thread because i didn't believe her looney John Hutchison and Energy Weapons Ideas.

I personally believe is was the Thermite charges that took the tower down. Like many of my fellow 911 truthers do. I want to quote myself again so you see my view on such things.


The people vehemently Defending her may be Dis-Info agents themselves either that or they just want to make the 911 truthers look crazy.


XRaDiiX Quote


Yes go ahead and listen to government paid dis-info agents that spout crazy ideas about energy weapons and john Hutchison proven hoaxer and he also believes he discovered anti-gravity.

I'll stick to the rest of the 911 truthers and say it was Controlled Demolition Via Thermite. Building 7.

Suckers like you guys are the ones that allow the sheeple to dis-credit truthers for falling for such Lunacy.


edit on 5-5-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I agree with you bones
and the fact is millions of people do visit many of ATS 911 threads daily, only five flags, that tells us that most people do not support or believe in the disinformation that Judy Wood spreads. The only reason for Judy Wood interview on OBL is to discredit the Truth movement.
No science or scientist supports Judy Wood deceptive imagination of laser beams bringing down the WTC and most Truthers ignores her hypothesis because it is based on her delusions.

edit on 5-5-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)


I can't thank you enough for supporting me and Bonez in discrediting this Lady most 911 truthers do not agree with her at all.

Its just Pure Lunacy



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join