9/11, 10 years on and Dr. Judy Wood

G'Day All:

If anybody who doesn't know about Dr. Judy Wood, I suggest you go to her web site where there is an absolute plathora of scientific information and evidence on 9/11. The "Toasted Cars' section is a killer.

Secondly, Red Ice Radio has two one hour interviews with her and I think she is right on the money.

Further more here in Australia there is a two hour documentary tomorrow (tues) night on SBS called "The Day That Changed The World". The TV guide says they are interviewing Rumsfield, Giuliani & wait for it Dick Cheney. Dont know who made it, but I'm going to record it, dont want to sit through two hours of BS incase they roll out the 19 arab highjackers with box cutters malarky.

I respect everyone's views on this topic, however whoever pulled this of this gig, did it with military precision (no pun intended".

reply to post by downunderET


Dr Judy Wood is known to some of us ATS members; some of her findings on 9/11 has unfortunately fallen on deaf ears of many 9/11 truthers; personally I think her theories are the closest to the real truth.

drjudywood.com...

Judy Wood's "work" has been thoroughly debunked at sources in my thread here:

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


There are also many threads on her and her "work" already. We don't need another:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bluemirage5
some of her findings on 9/11 has unfortunately fallen on deaf ears of many 9/11 truthers

Her "work" hasn't fallen on any deaf ears. It's just that her "work" has been thoroughly debunked and nobody is buying it. She is not a 9/11 "truther", nor is her work accepted anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement. That is outlined in my thread in my post above.

I have not heard of Judy Wood before. Thank you for the source, and you're right about the "Toasted Cars" part, KILLER!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You can debunk her work all you like, fact is, her work is the ONLY scientific evidence out there available right now.

This is why your 9/11 truthers are fighting amongst yourselves, getting no where, because the truth is......no body knows for sure what really happened because they're bent on drooling over Mossad, explosives blah blah.

I strongly doubt you are educated enough to debunk any of Judy's theories other than what you've been told by those who are against her.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Judy Wood's "work" has been thoroughly debunked at sources in my thread here:

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


There are also many threads on her and her "work" already. We don't need another:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Got to keep the loonies on the path.

reply to post by waypastvne


I think everyone is entitiled to their own theories; some members on ATS want to debunk all her theories just because a couple of other professionals out there say so.

There are some interesting observations out there amongst all the theories but no one specialist is 100% accurate. Today they are still fighting among each other and will continue to do so for many years to come.

Originally posted by downunderET
G'Day All:

If anybody who doesn't know about Dr. Judy Wood, I suggest you go to her web site where there is an absolute plathora of scientific information and evidence on 9/11. The "Toasted Cars' section is a killer.

Judy Wood is the dysfunctional poster child - the Miss September - of the Truther world. They could not have picked a better face or person to show the world the absolute absurdity and inanity and pure stupidity of this movement.

But, by all means go look at her hilarious claims and ask yourself "How could someone so crazy and stupid get a PhD?"

reply to post by trebor451


Did someone tell you that?

There are elements in her claims that require more investigation if you really want to get to the truth

I would'nt be so fast to count out her theories just yet

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by waypastvne

 

I think everyone is entitiled to their own theories; some members on ATS want to debunk all her theories just because a couple of other professionals out there say so.

There are some interesting observations out there amongst all the theories but no one specialist is 100% accurate. Today they are still fighting among each other and will continue to do so for many years to come.

I always preferred Sofia Shafquat over Dr Judy Wood for pure entertainment value. Her clunkety clunk theory was hysterical.

Quote by Sofia Shafquat
That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor.
Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.

Judy just doesn't have the timing and delivery Sophia has.



Got to keep the loonies on the path.

Judy Wood's stuff just hasn't made a whole lot of sense to me. She makes a lot of assumptions, and by a lot, I mean almost everything her theories rely on are assumptions.

She makes all sorts of claims about dustification of the metal and concrete, which is lame to begin with. Concrete does not like to be impacted and creates huge dust clouds when enough of it is there. The towers happened to have a ton of it, and the collapse caused a lot of impacts.

To support her dustification theory, one of the videos she uses is from the central standing spire after the collapse. In slide-show form, it looks like the tower just turns into smoke, but if you look closely at the video, you can clearly see that it must have crumpled at the base and fallen straight down, the settled dust then falling slower due to density and dispersing in the air, also obscuring the spire's fall (mostly, you can see it if you look).

As for cars being burned in the vicinity, I don't know what to expect in a massive collapse. There is certainly a great deal of kinetic energy from the impact of so much material, so anything could be the culprit for the heat. Judy Wood tries to say paper was magically protected, but it wasn't. Burned paper would burn quickly and then be ashes. Any after the fact can easily blow around to be present, and any intact at the edge of the dust cloud on video are naturally being blown away, not immersed.

But anyway, those are a couple problems I have. Correct me if I need correction, and please do not say "science" and walk away. Science can be as much support as it can be a cop out.

I invite all the 911 architects and engineers along with the Thermate professor to try and reconstruct an exact collapse of 2 reconstructed WTC towers.

You can spend 5 years on the project with models, simulations, and exhaustive testing if you wish.

Im willing to bet you cannot recreate the collapses exactly as it happened on 911 using controlled demolition and thermate.

No building of that size can be or has ever been brought down using conventional demolition means. The only way you could take the buildings of that size down is by dismantling them in sections.
WTC7 is a different matter and was brought down using conventional demolition techniques.

Just because you say you have debunked something or a professor of physics says that DEW technologies dont exist doesnt make it true anymore than saying a directed energy weapon did bring the building down.
Yes I know...those pesky frustrating paradoxes you must deal with when dealing with reality.
Donald Trump : "Think big and kick ass"
Lao Tzu: "Accomplish Great things by doing nothing"

Both are true and coexist whether you can swallow it or not.

reply to post by _BoneZ_



I come from Aussi land to but not thats got anything to with anything but I have been to Judy Woods website and I have listened to here interview with a night time radio host. I can say that I am impressed with her efforts and her work.
What gets up my nose is when someone thinks that the stronger language they use to endorse or condemn someone else’s views and work, the more convincing they think their argument is.
Frankly I doubt the motives of someone who condems someone on their own side of the fence because this makes of disinformation and deliberate friction to my way of thinking.

The alternative media and those in the alternative movement should be in the business of supporting each other even if they may disagree with someone else’s work or findings. The way people in the alternative community pounce on others they disagree with causes me to doubt their motives and to doubt just whose side their on.

Do you see your common opponents engaging in similar behaviours? Any given researcher into 911 type of events may be mistaken in some areas and may make some errors but that is no reason to treat them like they are the opposition or competitors.

Your claims of debunking Judy woods work is like a little kid saying mines better than yours, I'm right and your wrong. I suspect that you lack confidence in your claims that you have Debunked Judy Woods’s claims.

Originally posted by VaremiaTo support her dustification theory, one of the videos she uses is from the central standing spire after the collapse. In slide-show form, it looks like the tower just turns into smoke, but if you look closely at the video, you can clearly see that it must have crumpled at the base and fallen straight down, the settled dust then falling slower due to density and dispersing in the air, also obscuring the spire's fall (mostly, you can see it if you look).

The "spire" collapsing is usually the best place to start debunking the "Dustification" theories from Judy Wood and her side.

Originally posted by roboe

The "spire" collapsing is usually the best place to start debunking the "Dustification" theories from Judy Wood and her side.

I am just curious roboe, but are you willing to explain then why you think that the "spire" collapsing is usually the best place to start debunking the "Dustification" theories from Judy Wood?

reply to post by bussoboy


Spot on. I would also like to add, putting Judy's work aside

sometimes people don't want to know what they are seeing because they can't explain it nor fathom what's in front of them. It's like it's there in your face but you want to think something else.

I'm pretty open to a whole range of suggestions in regards to finding the real truth behind 9/11 and I'm keeping my mind open to all possibilities at this stage because I know the Americans/Chinese and Russians have weapons beyond anything we can imagine. Some people like to think they know whats in the little bag of tricks thats hidden away but they don't really know because it's so damn top secret that it just does'nt exist on paper.

Originally posted by Varemia
As for cars being burned in the vicinity, I don't know what to expect in a massive collapse. There is certainly a great deal of kinetic energy from the impact of so much material, so anything could be the culprit for the heat.

Are you suggesting that the kinetic energy from falling building materials can set cars on fire?

Please elaborate on your quoted statement.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Varemia
As for cars being burned in the vicinity, I don't know what to expect in a massive collapse. There is certainly a great deal of kinetic energy from the impact of so much material, so anything could be the culprit for the heat.

Are you suggesting that the kinetic energy from falling building materials can set cars on fire?

Please elaborate on your quoted statement.

Like I said, I've no idea. My best guess is that the kinetic energy contained within the debris cloud had the potential to burn things. Now, the survivors would say otherwise, since I don't recall there being burn issues within the cloud. After that, the only thing I can really think is that perhaps the cars were running or something in the engines shorted out.

Really, neither demolitions or plane-caused collapse can explain why cars would spontaneously combust in the surrounding area.

Edit: After some google searching, I've found this site:

www.debunking911.com...

which explains towards the bottom that when parts of the tower which were burning hit the ground, they started fires in isolated locations. The debris cloud had nothing to do with it, so I stand corrected.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Varemia
As for cars being burned in the vicinity, I don't know what to expect in a massive collapse. There is certainly a great deal of kinetic energy from the impact of so much material, so anything could be the culprit for the heat.

Are you suggesting that the kinetic energy from falling building materials can set cars on fire?

Please elaborate on your quoted statement.

Like I said, I've no idea. My best guess is that the kinetic energy contained within the debris cloud had the potential to burn things. Now, the survivors would say otherwise, since I don't recall there being burn issues within the cloud. After that, the only thing I can really think is that perhaps the cars were running or something in the engines shorted out.

Really, neither demolitions or plane-caused collapse can explain why cars would spontaneously combust in the surrounding area.

Edit: After some google searching, I've found this site:

www.debunking911.com...

which explains towards the bottom that when parts of the tower which were burning hit the ground, they started fires in isolated locations. The debris cloud had nothing to do with it, so I stand corrected.

edit on 5-9-2011 by Varemia because: Found an answer.

So some of the burning parts of the building set the cars on fire huh.

Well can you please tell me why, some of these cars where a mile away from the WTC 1 & 2, self ignited.

Furthermore why even a year after 9/11 were some of the debris were still HOT ????