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

reply to post by _BoneZ_

A video that has been deliberately edited in such a way as to deceive others about what actually transpired during the interview.

The video has been deliberately edited to show Dr. Judy Wood asking questions of Dr. Jenkins. He can't answer some questions. With some questions he changes the subject. In one place he becomes so confused that he actually agrees with DJW that 2/3 of the tower in the picture has disappeared.
Undoubtedly, the video was made as a rebuttal to debunkers like _BoneZ_ who use the original to deceive others because she won the debate.
For example he asks why are the particles in the cloud "fine particles". She says because they are going up. He thinks it is because of hot air. Survivors came out covered with dust that did not burn them. The dust continued to rise for days after. Why? Maybe it was still becoming even finer.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

These threads were dead and buried for a reason. This "theory" has been debunked for many years, and nobody is buying it.

You love to speak in absolutes. Should we get on our knees in your presence? Closed threads mean the debate has been settled? Oh, what a foul.

Maybe you closed the threads Mr moderator. Why don't you close this one? I bet you are right now trying to lobby other moderators.

You looked at my posts on other threads. Take a look at your buddy LabTop's thread. You collaborated on that with him did you not?

I looked at yours. Lots of replies oppose you. One even decried your universal statements as I do. Some day the truth will out. Some see evidence of dustification despite your disinformation campaign. My agenda is to seek the truth. I believe liars can not sustain themselves consistently.

Oops. My mistake.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

If it's nonsense, then please show us images and metallurgy analyses that indicate the presence of pulverized steel at the World Trade Center, thanks.

The issue is molecularly altered steel not pulverized steel. And I think you know it.

There is a name for this kind of reply from bonez. It is called disinformation.

reply to post by XRaDiiX

She says buildings go Poof But the fact is that most of the building you see is actually air space in between the floor and the Ceiling so yes when the building collapsed on itself from possible demolition building is going to be a somewhat small rubble pile compared to what you'd think it was because of the size of the buildings. Also when the pulverization of the building and many of the things inside the building that wasn't steel was pulverized from the Pure weight of the building falling onto its own footprint and/or self. So yes the Pulverization all that huge dust cloud you see in the Air after the building collapsed was essentially part of that Building Pulverization. Also why the Razed building pile looked somewhat small.

If the North Tower was a controlled demolition then we can compare it with the controlled demolition of the Seattle King Dome. The SKD produced an earthquake that registered 2.3 on the Richter scale. Since the North Tower was more massive, we would expect a much larger seismic event. It did not happen. The largest Richter reading from all WTC buildings was from the North Tower. And it was not higher than the SKD. It was (also) 2.3. Since the seismic reading was so small, many say this is evidence that the North Tower was not a controlled demolition. It is also evidence that the whole building did not hit the ground. If not, where did it go? Poof.

reply to post by Cassius666

So unless the weapon is incredibly precise, the collaterral damage would be additional structures in the immediate vicinity of the tower to end up pulverized as well

The evidence is indeed that the weapon was incredibly precise. A controlled demolition of a building as tall as the towers has never before been attempted. It would probably result in a lot more collateral damage than what we saw at the WTC. The only buildings destroyed had a WTC prefix.

reply to post by curious_soul

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.

Did you notice that he never addressed your question?

He only increased his attack. You really hit a nerve.

reply to post by impressme

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.

Mr impressme looks like another disinformation agent. Because he associates laser beams with DJW. She does NOT propose laser beams and he knows it.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

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.

Once again he did not answer your question.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Thermite/mate may have been used somewhere in some fashion, but conventional demolition explosives are what brought all three buildings down according to audio, video and witness testimony.

He failed to mention seismic data. Why? Because it contradicts controlled demolition. He knows that. He is just spreading disinformation.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I'm going to bow out of this thread now and let it die the lonely death that it had previously.

I applaud your decision. Why do you think this thread is going to die?

leostokes
My agenda is to seek the truth.

If it's the truth you or anyone else is seeking concerning Judy Wood or the DEW space weapon hoax, they need look no further than this:

• Watch the video interview of Judy Wood by Dr. Greg Jenkins, where she appears unable to quote or remember her own calculations.
  
  
• They can read a paper written by Dr. Greg Jenkins titled The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers, where Dr. Jenkins totally destroys any possibility that such a thing might exist or could even happen.
  
  
• For more debunkings of Judy Wood's hoax, they can also visit my thread titled DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign.
  
  
• They can also take a spin around Google for a plethora of sites, articles, and papers all debunking her DEW hoax as well.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

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

What you say about other evidence available on Google may well be true, but in the context of making an argument on a thread here, and given that 70% or so of material on Google is rubbish, is is important that you supply solid evidence for any assertions rather than just say "Google it".

originally posted by: leostokes
reply to post by impressme

 

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.

Mr impressme looks like another disinformation agent. Because he associates laser beams with DJW. She does NOT propose laser beams and he knows it.

I am fully aware that this is a late comment, but as a latecomer to this discussion, it is clear to me that the material put forward by Dr Wood is important as it highlights a number of discrepancies in the evidence to hand that I was unaware of.

As I see it, from the material available Dr Wood is proposing a possible cause (in focussed energy weapons) but not definitely saying that they were used.

The question of the burnt cars so far from the collapse site interests me- but it needs to be seen in the context of the radius of fallen debris. Equally, there was very little flame seen in the falling debris--- some localised explosions in the towers (good evidence of explosives I would have thought) and the burned cars seem odd to me. The unburned paper could easily be explained as having arrived on the scene later.

Whatever the case there is a great deal of evidence to consider and it is not all fully resolved in to a coherent theory.
The magnetic field data need a more comprehensive refutation as do the seismic data.

I am sure that, as others have said, an explosive based controlled demolition (the strongest theory so far) could only have been done with top level CIA involvement and almost certainly head of state involvement- because of the logistic demands of placing that much explosive.

In the end I think we all want to see the real culprits brought to justice- before they die of old age- and that means looking at the anomalies that Dr Wood describes, and being sure they can be accounted for in court when the offenders are bought to justice.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

If it's the truth you or anyone else is seeking concerning Judy Wood or the DEW space weapon hoax, they need look no further than this:

• Watch the video interview of Judy Wood by Dr. Greg Jenkins, where she appears unable to quote or remember her own calculations.
  
  
• They can read a paper written by Dr. Greg Jenkins titled The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers, where Dr. Jenkins totally destroys any possibility that such a thing might exist or could even happen.
  
  
• For more debunkings of Judy Wood's hoax, they can also visit my thread titled DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign.
  
  
• They can also take a spin around Google for a plethora of sites, articles, and papers all debunking her DEW hoax as well.

The trouble with this analysis is that it assumes that Dr Jenkins is aware of the state of the art in directed energy weapons. That is unlikely. They would be highly classified and he would either be unaware of the current weapons, or he would be breaching his own clearance.

Secondly I see Dr Wood as advancing a hypothesis -- not attempting a hoax.

It is utterly unreasonable to attack everyone who comes up with a divergent hypothesis as trying to create a hoax, or as having improper motives or as being in the pay of someone who does have improper motives.

None of these suggestions are adequate rebuttals of anything.

I lost faith in Dr Judy Wood many years ago when I discovered in the very magnetic field records archived on her website many examples of fluctuations in the horizontal component of the magnetic field that are just as large as (and some larger than) those which occurred on the morning of 9/11. The charts she put on her website are totally bogus evidence supporting her view of statistically significant, anomalous fluctuations occurring that day in the magnetic field on the North American continent. Far from being significant in strength, they are no larger in amplitude than those recorded on numerous days during 2001 that are displayed in the archive. Any scientist who cannot tell the difference between average, background fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic fields and those recorded on the day of 9/11 cannot be trusted in ANY judgements or analyses he or she carries out. Sorry, Wood, but you clutched at too many straws to support your DEW hypothesis and you failed to realise that they were all broken.

a reply to: Barliman

It's not even a matter of technology, but a matter of an energy source....

Excerpts From The Mad Scientist’s Handbook: So You’re Ready to Vaporize a Human

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

To turn the water content of an average person into gas—leaving the bones behind for allies to find of course—the successful mad scientist’s death ray would have to output enough energy to first boil the person’s water and then turn it into steam. That is to say, you can add heat until water boils, but you have to add an extra boost to get vaporization. This "heat of vaporization" energy is known for many materials, but for a person we can focus directly on their water. If a person of average mass is around 70% water, then that person has around 56 kilograms of water to boil. To bring that water from body temperature (37 degrees Celsius) to its boiling point (100 degrees Celsius), it would require nearly 15 million Joules. To vaporize that boiling body, it needs an additional 127 million Joules. This all brings the grand total to 142 million Joules—a bit more than a Pacific Rim Jaeger rocket punch to the face.

As it would take more than 70 of the world's most powerful lasers combined to vaporize the water of just one person, death ray energy conservation is paramount.

Break

The energy needed to vaporize just five 20-foot steel beams at a skyscraper's foundation would be almost eight billion Joules. And as any mad scientist worth his or her salt knows, that is more energy than was contained in the largest non-nuclear bomb ever designed—the Mother of All Bombs.

Think of the energy needed to vaporize a 500,000 ton building.


Yes, Dr Wood is a con artist exploiting 9/11 for personal gain by pushing a totally impossible theory.

The irony, she debunks the other theories along the way.

a reply to: neutronflux

E=MC2

originally posted by: UpChuck
a reply to: neutronflux

E=MC2

In what context.

It takes 70 of the worlds largest lasers to vaporize one human leaving the bones.


What would generate the power required in seconds to vaporize a 500,000 ton building.

Think about it this way. Even if the world's most powerful laser could instantly vaporize 1 ton of building material, you would still need at least 300,000 to 400,000 of the worlds most powerful lasers to vaporize a WTC tower in 9 seconds. And a energy source that could release, capture, and transmit that energy in 9 seconds. Be able to instantly turn of that power source and leave no trace of radiation.