Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11

[.M.M.]

People who believe in such conspirational theories often forget, that 100 affirmations and 1 negation of a statement means it is false. Therefore when you come up with a theory, you should start with thinking why it may be wrong, not why it may be right - exactly the opposite of what most of the conspirational theoretics do.

And the 9/11 conspiracies in general are ridicoulous.

The counter argument I usually make to people that insist nine-eleven was an inside job (or postulate some conspiracy) is the president can't get a blowjob without the world finding out about it.  You think something THAT massive (a cover-up of the murder of thousands of American citizens) would even remotely be possible?  I really just can't accept it.

Exactly.

And the always repeated doubt about suspicious fall of the skyscrapers... Well, I've never heard such thing from someone who would actually know something about statics. "It doesn't feel right" sums up most of the theories - like if we could know how a skyscraper usually falls down after being hit by a plane. Even on a normal day, there were thousand of different forces present affecting the structure.

[monkey424]

Ok. Let's try this again..

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion as shown in many photographs and videos. The cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. No organic things like people or trees were toasted though. Some videos show cars that appear to be on fire, but the "weird fire" targeted certain materials on the car e.g. a police car plastic lights and tyre were not affected but the surrounding metal was.

The planes obviously took center stage. The planes and the endless talk about them were a distraction from the things that were there in plain sight too, such as the cars and Building 7.

Again. Building 7 was the third to collapse that day, but this event was overshadowed by the taller buildings collapsing and the planes. No plane hit Building 7. The NIST report explanation is that a miscellaneous fire caused the building to collapse. If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise in the known universe.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but..

I encourage EVERYONE to watch the video in its entirity before forming an opinion. I find this stuff intriguing. You should too! Don't judge a book by it's cover.

[Snarky]

You don't believe it's possible for a relatively big number of people to keep a secret like that hidden from the public eyes? Okay, might be true. I never even claimed that's what 9/11 was all about. But I wouldn't be so sure about the absurdity of grand schemes being hidden from the public in general. Think about the NSA and how many people worked there for years before somebody was brave (or crazy) enough to *publicly* expose their activities. Why didn't any of the other employees say anything sooner? Who knows. Maybe they though they were doing the right thing, maybe they were too scared (and quite rightly so), or maybe they just couldn't give a fuck and quite liked their jobs. But it worked. (And it does to this day, as far as I know.)

I think that's a great example of exactly the opposite of what you claim. Very little of what Snowden leaked were entirely new revelations. The existence of most of these programs had already been leaked and reported before; the big difference was that there was now much more in-depth information about the programs, the details and the scale of them (allowing journalists to examine things like the oversight mechanisms and the abuses that had occurred). And since it was based on internal documents and not anonymous sources, they couldn't be discredited. The intelligence agencies couldn't simply deny the story or stonewall reporters like before.

Also, these were programs by a known agency that exists to do precisely this type of work, so any individual detail that leaked wasn't exactly sensational, and the intelligence groups asserted a legal basis for the programs in well-known laws such as the PATRIOT act (which had rightly been criticized by people warning against exactly this type of thing happening) and for a purpose that has been one of the most high-profile policies of the US governments. They could therefore recruit people for the job (which required security clearance and background checks) relatively easily. And finally, despite some controversy, NSA surveillance has always enjoyed widespread support (last I remember, almost two thirds of Americans were still in favor, mind-bogglingly enough).

So yeah, despite all of those favorable conditions, these secret programs still leaked (not just once, but repeatedly), because some people thought it was wrong. And even if we hadn't known about the precise things they were doing (on what scale and how successfully), it was never secret that they were doing things like this, since the agency, the laws and the policy goals were all public knowledge: you can't keep something of that magnitude entirely hidden.

That's the kind of secret government program I buy. The idea that half the country in effect works for Hydra, not so much.

[Scavenger]

Ok. Let's try this again..

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion as shown in many photographs and videos. The cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. No organic things like people or trees were toasted though. Some videos show cars that appear to be on fire, but the "weird fire" targeted certain materials on the car e.g. a police car plastic lights and tyre were not affected but the surrounding metal was.

Give me evidence it was laser beams that did this and not, say, the normal consequences of fire and flying debris and shockwaves?

Oh, and some rebuttals for the other points. Luckily, these only took me two minutes to read through, far less time than a 2.5 hour conspiracy video.

Until you have actual scientists doing actual tests and trying to reproduce the actual evidence with your sci-fi energy gun, you're just barking a conspiracy theory. Again, show me the laser beaaaaams. Show 'em! Show me that technology has progressed enough that laser beams that can destroy metal but can't destroy organic matter are possible in the realms of physics!

[Mandle]

I kinda started to lose hope in her when she couldn't find her OWN laser at the start of the clip.

What hope does she have of finding some huge super-secret laser fired over a decade ago when she lost the laser-pointer she put on her podium like 10 minutes earlier?

I honestly thought that this was a set-up to some joke or point about missing lasers...but nope!

Okay, snarkiness aside:

I actually watched about the first 40 minutes of the video and....yeeeeaaaahhh....Her "evidence" is very sketchy. For example: She says that if you jumped from the WTC with an open bag of flour under each arm you would not be able to simulate the dust we see coming off the falling beams in the video clip she shows...Really?! I wouldn't know, because she only says it and offers no demonstration to prove her point. This is lazy science.

And this is only one example. Another would be when she talks about the seismic data and how the collapse of Tower 7 does not register above the background noise of Manhatten. What she doesn't give is clear data on exactly how much (if at all) the collapse should have registered above the background noise. Manhatten is a pretty big place and there's a lot going on. If someone was to tell me that the collapse of a relatively small structure probably wouldn't register above background noise I wouldn't really be that surprised. But yeah... she just states the fact without any backup of what should have been expected.

She does provide an example of what a larger structure collapsing looks like seismically and compares that to what the Tower 2 data looked like. Fair enough...But she doesn't mention how each set of data was recorded. Whether the two sets were recorded with exactly the same instruments, whether the ground consistancy was greatly similar at the two sites, and (most importantly) how far away the recording devices were from the two events.

She also mentions many times the million tons of debris which "should" have been piled up in the footprints of the towers. She shows pictures of what the site looked like and says that this is not what a million tons of debris looks like. Again: I wouldn't know. She doesn't show any example of how high a million tons of debris should have been piled up. I've never seen a million tons of debris piled up. I have no way to judge!

Now, I'm not saying that a person jumping from the WTC with flour bags under each arm would look like the falling beams or that the collapse of Tower 7 wouldn't register above background seismic noise, or that the later seismic comparison wasn't a valid example, or that the photos of the site did look like a million tons of debris. I'm just saying that I don't know because she didn't present the data that would allow me to judge one way or the other.

So after 40 minutes of lazy science I just had to give up sorry...

[NickyNyce]

I just made some popcorn and have been eating it while reading this thread. This is better than just about every movie I've watched in the past year.

From the outside looking in...

The conspiracy theory is getting hammered. I would call a time out and regroup. Or at least bring in some ghost and alien stuff to cause a distraction.

[monkey424]

Scavenger

Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars. I can't say for certain what phenomena is doing that but I think it's pretty cool to think about. It's science. It might be something similar to a microwave oven that just targets water molecules. If you watch the end of the video they talk about cold fusion, something that is somewhat of a scientific myth at this stage. From what I understand, early experiments have been carried out by a few scientists that relate to cold fusion. One such scientist is John Brockis

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris

Curiously, Judy Wood does not have a Wikipedia entry.

I never mentioned the word laser and I don't think Dr Wood did either. A laser is something hot, isn't it? The evidence seems to point to a cold process.

Mandle

Thanks for actually watching the video. I encourage you to watch the rest though. Keep an open mind.

I believe if there were any issues or questions regarding Dr Wood's data, then NIST would have been the first to jump on it. They haven't. Not as yet since 2007 when Dr Wood's request for corrections was filed.

[Mandle]

Mandle

Thanks for actually watching the video. I encourage you to watch the rest though. Keep an open mind.

I kept a totally open mind which you will probably see from my comments: I watched 40 minutes into the presentation while the troubles set in...

My main problem was that the science was very faulty right from the start in that she never gives a comparison when making sweeping claims...

So...what about this flaw in her scientific method? You did not comment on this.

You only have to watch MythBusters to see how this kind of science is really done (and...yeah...they don't get it right all the time)...

But what they DO get right is that they compare the expected result to the mythical result and show both side by side via the actual data they obtain...They compare the data and then rate the myth "Confirmed","Plausible", or "Busted"...And this is just a TV show for entertainment...

They are already doing a much better job on the science than our Doctor does in her presentation...

In this video she makes many sweeping statements without showing any kind of comparison to support them...

For all I know she could be completely correct: But nothing in her presentation proved anything to me because the science just wasn't there...She only ever shows the side that supports her theory...

If I could see her proven side-by-side comparison then I might get interested in what she has to say...But for now there is just way too much data missing from the opposite side of her theory which is not presented...

[monkey424]

I was just thinking about the Myth Busters. Here's what they say on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I see your point Mandle. She is perhaps not the best presenter. But you can't expect her to show a demonstration of everything she says. Use your own knowledge, experience and imagination. Don't get hung up on the bags of flour thing. She is just making a point that chunks of falling debris shouldn't have large amounts of dust trailing off them. Not the amount of dust we see anyway. It's a lot of dust!

As you mention she does compare the seismic data to the demolition of the Kingdome stadium in Seattle. So I think you're really just questioning the data acquisition. I believe she collected the data from five separate seismic recording stations nearby. A Richter Magnitude is calculated for an event. The magnitude is calculated using the seismic wave amplitude, measured on a carefully calibrated seismometer, and is corrected for the distance between the seismometer and the event epicenter. I don't expect Dr Wood to explain all that in her presentation. She only has 2.5 hours and there are more interesting things to talk about..

Like cold fusion.

Maybe the Myth Busters should do a segment on cold fusion.

[Snarky]

Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars.

The page Scavenger links to (and in particular two additional pages linked at the bottom that address Dr. Wood's claims more directly) convincingly debunks this idea. The fires were probably mostly lit by burning debris. They may have smoldered for a while before flaring up (with no one attending to them in the general confusion). The fires wouldn't necessarily spread (it's hard to set fire to a sheet of paper lying flat on the ground), so it's not surprising to see unburnt paper nearby (people and trees are even less flammable, and people unlike cars wouldn't let embers smolder on their surface until they caught fire; plus of course a large number of people did die on 9/11), but the photos do in fact show paper burning around the burning cars.

Fire is fickle. I can rebut your assertion that it doesn't look like "a real fire" by saying that to me it does. It's not a strong argument.

BTW, according to those pages, a number of the "facts" you claimed earlier (e.g. that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed) are trivially false.

I believe if there were any issues or questions regarding Dr Wood's data, then NIST would have been the first to jump on it. They haven't. Not as yet since 2007 when Dr Wood's request for corrections was filed.

I think maybe you overestimate how seriously NIST takes her or her ideas.

[Cuiki]

I think that's a great example of exactly the opposite of what you claim. Very little of what Snowden leaked were entirely new revelations. The existence of most of these programs had already been leaked and reported before; the big difference was that there was now much more in-depth information about the programs, the details and the scale of them (allowing journalists to examine things like the oversight mechanisms and the abuses that had occurred). And since it was based on internal documents and not anonymous sources, they couldn't be discredited. The intelligence agencies couldn't simply deny the story or stonewall reporters like before.

Also, these were programs by a known agency that exists to do precisely this type of work, so any individual detail that leaked wasn't exactly sensational, and the intelligence groups asserted a legal basis for the programs in well-known laws such as the PATRIOT act (which had rightly been criticized by people warning against exactly this type of thing happening) and for a purpose that has been one of the most high-profile policies of the US governments. They could therefore recruit people for the job (which required security clearance and background checks) relatively easily. And finally, despite some controversy, NSA surveillance has always enjoyed widespread support (last I remember, almost two thirds of Americans were still in favor, mind-bogglingly enough).

So yeah, despite all of those favorable conditions, these secret programs still leaked (not just once, but repeatedly), because some people thought it was wrong. And even if we hadn't known about the precise things they were doing (on what scale and how successfully), it was never secret that they were doing things like this, since the agency, the laws and the policy goals were all public knowledge: you can't keep something of that magnitude entirely hidden.

That's the kind of secret government program I buy. The idea that half the country in effect works for Hydra, not so much.

Thanks, that was a pretty great reply.

I'm not sure how much of what you said about me claiming the exact opposite is due to having the advantage of hindsight, though. Don't take me too seriously, but consider:
1. Back in 2012, if I had claimed mass surveilance was possible, and indeed very likely - based on the assumption that we use all sorts of services we don't really know anything about, and that it would simply make a lot of sense, considering - I bet someone on these forums would've called me a conspiracy theorist, if not severely paranoid. That's because, despite all the leaks, the idea wasn't really part of collective consciousness before Snowden's documents made it public. (And that makes sense, because none of us could really tell what exactly was going on).
2. Let's assume jet-fuel official reports turn out to be a lie ten years from now. Let's just assume. If someone on the forums then opened a thread saying "told you", how many people would think something along the lines of: "Well, that's hardly a secret, a lot of people have been telling for years that there was something fishy going on with the official reports"?

Even if you think mass surveilance was a bad example, it still doesn't change the fact that there have been a number of other theories proven true throughout history. Conspiring is definitely in human nature (of some humans), so why do some of you see it as such a ridiculous concept? I'm absolutely aware of how many theories out there are complete crap, with some of them possibly designed with the sole purpose of discrediting the term itself. I don't want to claim I know with any degree of certainty which ones fall under the 'true' or at least 'partly true' categories, it just annoys me when people who have been reading too much Wikipedia would go and dismiss the whole concept as 'crazy talk'. I'm not refering to you, Snarky, or to anyone in particular. Just people in general, I guess.

Sorry for completely derailing the discussion. I'm not sure what to make of 9/11 yet (or anymore), but I'll try to keep an open mind nevertheless.

[kconan]

1. Back in 2012, if I had claimed mass surveilance was possible, and indeed very likely - based on the assumption that we use all sorts of services we don't really know anything about, and that it would simply make a lot of sense, considering - I bet someone on these forums would've called me a conspiracy theorist, if not severely paranoid. That's because, despite all the leaks, the idea wasn't really part of collective consciousness before Snowden's documents made it public. (And that makes sense, because none of us could really tell what exactly was going on).

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

It was known well before Snowden came forward.  He filled in some gaps, but the overall idea of the NSA spying on American people is far from a new thing.

Also, it really wouldn't be that much of a conspiracy theory for an organization known for spying to spy on people.

[Cuiki]

Okay, fair enough.

[Misj']

It was known well before Snowden came forward.  He filled in some gaps, but the overall idea of the NSA spying on American people is far from a new thing.

And yet, as of last week, people still don't believe this program exists (to the extend that it does): Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Maybe they are misinformed, misguided, naive, ignorant, or simply not interested in the subject.

All that being said: I did show enough respect to watch the video before commenting here (and I have to say that she's not a good presenter in my opinion), and my take-away message was that (these) skyscrapers are intrinsically flawed in their design, and we still don't fully understand what happens when things get out of hand (I also don't see any need for skyscrapers in a city...at least not since the invention of birth-control).

That - by the way - is in my opinion a much more interesting (and relevant) discussion: should skyscrapers exist a world that has invented birth-control?

[Radiant]

I'm a bit surprised that this is the third person in the past month who, completely out of the blue, starts a group conversation about a 9/11 conspiracy theory (the second being a random guy I met at the bar, the third being a good friend who really should know better than that). I guess it's in fashion to disbelieve that huge explosions can actually destroy buildings, or something?

Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars. I can't say for certain what phenomena is doing that but I think it's pretty cool to think about.

I'm sure it's cool to think about, but that doesn't suddenly make you an expert on pyrochemistry. Plenty of scientific processes don't work in the way that you might expect them to; that only means that your expectations could use some adjusting.

"It's amazing how good governments are, given their track record in almost every other field, at hushing up things like alien encounters." - Terry Pratchett

[Mandle]

"It's amazing how good governments are, given their track record in almost every other field, at hushing up things like alien encounters." - Terry Pratchett

Ahhhhh...but you see...that's where they are so insidious: They pretend to leak made-up stuff so that we think they are a sieve, and keep the real stuff hidden...

[NickyNyce]

I watched the entire video just for kicks, but the most silly thing of all was when she pointed out the ambulance in the beginning. She says.. Look at that ambulance, it doesn't have any damage. Your right lady, it looks relatively unscathed except for some dust on it. Now tell me, which you never mentioned, when did it arrive? Why are you already reaching at something that can so easily be debunked. That ambulance could have easily have arrived after the first collapse. Not to mention that maybe nothing fell on it.

The dust rising is pretty hilarious too. I'm not a scientist, but it looked exactly how I would have imagined it to look. A building collapses on itself and pushes a dust cloud out in a circle. At some point that dust cloud will stop and go in all kinds of directions, including up. She even mentions that dust clouds from a collapsing building can fly up as high as the building was tall.

There was tons and tons of sheetrock, tile and marble, not to mention cement in those buildings. Why all the dust? Really? Dust mixed with smoke is exactly what I would have imagined also.

The best part may have been when she mentions the fire fighters walking by the burning car. She says...why aren't they putting it out, aren't they worried about it exploding? In case you haven't noticed lady, two giant freaking buildings have collapsed and tons of people have died, including many of their coworkers. A burning car is not on the priority list. Fire fighters are not scared of a burning car like yourself. I've seen them run towards burning cars all my life, this is utterly ridiculous that she would mention this.

[Radiant]

Contrary to popular belief (not to mention Michael Bay movies), burning cars do not in fact explode on a regular basis. This is probably because most cars don't run on nitroglycerin.

[monkey424]

Phew. Tough crowd.

Alrighty then. Let's try this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBG1LBALXQ&sns=em

This the the first video I watched that introduced me to Dr Judy Wood.

It's a shorter video. It's a radio interview with Judy Wood.

The first thing the video talks about is perhaps the biggest white elephant in the room on 9/11. There was a massive hurricane sitting right off the coast on 9/11. Did you know that? It has a Wikipedia entry.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)

I guess it was this that first captured my imagination to begin with and then got me interested in the rest of it. Perhaps I should have posted the shorter video first.

Look. I can understand people judging and being nit-picky with Dr Wood. But at the end of the day she's only human. Standing in her shoes, if I had made the discovery and was tasked with presenting the controversial information, I doubt I'd do any better. In fact I'm sure I'd be terrible.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the he said she said stuff. As the shorter video mentions, 9/11 was a physical destruction and a psychological destruction, the latter of which is still ongoing and evident in this thread right now. We are caught up arguing about opinions and speculation, but not really addressing or even looking at the evidence.

You can take stabs at trying to disprove one thing or another but at the end of the day, unless you can disprove ALL of the evidence, you're wasting your time. There needs to be a unifying theory that matches ALL of the evidence.

[Snarky]

You can take stabs at trying to disprove one thing or another but at the end of the day, unless you can disprove ALL of the evidence, you're wasting your time. There needs to be a unifying theory that matches ALL of the evidence.

This is a ridiculous fallacy. One need only point out that your second sentence directly contradicts your first: By your own logic, if you disprove ANY of the evidence in favor of Dr. Wood's "unifying theory", it no longer matches all the evidence and the whole thing falls apart.

But the bigger mistake is to assume that any "fact" you cite (I'm confident that upon closer examination many of these "facts" would turn out to be wrong, e.g. the speed of the collapse, how fires spread, etc., but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument) is necessarily relevant. OK, so there was a hurricane. So what? Surely the most reasonable assumption is that this was an entirely unrelated and irrelevant circumstance, and hence doesn't need to be "explained" at all.