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

[Radiant]

"Conspiracies are real"
"This is a conspiracy"
"Therefore this is real"

....um, no.

[Khris]

monkey424, the things you said in your last post are almost word for word the exact same things believers say about the most ridiculous things.
"I'm usually a skeptic", "(s)he's the victim of a smear campaign", "(s)he's only presenting facts", etc. etc.
This is what people say, whether it's about Bigfoot, or Aliens, or Chemtrails.

The most important thing you said was this: "Dr Judy Wood's research has resonated with me."
That's the problem right there. It's why people like Wood actually get to sell their books to thousands of people.

The stuff Wood says is ONLY convincing until you hear somebody from the other side answer her claims. Just a quick look at the photo page linked to earlier in the thread nicely demonstrates how wrong Wood actually is about basic stuff.

[Darth Mandarb]

I think instead of going public and trying to make people actually believe her theory she should have just sold the script to Hollywood. 

There have been other nine-eleven movies so it's not "too soon" and we all know Hollywood would pimp out their own mothers if the profit was right.

Personally I LOVE her theory (even though I could not be convinced to give it a shred of credibility)!

It's very imaginative and creative and just the sort of thing that would make a great movie (or maybe an HBO 10 part mini-series).

FULL DISCLAIMER: I have not watched the entire youTube (if I had that much time I'd record those lines for you monkey!!)

[monkey424]

NickyNice. I was familiar with that video you posted by the way. It was an ambush interview by Greg Jenkins and is part of a smear campaign as documented here:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=46&Itemid=60

I feel sorry for Judy Wood. She'd been set up to look foolish.

I'm not feeling the love from you guys on the Judy Wood thing. As far fetched as it may be, her theory resonates with me because the other theories just seem so much more ridiculous in comparison. Three buildings fell that day, one without a plane hitting it. They all fell in exactly the same way. It looked like a controlled demolition but we didn't see any flashes indicating explosives. Again, no plane hit Building 7. The bathtub structure and basements survived the impact of the buildings with barely a scratch and no flooding occurred despite initial concerns from engineers. The seismic data corresponds with the insignificant impact on the base structures and the lack of debris seen. The lack of debris was questioned by those present as mentioned by a news reporter. Numerous statements from first responders reveal a significant amount of dust was present. They could still breath so it wasn't smoke. Others reported cars spontaneously combusting. Some cars were about 1 km away from the site. Firefighters reported air tanks rupturing/exploding. Firefighters boots were also disintegrating yet no burnt feet were reported.

There is just too much here to dismiss. The devil is in the detail.

Experiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

Come on guys. It's not rocket science.

[Radiant]

There is just too much here to dismiss.

Not at all, you just need to listen to the experts (instead of, you know, dismissing them). For example, that untrained laymen think it looks like a controlled demolition is completely meaningless. Do people who actually know about demolition have the same opinion?

Spoiler

No, they don't.

[close]

Experiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

Ah, that explains it. It was a Russian attack with Tesla coils!

[NickyNyce]

If you can't sit down and have an interview about WHAT happened,  it's because you're full of it. He went toe to toe with her for all the world to see, and he made her look foolish. If it was a smear campaign it's because she's full of it, and he's trying to show the world. Believe what you want monkey, go on tour with her, buy her book, and invest in energy weapons now. If you watch that video for 3 minutes, it speaks for itself. She refuses to listen to what he has to say because she knows he's right. If she is right, why not sit down and prove it, instead of having Jesse the body Ventura...a fake wrestler, who has his own conspiracy show, talking on her video. Her seminars are filled with conspiracy believers, not scientists.

Did you also know she was fired from her job? I read that somewhere too.

I also found other conspiracy theory videos saying she's nuts and that she's wrong, and you should believe their conspiracy theory instead.

Again, this has nothing to do with you monkey, and my anger and judgement is not directed at you.

[Scavenger]

Experiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

Come on guys. It's not rocket science.

Okay, now demonstrate the science that makes a giant energy weapon powered by Windy Tesla Coils disintegrate a skyscraper without any visible setup or equipment. You know, replicate the results seen on 9/11 on a smaller scale. That's science. Without experiments and testing of theories, it's just conjecture. If you can show me an energy weapon disintegrating boots and not feet, and destroying matter entirely, and creating fire without heat, then you will have my ear.

You see, science is replicable. If you have a result that is the same over a long period of time, and is demonstrable as a phenomenon, then you have a basis for a scientific theory. Dr. Wood has not built any energy weapon, or even demonstrated that such a weapon could possibly exist in real life. Her claims are bombastic, and completely anecdotal. You can't build a scientific theory like "The Government has Energy Weapons That They Fired At The WTC and Used Planes As a Distraction" without a significant grounding in actual science. Does Judy Wood build Energy Weapons? Does she even know if the things she is supposing are physically possible?

No. She spends most of her time flippantly dismissing other people's conspiracy theories, according to her website. I haven't seen any kind of actual scientific theory from her. Just:

"Stuff happened --> Ergo secret beam weapon, obviously. How stupid do you have to be to not believe in the secret beam weapon? It's called Star Wars!"

[Radiant]

This reminds me of a lecture by a ufologist I once attended. He had a story about a farmer somewhere in the US, who heard some weird noises at night, and the next morning he found a piece of metal that he hadn't seen before. And no matter what, he was unable to bend this piece of metal.

So the lecturer concluded, this must clearly be extraterrestrial matter.

Spoiler

How about NO? I would bloody well hope that we can manufacture metal parts that cannot be bent by some random farmer who doesn't know anything about metallurgy. I'm sure the UFO explanation is more fun but that's what we have scifi books for.

[close]

[Snarky]

Three buildings fell that day, one without a plane hitting it. They all fell in exactly the same way.

Did they? Are you an expert on what different forms of building collapse look like? Isn't it quite likely that different building collapses could look pretty similar (to the layman) even if the reasons aren't the same?

It looked like a controlled demolition but we didn't see any flashes indicating explosives.

According to experts on building demolitions, it did not look like a controlled demolition, in particular wrt the distance of spreading debris, and the collapse starting in the middle or closer to the top rather than at the bottom.

The bathtub structure and basements survived the impact of the buildings with barely a scratch and no flooding occurred despite initial concerns from engineers.

So what? "Initial concerns" (from engineers who probably had to make quick guesstimates based on incomplete information about the construction and what exactly happened in the collapse) would just mean they thought there was a risk. A risk is not a certainty.

Like so many of these other pieces of "evidence", there's nothing here to establish that there's anything weird about this in the first place.

The seismic data corresponds with the insignificant impact on the base structures

... according to the analysis of one amateur with a pet theory.

and the lack of debris seen. The lack of debris was questioned by those present as mentioned by a news reporter.

Maybe random bystanders didn't have a realistic expectation for how much debris there should be? Maybe they didn't consider that a lot of it would fill the underground levels? Maybe it was obscured by dust clouds? Maybe it wasn't clearly visible from where they were standing, or they didn't get a sense of the true scale (perhaps confused by the disappearance of a major, familiar landmark). Come on! This is like saying that because you heard someone say "Huh, I thought it would rain", that's evidence that the government is manipulating the weather.

The fact is that photos and the long clean-up process show evidence of a great deal of debris,

Numerous statements from first responders reveal a significant amount of dust was present. They could still breath so it wasn't smoke.

Isn't that exactly what you would expect after a building has collapsed? The crushing of concrete, drywall and other materials would of course produce a significant amount of dust. Do a Google Image Search for "controlled demolition" and you'll see a ton of images with a "significant amount of dust" produced by the collapse (e.g. this).

Others reported cars spontaneously combusting.

Spontaneously, or due to smoldering fires no one had noticed in the confusion finally flaring up?

Some cars were about 1 km away from the site.

OK? What does that prove?

How far might embers or burning debris from, let's just say, the three big fires in the skyscrapers be spread by the wind, or thrown by the collapse? I don't know; do you?

But I also doubt the claim in the first case. I see references to claims having been made based on photos that appear to show cars that have clearly been towed, probably away from the immediate site and left temporarily along nearby roads.

Firefighters reported air tanks rupturing/exploding.

Without more detail, it's impossible to say whether that's weird or completely expected.

Firefighters boots were also disintegrating yet no burnt feet were reported.

Firefighters' boots melting seems to me to be one of the least surprising things imaginable as they have to clamber over the wreckage of a collapsed, recently burning building. As for no burnt feet being reported:

1) The point of the boots is to protect their wearers. Just like the front of a car crumples to reduce the impact for the driver and passengers, their destruction could very well be by design.
2) Maybe the firefighters noticed their feet getting hot and moved away before they got burns, but not before the boots were ruined? Avoiding getting burned seems like a pretty basic part of being a firefighter.
3) Is there even a public, centralized registry that breaks down injuries to the level of "burnt feet"?
4) Isn't it possible that with all the death and the serious injuries suffered, firefighters considered minor burns not worth reporting?

I mean, I don't know. I'm no expert and I haven't looked into this specific detail; these are just the first things that spring to mind. The point is that the assertion is so weak, full of holes and has so many possible explanations that unless you're already convinced there's something mysterious going on, it just doesn't help prove anything.

The devil is in the detail.

Indeed.

Come on guys. It's not rocket science.

We can agree on that, at least! It really is not rocket science. Or any kind of science, for that matter.

[Darth Mandarb]

This whole thing reminds me a lot of the Ancient Aliens believers.

Look, the ancient Mayans made this thing that looks exactly like a spaceship (or a bird)!  How could they have done this??

Well... perhaps it was a toy bird for a small child to play with?  Perhaps it was a depiction of a bird by a [admittedly shitty] artist?  Nah... it HAS to be aliens!  There's simply NO other explanation [because we refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support our own theories!].

2000 years from now some future culture will find a toy Millennium Falcon and make the assumption that aliens had visited us. 

How could it be anything else?

As far as:

I feel sorry for Judy Wood. She'd been set up to look foolish.

Don't feel bad for her! 

She's getting exactly what she wanted. 

Publicity and money.  Win/win.

[RickJ]

... Religious shit heads murdered a few thousand people in the name of their peaceful religion.

Well said Darth.

Would anybody here buy a used car from Dr. Wood?

[NickyNyce]

So those cars that mysteriously caught fire blocks away...was that because they tested the weapon on a Nissan Maxima first? Or because the weapon malfunctioned and hit some cars far from the real target? Or they decided to destroy cars blocks away because it was so much fun destroying the towers that they got trigger happy and couldn't control themselves?

how could cars blocks away ignite, but not in between?

Is the weapon so awesome that it can destroy one car at a time. Does it have a laser pointer setting and a giant block long setting?

The flight recordings of the terrorists on the plane were faked?

The planes that crashed into the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were faked?

The airports were involved in the conspiracy?

All the people that lost loved ones on those planes are fake?

Why not just plant bombs on every floor of those towers and say that the terrorists did it?

The planes were real but the energy weapon was just to make sure the buildings collapsed?

Yeah...the energy weapon makes way more sense.

[Scavenger]

So those cars that mysteriously caught fire blocks away...was that because they tested the weapon on a Nissan Maxima first? Or because the weapon malfunctioned and hit some cars far from the real target? Or they decided to destroy cars blocks away because it was so much fun destroying the towers that they got trigger happy and couldn't control themselves?

That Nissan Maxima was KEY to the Government's plan. They needed to destroy it in suspicious circumstances, otherwise who knows what untold damage it could do to their cover story?

[Khris]

I read another perfect example of how conspiracy theorists' points can seem remarkable at first, only to utterly collapse when you actually do a bit more research.

After the terrorists hit Charlie Hebdo, they fled in a car. At some point they had to switch cars, and police found a passport in the car they left behind, "conveniently" lying right there on the seats, pretty much out in the open. Conspiracy crackpots of course jumped on that, remarking how strange it is for the terrorists to leave a passport behind, right for the cops to find. Up to this point, that's indeed weird, and could reasonably give you pause. However, that's exactly what terrorists on the run do once the borders are closed: they are making sure that their families are getting the reward money from the terrorist organizations.
I just found it interesting how a suspicious anomaly like that suddenly has a perfectly rational explanation.

[monkey424]

I don't think the "evidence" is trivial. Why trivialize it? (I say "evidence" in quotation marks because that seems to be the fashion these days). As I said, the devil is in the detail. If you are quick to dismiss and trivialize data then I don't believe you are actually looking at the data in the first place.

No one has addressed Building 7 yet. That's the one that no plane hit! I don't think for one second that the building fell as a result of a miscellaneous fire as NIST would have us believe.

What does the evidence tell us about Building 7. It barely made a sound when it came down according the the seismic data. Witnesses nearby attest to that. A firefighter remarked "If the building collapsed, why don't I remember the sound of it?" The quiet nature of the building coming down is also captured in the sound recording on video footage. It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks!

If you're going to respond to this post, respond to Building 7. Do you believe a fire caused it to fall? It would be the first ever fire induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building in history!

And speaking of history..

--------------------------------

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

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant scientist and inventor. He gave the world AC electricity, electric motors, radio, remote control, x-rays and lasers. He also attempted to build a system to enable wireless communications, however funding was cut when it was discovered that the system would apparently also harness limitless free energy (a conflict of interest with the investor).

Tesla also claimed to have worked on plans for a directed energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death. (See the Wikipedia link above).

When Tesla died in 1943 the FBI seized all of Tesla's belongings including papers still classified by the US government.

I'll leave it to you to speculate on what the government did next with Tesla's documents. I don't know so don't ask me.

--------------------------------

One rhetorical question for you all..

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

[Darth Mandarb]

No one has addressed Building 7 yet. That's the one that no plane hit! I don't think for one second that the building fell as a result of a miscellaneous fire as NIST would have us believe.

I had some trees in my backyard.  One of them needed to come down (it was too big and was in danger of damaging my house).  I used a chainsaw (thinking this would be the best way to go about it) and calculated that if I cut a certain way it would fall a certain way (y'know, in my many years of tree-cutting I deduced all that).  Well about half-way through the trunk the tree started to tip (oddly enough it tipped in another direction than I thought it would - so much for my calculations!).  The entire thing came down tearing up the roots (even pulling most of them out of the ground) and some of the upper branches came in contact with another tree.  Didn't seem to do too much damage that I could see.  Well, a few weeks later, that other tree started dying (leaf rot, etc).  About a week later I was able to push the tree over by hand.

I knew right away that I was being targeted by an energy weapon of some kind

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

That's not a valid argument.  That's like theists telling atheists that they have to prove that god doesn't exist.  The burden of proof falls on Dr. Wood's shoulders, not her detractors.

[Andail]

Note to everyone:
Stay on topic, and no moderating if you're not a moderator, please. If you think someone has crossed a line, use the Report to Moderator button, otherwise let people debate.

[Monsieur OUXX]

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

That's not a valid argument.  That's like theists telling atheists that they have to prove that god doesn't exist.  The burden of proof falls on Dr. Wood's shoulders, not her detractors.

[Mandle]

What does the evidence tell us about Building 7. It barely made a sound when it came down according the the seismic data. Witnesses nearby attest to that. A firefighter remarked "If the building collapsed, why don't I remember the sound of it?" The quiet nature of the building coming down is also captured in the sound recording on video footage. It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks!

If you're going to respond to this post, respond to Building 7. Do you believe a fire caused it to fall? It would be the first ever fire induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building in history!

I still don't know whatthe seismic data on such a collapse would look like or if it would register above the normal background noise of Manhatten...

Witnesses nearby were wandering around shell-shocked and in a semi-coherent state...I have seen the videos of attempted interviews with the people coming out of the dust cloud...They are zoned out on autopilot...

"A firefighter remarked..."...Give us his name and please link us to this remark, otherwise it is exactly the same as every other urban myth of "My mate's mate swears this is a true story"...

"It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks"...Do you have a comparitive recording using the same instruments under the same conditions and at the same distance to compare this with? I don't know what a building falling down sounds like. I don't know how fast it fell. I don't know if it slowly bended into the ground or  pancaked...Do you?

[NickyNyce]

NYC is built on Bedrock,  perhaps this was a factor with the seismic readings...not that I believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Her favorite words are snowball and poof.

So where was this energy weapon pointing from? The sky? The top of another building?

How large would this weapon have to be in order for it to do what the Doc is telling us?

The buildings started collapsing from where the planes hit the building, not from the top down. So is this where the weapon was pointed, at the points of impact? Was it pointed from the ground up?

All of this is about making money and her book.

You mentioned that no steel-frame building has ever collapsed in history, and that it is impossible for a fire to bring one down. What about if two giant 110 story buildings collapsed next to it first, and then it caught fire?

Just because she can't put two and two together doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. She's saying that an energy weapon that doesn't exist, made two giant 110 story buildings disappear in seconds. Just watch the video I posted again, and you can see within minutes that she has no clue what she's talking about. She gets up and leaves for a reason, because she's sitting down with someone that can answer her questions instead of one of her followers.