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

[Mandle]

Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

I'm interested in what this particular part of your post meant:

Occam's Razor means that the least complicated explanation is usually the right one...

Does this mean you have a simple explanation for this material being present?

[RickJ]

The linked article identifies three sources Exit Signs on the aircraft, time pieces, and scope mon gov weapons stored at the site.

[Eric]

Thank you all for giving me a case study to discuss in my Intro to Comm. Theory class today. We covered Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, in which he states that we don't really accept arguments based on rational applications of logic, but rather that we hear stories and then decide whether or not they are coherent and ring true to us.

[NickyNyce]

Exit signs in the towers if I read correctly. Which could consist of 5 or more on each floor..times that by 220.

The thread that Khris provided is a step by step guide on this entire thread. Coincidence?

[Radiant]

Thank you all for giving me a case study to discuss in my Intro to Comm. Theory class today. We covered Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, in which he states that we don't really accept arguments based on rational applications of logic, but rather that we hear stories and then decide whether or not they are coherent and ring true to us.

This article may be useful for you. It discusses, among other things, how people's belief is strengthened when they are shown evidence that their belief is provably wrong.

Speaking of which, the same site has an article on Conspiracy Theories That Are Shockingly Easy To Debunk, which actually includes this one as number three, and cites a number of interesting sources.

[Misj']

I'm interested in what this particular part of your post meant:

Occam's Razor means that the least complicated explanation is usually the right one...

That is actually a (very common) misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. This misconception has become so common indeed, that almost everyone using Occam's Razor on the internet is doing it wrong; and that misconception/misuse has also moved into (scientific) literature as a result.

To explain, I'll add some quotes from this paper here:

Occam's razor is often considered one of the fundamental tenets of modern science. In its original form, it states that "Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necesitate," which, approximately translated, means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Tornay, 1938). It was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic philosophy, whose theories grew ever more elaborate without any corresponding improvement in predictive power. Today it is often invoked by learning theorists and KDD practitioners as a justication for preferring simpler models over more complex ones.

the second razor mentioned below corresponds to the common misconception (though represented in the article more scientifically and with different words).

All the evidence reviewed in this article shows that, contrary to the second razor's claim, greater simplicity does not necessarily (or even typically) lead to greater accuracy.

-- more info in the hidden tag --

Spoiler

If we accept the fact that the most accurate models will not always be simple or easily understandable, we should allow an explicit trade-off between the two. Systems that first induce the most accurate model they can, and then extract from it a more comprehensible model of variable complexity, seem a promising avenue.

The second razor is often justied by pointing to its success in the "hard" sciences. (Although these arguments are fuzzier, they should still be addressed, because they form a large part of the razor's appeal.) A popular example comes from astronomy, where it favors Copernicus' model of the solar system over Ptolemy's. Ironically, in terms of predictive error the two models are indistinguishable, since they predict the same trajectories. Copernicus's model is preferable on the intrinsic merits of simplicity.
...
Another favorite example is relativity vs. Newton's laws. The following passage is from Cover & Thomas (1991):

In the end, we choose the simplest explanation that is consistent with the observed data. For example, it is easier to accept the general theory of relativity than it is to accept a correction factor of c/r3 to the gravitational law to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, since the general theory explains more with fewer assumptions than does a "patched" Newtonian theory.

In fact, the general theory of relativity makes more assumptions than Newton's gravitational law, and is far more complex, so this cannot be the reason for preferring it. The preference comes from the fact that the c/r3 factor is a patch, applied to (over)fit the theory to a particular observation. As Pearl (1978) insightfully notes:

It would, therefore, be more appropriate to connect credibility with the nature of the selection procedure rather than with properties of the final product. When the former is not explicitly known ... simplicity merely serves as a rough indicator for the type of processing that took place prior to discovery.

Yet another example is Maxwell's four concise and elegant equations of electromagnetism. In fact, these equations are concise and elegant only in the notation of differential operators that was introduced many years after his death. In their original form, they were long and unwieldy, leading Faraday to complain of their incomprehensibility, which precluded him from empirically testing them.

Occam's razor can be interpreted in two ways: as favoring the simpler of two models with the same generalization error because simplicity is a goal in itself, or as favoring the simpler of two models with the same training-set error because this leads to lower generalization error. This article found the second version to be provably and empirically false, and argued that in the first version simplicity is only a proxy for comprehensibility.

[close]

In short: Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest (least complex) explanation is usually (or likely) the right one. It states that when you have a fitting explanation, you should strive for the one that is easiest (to grasp), and you should try to take away clutter as much as possible without loosing accuracy. The answer lies in the version of a fitting model that is easiest to grasp, not in the simplest model itself.

If your model is wrong, no matter how simple it is, it will still be wrong. If your model is correct, no matter how complex it is, it is still correct (but can be made even more correct - and more generally applicable - by using Occam's Razor).




EDIT: I noticed that copying from the PDF mysteriously removed some characters...often the letter f (and it's close neighbour). Please just read around that.

[KodiakBehr]

Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

Does this mean you have a simple explanation for this material being present?

It means I read the simple explanation posed by Semkow, Hafner, Parekh, Wozniak, Haines, Husain, Rabun and Williams, and found it to be plausible, although impossible to prove.

EDIT:  I stand corrected Misj'.  It appears Occam's Razor falls into the category of: things I should get out of the habit of casually dropping.  My sentiments remain, of course.  Fun-fact, the word "moot" is another one of those things that has been horribly misused contextually and I had to remove from my lexicon out of convenience.

[RickJ]

 
The example about relativity misses the point but comes to the right conclusion anyway.  Relativity is a simpler and less convoluted theory of how time, space and matter work than is Newton's theory. Newton's theory seems to be simpler on the surface because it leaves a lot of things without explanation.  If one were to "patch" Newton's theory so that it explained everything as well as Relativity it would become extremely convoluted and complex.

There is a difference between complexity and difficulty.  For example Newton's theory is expressed using basic algebra and Einstein's theory is expressed using advanced calculus.  While it's true that algebra is easier to understand than calculus, it is not true that algebraic expressions are always less complex than ones represented in calculus.  In fact, quite often the opposite is true (anyone who studied electro-magnetic wave theory knows this). 

Applying Occam's Razor to model accuracy, as described in the link, is misguided IMHO.  It seems folks are conflating accuracy and correctness.  Newton's model is incorrect, as shown by the behavior of Mercury, not just inaccurate.  Creating a mathematical expressions to fit a given data set may be referred to as a model but it can only be characterized in terms of accuracy and not in terms of correctness.

[Misj']

@RickJ

I think you are making a few mistakes in your argument. The behavior of Mercury does not show that Newton's model is incorrect, it shows that it is not general. Newton's model accurately describes (relevant) events under a limited set of conditions (basically Earth), and the Mercury behavior shows that it fails when the conditions are changed. That in itself does not warrant the statement that Newton's model is incorrect. One could either chose to make a new model for the other conditions (which is bad practice) or 'patch' the existing model to fit other conditions (which is not necessarily bad, because it falls within the realm of 'when you find your model is incomplete you correct your model'). The reason why relativity is preferable is, because we already have a single unified model that (accurately) matches both (and more) conditions without the need for patching.

Applying Occam's Razor to model accuracy, as described in the link, is misguided IMHO.
...
Creating a mathematical expressions to fit a given data set may be referred to as a model but it can only be characterized in terms of accuracy and not in terms of correctness.

This goes against most of modern science in my opinion. First of all, a 'mathematical expression to fit a given data-set' may not only 'be referred to as a model', this is a model pur sang (pardon my French ). That is the entire basis of (modern) mathematics and statistics. But more importantly, when a model accurately describes our data (based on many learning-sets) then we can make the assumption that it also has accurate predictive value about new data-sets; and as a result we may assume that our model is correct (until proven otherwise based on new data that it cannot cope with). Yes, we accept that our model may not be complete or entirely correct under (unknown, and possibly non-existing) future conditions; but as long as it both accurately describes and accurately predicts it should be considered correct. This is the fundamental concept of falsification in science (the example here uses mathematics and statistics, but applies to other fields of science in very much the same way).

EDIT: determining which model is correct if multiple models are equally accurate is of course another problem. And if that is what you mean by 'a model can only be characterized in terms of accuracy no in terms of correctness' then you are of course correct about that.




As for Wood, I think that the first half of her talk wasn't all that bad. All she claimed was that the current model does not accurately describe the data (this is something you can argue with of course), and that a unified model is needed. People should not object to this (though they might feel it's redundant). Things go wrong when she dismisses data (the planes) and has to make her model more complex to validate this ('they were a distraction') then has to make her model even more complex to argue that point (that the event was meticulously planned), and even more complex by adding data that is not related to the actual event of the towers falling to 'corroborate' this additional complexity (the hurricane). Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

[Radiant]

Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

Yes, that is the key flaw here, and one of the main distinctions between science and pseudoscience.

[monkey424]

I'm sorry if I'm presenting a lot of information here but it is quite a complex discussion. I'm trying to inform you of what I know and not get side-tracked. From the responses I'll try to address the main issues.

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

RickJ

From what I understand the court's decision to dismiss the case wasn't based on merit, i.e. the ruling did not actually address the evidence. The court ignored the evidence.

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

Mandle

Interesting link you provided. The link includes an analysis by Dr Frank Greening. I found another article that points out that Greening is ignoring Newton's third law in his analysis (i.e. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

Judy Wood's analysis is here and is more scientifically satisfying.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

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

RE: working from the data

Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

I believe she IS working from the data. Her main selling point is the data. The data stands on its own. Pseudoscience more accurately describes NIST's approach. They claim that the planes dislodged insulation (fireproofing) allowing the fires to do its damage. Where is their evidence that fireproofing was dislodged? Isn't this an assumption? What about Building 7 (which no plane hit)?

Link to NIST's NCSTAR 1 report.

http://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NIST.pdf

I also understand that NIST had constructed a model of one of the buildings and subjected it to twice the amount of alleged heat for twice the duration. The model didn't fail yet they still concluded that fire did it.

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

RE: tritium

Some healthy discussion of tritium here.

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

Another piece of evidence I forgot to mention was the remains of a filing cabinet found in the debris â€" I believe it was the only filing cabinet found â€" a twisted ball of amalgamated metal and paper file folders. Apparently there was also paper money inside the twisted metal and was returned to the owner from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lado_melted-metal-filing-cabinet-at-the_news

If the metal melted, why didn't the paper burn?

If steel-cap boots melted, why didn't feet burn?

If cars were destroyed, why was the metal affected but not paper?

[Scavenger]

If the metal melted, why didn't the paper burn?

If steel-cap boots melted, why didn't feet burn?

If cars were destroyed, why was the metal affected but not paper?

Oh come on, this is easy stuff.

1) The metal filing cabinet was found in the debris. To melt metal, you need only massive amounts of heat. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. The paper didn't burn because there was insufficient oxygen to burn the paper. Not to mention, the pressure and heat might have weakened the filing cabinet and crushed it into an unrecognizable mess, but might not have melted it.

2) The steel toe capped boots are designed to protect the feet. Either the people working didn't stand long enough for their feet to burn, or they did get burned and didn't notice. It's almost as if the steel toed boots are made to protect against this kind of thing, even at the expense of their own integrity. Gasp!

3) Superheated dust and ash particles landed on the cars, heated them up. Cars are a bigger target than pieces of paper, which could have been blown there by the wind. And there was a lot of burnt paper, too.

Now, how does all of this evidence point towards a fictional energy weapon again? You're doing exactly what conspiracy theorists are known to do. "But what about these additional other pieces of unrelated data!!!!?".

Prove the energy weapon can exist, then I'll take her seriously.

[Mandle]

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

Mandle

Judy Wood's analysis is here and is more scientifically satisfying.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

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

Sorry mate...Oh and by the way: a belated Happy Birthday!!!

Yeah but sorry: I read the article in this link and the science was once again so airy-fairy and flawed that I couldn't take it seriously.

Here's one example:

The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did.

Sorry again, but male cows actually defecated all over this!!!

Apart from the fact that most of the visible papers are sitting on top of the dust with very little dust on their upper surfaces, even the ones that aren't obviously have much more dust under them than on top of them.

That's a NYC street curb we are looking at there and you can't even see where the sidewalk drops down to the road there is so much dust. I would hazard a crazy guess that the amount of dust under the papers is much greater than the amount on top of them in the few cases where the papers actually have dust on them...

So how did this dust get on top of those couple of papers??? Gee...maybe there was some wind blowing around? Or could somebody have walked by and kicked some dust onto the papers? Or .....actually...wait!!!

* Mandle goes away to dust his living room as an experiment...

I started dusting my living room and at the same time threw some papers into the air. I came back a bit later and found that a lot of the dust had actually landed on top on the papers!!! It seems that dust can actually fall slower than a sheet of paper!!!

Now I'll admit that there is slightly less dust in my living room than was created by the WTC collapse, but I still think my small-scale experiment has some merit...

Of course this was just one example of a flaw in a long article but to even present it as "scientific data" at all just screams FRAUD in huge capital letters. I mean: why even include such "data" if the actual "science" was already doing so well?

[Lasca]

I still don't get who pushed the button on this would be energy weapon and why.

[Mandle]

I still don't get who pushed the button on this would be energy weapon and why.

Dr. Wood would probably argue that the " Who" and the "Why" are not important enough to even consider until you can define "What" actually happened...

[Scavenger]

Dr. Wood would probably argue that the " Who" and the "Why" are not important enough to even consider until you can define "What" actually happened...

She hasn't even demonstrated the "How" yet, I don't think she'll ever get to the "Who" and "Why".

(Seriously, I've scoured her website for any kind of scientific testing of energy weapons that can "melt" metal but leave organic material untouched, nothing. All she does is say "Nuh uh!" to other conspiracy theorists.)

[NickyNyce]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y2LxmESkV0Q

Very graphic video, be warned. Everything I see in this video makes my stomach churn and it has nothing to do with energy weapons. I'm very sorry to post this terrible video, but this does explain some things that happened that day. Not that any video you watch and listen to is true, but after watching it, it just puts things back in perspective for me. I see nothing except a horrible tragedy that Dr. Woods is trying to make money on.

[Darth Mandarb]

Dr. Woods is trying to make money on.

Ding ding ding.

[Misj']

RE: working from the data

I believe she IS working from the data. Her main selling point is the data. The data stands on its own.

She dismisses a large piece of data (the planes) based on a single argument 'it is a distraction'. Now there are very valid arguments to dismiss data; however, the distraction-argument is never such. I can therefore not conclude otherwise than to say that she dismisses data because it distracts from her hypothesis.


ps. as for NIST, that is irrelevant. The invalidness of that report (if so) does not - in any way - mean that Wood is allowed to disregard data in favor of her hypothesis, nor does it argue in favor of her hypothesis in general. At best it argues that we still don't know what really happened.

[monkey424]

Following recommendations of Andail and Crimson Wizard I'm going to hold back on overloading you with more information and instead try and address your individual concerns.

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

Scav

1) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn?

2) Re: Steel-cap boots. As Dr Wood says: "When your oven starts to melt you know the turkey is done!" Why were there no reports of burnt feet?

3) Re: Toasted cars. Was the dust superheated? No witnesses reported this. In fact they reported the dust was cold / warm. However the cars definitely appeared to be on fire. But organic things like trees, paper, etc were not affected. Why?

This evidence is among an extensive amount of evidence / phenomena that can't be explained by the official story. But as I've mentioned, experimental scientist John Hutchinson can replicate all these effects using Tesla type technology.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

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

Mandle

Did you read the billiard ball example? I think Dr Wood does an excellent job of explaining the physics so most people will understand. The two tall buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) collapsed straight down; from the top and straight down. They didn't topple. NIST didn't actually analyse the collapse, but it is inferred to be a progressive or "pancake" type collapse. This is like dominos falling, however unlike dominos which are free to fall, each collapsing building level should be met by a reaction (upward) force of the underlying level / columns. It is unlikely that fires weakened every single column in the building. There should have been some resistance as the collapse was progressing downwards.

Now, regarding dust and paper. I actually agree with you. There are indeed other ways dust could have come to rest on those papers. One thing you and Dr Wood don't mention is that maybe that paper landed there long before the dust came on the scene. It's possible. Then again, the sky is pretty hazy. And I believe the dust was suspended there for many weeks. That is unusual.

Nevertheless, your dust experiment inspired me to conduct my own, being the science nerd that I am. For this experiment I used flour, assuming this is similar to concrete dust. I went up to the balcony and dropped a sheet of paper and threw the flour up in the air. The flour hit the ground first. But your experiment has merit too. You have demonstrated that living room dust is similar to the dust in the hazy photograph, i.e. they are both composed of very fine particles that stay suspended in the air.

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

Lasca

I can tell the suspense is killing you. Sorry, I don't know who did it. Maybe try following the money. I believe the US military and affiliated businesses are raking in the profits from the ongoing "war on terror".

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

NickyNyce

I don't believe Dr Wood's grand scheme is to make a profit from this tragedy. She's a scientist at the end of the day, not a politician.

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

Misj'

The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane? Remember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building. We all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed. Just watch any YouTube video on a plane crash and you'll see how vulnerable they are. Eg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw&feature=youtube_gdata_player