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

[Andail]

Again:
Since this is a potentially inflammatory area;
* Stay on topic!
* Avoid one liners that don't contribute!
* If you want to write silly jokes, go to the rumpus room!
* Be extra polite when debating!

Thank you.

[NickyNyce]

Did I really say something wrong?

What did I say that anyone here would get mad at?

Nothing I said is directed at anyone here. What silly joke did I make?

[Radiant]

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

Yes.

I am absolutely certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used.

For that matter, I am also absolutely certain that the event wasn't caused by invisible three-eyed aliens from Pluto. Note, however, that all the evidence you've posted is consistent with the hypothesis that the event was in fact caused by invisible three-eyed aliens from Pluto. So, I would be interested in any evidence or arguments that does support the hypothesis of an energy weapon, and does not support the hypothesis of aliens from Pluto.

[RickJ]

First of all Monkey, thanks for getting everyone engaged in the forums.  There was recently a discussion about how quite things are around here now days.  Thanks.

Now for some levity and a video we can all sit back and enjoy.  Radiant you can fast forward to 6:10 for the evidence you seek.   

https://vimeo.com/50941741

If that don't put a simle on everyone's face ...

[Andail]

Did I really say something wrong?

What did I say that anyone here would get mad at?

Nothing I said is directed at anyone here. What silly joke did I make?

Hehe, relax buddy, it wasn't aimed at you.
I've already had to remove some posts here, and had concerns expressed in pm's regarding the tone in this thread. It's just a bit sensitive territory, is all.
You'll know when I direct my remarks at you

[NickyNyce]

Sorry Andail, I thought about this afterwards and realized it might not have been me.

Monkey does have a tough job here and doesn't have much help on his side besides Dr. Woods and RickJ's video, which is perfectly placed...lol

[Lasca]

Hi!
Like some people before me, I find this thread very interesting and entertaining, and I prefer to just watch and not to participate in the debate. I have not seen the long clip with Dr. Judy, and perhaps this is addressed there, but I would like to know more about the motives! For, me the official explanations of the causes and the motives behind the events feel very believable (and also idiotic, ofcours). But if the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse, and if it was an energy weapon, who ordered the attack? And if it was the U.S., why? Please elaborate on this since I'm very curious (or if Judy speaks of this in the clip, please summarise (since I very seldom have 2 hours to watch youtube clips)) !

[Khris]

I haven't watched the original video (no point), but I have watched the interview by Dr. Jenkins.
I recommend you watch it, because it nicely illustrates science vs. pseudoscience.

-Her main line of reasoning is akin to "moon landing is fake because no stars in pictures" (or the classic "we'd expect x but see y")
-Holding a still frame from a video that shows debris raining down, says she sees dust going up
-Hypothesizes an energy weapon that needs less energy to "remove/dustify" steel than is required to evaporate it but has no idea of the type of weapon or type of energy, says it's not important
-Doesn't want to be "distracted" by basic calculations about how much energy would be required
-Claims there's no debris after destruction of building when there's copious amounts

[Mandle]

First of all Monkey, thanks for getting everyone engaged in the forums.  There was recently a discussion about how quite things are around here now days.  Thanks.

Now for some levity and a video we can all sit back and enjoy.  Radiant you can fast forward to 6:10 for the evidence you seek.   

https://vimeo.com/50941741

If that don't put a simle on everyone's face ...

HAHAHAHA!!! That was AWESOME!!!

I've never seen that one before: It was quite dark for a Looney Tunes...and HILARIOUS!!!

Cheers for the link!

[Eric]

Has anyone investigated the potential use of this?

[Mandle]

Has anyone investigated the potential use of this?

Yup!

THESE GUYS DID...

[RickJ]

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110315120912AAtbCUr

Concrete does not burn, but somewhere around 1200 degrees it will produce steam to become calcium oxide.

Ca(OH)2 -> CaO + H2O

Calcium oxide is a white powder which melts at nearly 3000 C.
Source(s):
I'm a chemist!
Roger S · 4 years ago

It's my understanding that the towers were built with a concrete core that housed the elevators and utilities and that also carried a good portion of the vertical load. The combustion of the jet fuel heated the concrete enough to fail and the weight of the building did the rest. 

[monkey424]

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Quote attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher.

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

Once you accept the 9/11 evidence and realise it is irrefutable then you'll see that there is a bigger picture. I'm not interested in debate here. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of opinion. The WTC buildings simply could not have fallen as quickly as they did using a progressive collapse model. You can't argue with this let alone the other evidence. You'd be fooling yourself if you did.

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

The bigger picture goes beyond Dr Wood's work. It involves the "9/11 truth movement" and developments in the field of cold fusion and free energy.

Groups and individuals are trying to undermine and suppress the work of Dr Wood. One such individual is Steven E. Jones who was involved in early research of cold fusion. The most famous cold fusion claims were made by electrochemists Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. Steven E. Jones, a reviewer on behalf of the US Department of Energy, denounced Fleischmann and Pons work and effectively threw a spanner in the works for further cold fusion developments. That same individual is affiliated with the so called "9/11 truth movement" and actively denounces Dr Wood's theory in favor of his own misleading theory based on thermite being used to destroy the WTC buildings.

As mentioned before, a significant amount of Tritium was found at the site (but not ionising radiation) which is indicative of a cold fusion process.

This video covers the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASyX1SP2UM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

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

Recent developments in cold fusion:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

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

In regards to directed energy weapons; these have been a focus of US defense programs initiated by the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

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

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

A press release of the legal proceedings of the Dr Wood vs NIST case..

http://www.prlog.org/10260429-911-qui-tam-case-will-have-its-day-in-court.html

This article highlights the legal loopholes of the case. From what I understand, the NIST report must by law be based on truth and not include erroneous statements, however information can be omitted. NIST denied Dr. Wood's RFC, admitting they did not analyze the collapse.

The report did not actually analyze the building collapse!

One interesting note from the article; one of the defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), were one of the contractors for the NIST reports and are also a significant developer and manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components. This therefore would be one example of where there was a "conflict of interest" in producing a truthful report.

[Radiant]

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Just because new truths may be ridiculed, doesn't mean that anything that's ridiculed is therefore a new truth.

[Khris]

Pons and Fleischmann...! And free energy.

monkey424, before continuing down this rabbit hole, please read this primer about conspiracy theories, if only to understand the reactions to your claims.

[Crimson Wizard]

monkey424, I think you are making a mistake, which is quite usual for people infatuated with particular topic or theory: you keep throwing in some random data here, which is supposedly familiar to you, but have you questioned how difficult and time-consuming that would be to properly examine and investigate all those links and theories for people who are seeing this for the first time in their lives?

You can't expect someone to just trust you because you linked an article filled with scientific terms and big names in it. One would have to assign a good amount of time to study the topic, - which may require read and understand a lot of scientific material, - and be able to rationally judge whether the statements are correct or wrong (this applies to you too, BTW).

Throwing more and more questionable arguments, articles and stuff will only lead to people get wary of this talk and ignore what you say completely (and that would be a natural reaction).

To actually get a grip of people's attention (and earn some trust) you would need to take just 1 (one) thesis, discuss and prove it to the end, showing by example that the rest of the theory deserves time to spend on it.
Instead of this, you are just adding to stockpile of unproven claims. This will not end well, regardless of whether they are true or false.


PS. Unlike possible belief, posting quotes like you did with Dr. Schopenhauer, produce a reaction quite opposite to desired...

[RickJ]

Monkey, the article about the court case you linked says that it was dismissed. This means that the party bring suit failed to show that they had legal standing or failed to show the slightest chance of prevailing. 

As I pointed out in my earlier post concrete disintegrates into powser when heated to 1200F.  It weakens long before that as the different materials it is comprised of have different thermal expansion coefficients.  You can test this yourself; just take a blow torch to any random concrete sidewalk and see how much time passes before chips start flying off in all directions.  A 747 holds about 40,000 gallons of jet fuel that burns at 1800F.

In the interview Dr Wood doesn't want to talk about her own assertions.  She doesn't want to talk about the magnitude of particle beam energy rerquired to do what she says it did.  She wave her hands around and says it's not important when it's plain and obvious that it is important.  She seem to me to be an incoherent nincompoop.

[Andail]

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?
...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
...
Once you accept the 9/11 evidence and realise it is irrefutable then you'll see that there is a bigger picture.
...
I'm not interested in debate here. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of opinion.

Monkey424, these statements unfortunately undermine - and nearly disqualify - your entire line of argument. It's slightly odd that you don't recognize them as rhetorical and logical fallacies, because they are almost universally known as such.

For instance, you have the onus probandi, which is when you make a claim, and then place the burden of proof on those who question it.

The truth quote above is a perfect example of a simple logical fallacy, where you imply that since A -> B, then B -> A, as in the claim "I shower, therefore I get wet". It may be tempting to reverse this by saying "I am wet, therefore I must have taken a shower", although this isn't a logical consequence (you could, for instance, have taken a bath or peed your pants or whatever).

You also have the proof by verbosity, which is when you, instead of discussing a topic point by point, overwhelm your opponents with copious
information and complex theories that are simply too time demanding for a person to bother dealing with. This is usually why conspiracy theorists are fans of websites of the format "1001 arguments against evolution" - they hope that the sheer quantity of arguments will deter anyone from questioning them.

Like Crimson Wizard said; take one argument at a time, and when people have responded to that (like the topic of how concrete deteriorates by heat) discuss the response instead of just linking to yet another video discussing yet another theory.

[Mandle]

The WTC buildings simply could not have fallen as quickly as they did using a progressive collapse model. You can't argue with this let alone the other evidence. You'd be fooling yourself if you did.

This reminds me of the biggest "fact" I have heard over the years about 9/11 which everyone who disbelieves the official version points out as the "smoking gun":

THE TOWERS COLLAPSED AT FREE-FALL SPEED!!!

SO many people heard this "fact" even just once back in the day and it seems that it was just one of those things that sticks in peoples' minds to the point where it can be so easily disproved to them dozens of times but the initial input of the idea will always win through over time. It seems they just forget admitting the claim was wrong when confronted with the TONS of data that disprove it and the original false claim retakes the throne of truth in their minds.

I have honestly given up even opening my mouth whenever somebody brings up this claim, and in many cases it is somebody I have already "convinced" that the claim is not true, AND they were blown away at the time to find out they had been duped!!!

This is one site I found just now, and I don't remember if it was the same one I used to show to people, but it's close enough:

CLICK HERE

Here's a quote from the site that needs no further explanation for those who don't wish to read the whole thing:

Spoiler

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

[close]

(If you do read the whole page you will find all the physics data which clearly shows the collapse happened at exactly the speed expected for a building of that structure and size)

Also the pictures I show here from the site debunk the whole "dustification" of all falling debris or the so-called "snowball" quite well I'd say...You can clearly see MAJOR portions of the building's girder structure falling all the way down to what is almost street level in the latter picture. Or were these just the pennies someone had left on their windowsill?

[KodiakBehr]

I'm a former nuclear safeguards wonk and this is literally the most conversing about tritium I've ever seen on a website not devoted to arms-control.

I just finished reading the original ACS paper studying the tritium readings.  (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667#page-1)

I agree that the results fall in "strange, but not inconceivable" territory, and more importantly, all other proposed explanations for the tritium uptick would raise a host of other red-flags that I have yet to see.  Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

I really have no interest in the rest.  I just wanted to talk about tritium for a minute or two.