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

Started by monkey424, Fri 10/04/2015 10:25:40

Previous topic - Next topic

Radiant

Quote from: Misj' on Sun 03/05/2015 11:51:11
Thank you for the completely inappropriate MuthBusters remark. I have never mentioned MythBusters, nor do I consider them doing (good or otherwise) science. I know they were mentioned, but not by me. I also know that you said this as a joke but at the same time - I feel - to belittle my (valid!) comments.

While Mythbusters has some issues, it at least follows the basic tenets of science (you know, exactly in the way that Mrs. Wood doesn't). So I actually find it hilarious that a disciple of Wood would look down upon Mythbusters. Basically, Miesja, in attempting to belittle your valid comments, he is actually complimenting them without realizing it :D



RickJ

Just to followup what Misj said about the radar.  There can be many explanations as to why the radar data is different.  Antenna location, calibration, age and purpose of the radar sets, among other possibilities.   Is there anybody here that seriously expects that the military would reveal to the public just how accurate and percise their capabilities are?  My guess nis that either the data is from an older radar set, or one intended for long range observations, or that the data was modified to obviscate capabilities. 

In any case, both radars tracked solid and massive objects along similar paths which ended when the "supposed" plane struck the building. Being scientific and all if the object or objects didn't strike the building then one would have to an alternative explaination of how their mass and momentum  were dissipated.  Oh yeah, I forgot about the energy beam weapon.  Guess that just proves the existence of the weapon. ???


Mandle

Also...seeing as nobody else has brought this up yet I'm wondering if it's just me so:

Is it just me or does Dr. Woods appear to be either quite drunk and/or stoned when she speaks in all the videos, or is that just the way she speaks/acts all the time? Or is she quite drunk/stoned all the time?

Or is it just me...?


NickyNyce

It appears to me like she's on an acid trip that never ended. Very strange behavior for someone that has the background that she has. Again, her two favorite words are snowball and poof. She never wants to talk about science or anything that might discredit her book. She uses the dust cloud, which hides the collapse, to make things up.

I seriously believe she has mental issues. The video's speak for themselves.

Darth Mandarb

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 04/05/2015 12:38:00I seriously believe she has mental issues.

She doesn't have mental issues. 

She just knows how to milk a tragedy and make some money off it.

It really is, for some people, simply impossible to accept that nine-eleven was done in the name of [peaceful] religious beliefs. 

They NEED an explanation that is larger than that. 

Dr. Wood is capitalizing on that. 

Successfully.

Snarky

I don't think it's wise to speak so categorically about the motives or mental state of someone else. The truth is, we don't know – and cannot really know – why she says what she does, or how much of it she really believes. AFAIK, you're not a mental health professional, Darth, and in any case it would be bordering on malpractice to make a diagnosis just based on web sites and YouTube videos.

But whether she's crazy, misguided or a charlatan is pretty much irrelevant to the question (of course, if she was institutionalized with full-blown psychosis, or caught admitting that the whole thing is a fraud, that would undermine her credibility). We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Darth Mandarb

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03I don't think it's wise to speak so categorically about the motives or mental state of someone else.

I was offering my opinion.  Just like everybody else in this thread.  Nothing wise or unwise about it.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03The truth is, we don't know – and cannot really know – why she says what she does, or how much of it she really believes. AFAIK, you're not a mental health professional, Darth, and in any case it would be bordering on malpractice to make a diagnosis just based on web sites and YouTube videos

That is common sense, of course.  As I have proven in past threads, you cannot really know another person's motives or thoughts.  You can state your opinion, as I did, though.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Her argument would have to have merit in the first place.

All-in-all I'm enjoying this thread!  It's great entertainment.  It serves to prove a theory of mine (and I'm sure it's not just mine) that internet debates/arguments are completely pointless.

From my angle of reading this thread Dr. Wood's silly theory has been systematically dismantled and shown to be completely ludicrous.  Yet Monkey is still convinced Dr. Wood is right!  He (Monkey) has continued to post the "evidence" to lend strength to his and Dr. Wood's belief on the matter and nobody, who has been opposed to the theory, has had a change of heart.

Circle jerk. 

Entertaining though.

I posted the Ancient Aliens guy... all that's needed now is somebody to involve Hitler and this thread will be complete.

Radiant

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 15:38:58
From my angle of reading this thread Dr. Wood's silly theory has been systematically dismantled and shown to be completely ludicrous.

Don't you see? Because some scientific truths were laughed at when they were first proposed, that means that anything that's laughed at must therefore be a scientific truth! For reals! :grin:

Mandle

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03
We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Yup...Let's get back to the science...

I want to retract my comments on her being possibly drunk or stoned (although either would explain a lot)...

Let's look honestly at the possibility of holographic projectors making fake airplanes crash into the middle of Manhatten viewed from multiple angles on both the live TV news and later discovered self-recorded video from thousands of witnesses...

Now we have to also believe that the hologram image was also accompanied by the entire speaker ensemble of Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Disaster Area to supply the massive explosive noises recorded on every single version of the plane impacts no matter where it was being recorded from...

WHY IS IT NOT SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT AMERICA GOT PWNED VIA A GAP IN THEIR SECURITY CHECKS THAT FANATICAL INDIVIDUALS SLIPPED THROUGH???

So yeah...To answer Dr. Woods' question of "WHAT" happened on 9/11:

This is exactly "WHAT" happened:

A bunch of people that hated America enough to die for their cause trained in the desert slitting the throats of camels with boxcutters for practice until they were confident enough to use them on flight attendants and then entered the U.S.A. on student visas to train as pilots...

And then...

They trained at their schools and even drank alcohol and experienced the "Infidel" lifestyle with American girlfriends to "pretend" to fit in and STILL were pre-programmed enough to board the planes, show off their fake bombs made out of playdough, slit the throats of some flight-attendants for crowd-control, gain access to the cabin of the plane, kill the pilots, take control of the planes, target the planes on the World Trade Center towers as they had trained to do so in Microsoft Flight Simulator in their spare time on their PCs...and BOOM!!!

This is honestly what happened...

The flight trainers at their schools even said after the fact that they felt it was weird the way the students trained on the simulators for level in-flight practice and were not interested in training for landing the planes...

All that happened was that America got pwned by a low-tech cult that hated them and thought up a clever way to slip under their radar long enough to do something that would hurt them bigtime...

Osama Bin Laden even said that he had not actually expected the Towers to collapse but was very pleased that they had...


Scavenger

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 13:03:43
It really is, for some people, simply impossible to accept that nine-eleven was done in the name of [peaceful] religious beliefs. 

Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

NickyNyce

#150
Why on earth would the government use a weapon on the towers that would turn them to dust for all the world to see? It makes no sense at all. Fake planes, energy weapons, cover ups, for what? Why not have 20 planes hitting the towers? Why only two? Why do they need energy weapons when they could have detonated 30 bombs in each tower? None of it makes any sense. If they wanted the towers destroyed, they didn't need to have fake planes, planted bombs and energy weapons to do it. There would be far easier ways. Common sense goes a long way.

Why would they have one plane crash in Pennsylvania? Or fake the crash because it was a hologram? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.


Darth Mandarb

Quote from: Scavenger on Mon 04/05/2015 19:06:10Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

Just a little jab at religion.

I didn't want to derail the thread and turn it into another pointless religious debate so I wanted to [try to] keep it subtle.

Mandle

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 22:05:17
Quote from: Scavenger on Mon 04/05/2015 19:06:10Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

Just a little jab at religion.

I didn't want to derail the thread and turn it into another pointless religious debate so I wanted to [try to] keep it subtle.

Al Qaeda and indeed ISIS are not religions. They are cults which use a religion as an excuse to wield power over others and wage war against anyone trying to take that power from their hands.

monkey424

I believe Snarky's post regarding John Hutchison is the most important to respond to in this round. But first I'll address some other points starting with the recent can of worms I opened with the planes.

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

THE PLANES

Impact

"None of us have an innate, gut sense about what happens when planes fly into buildings." - Ali.

I don't accept this. We must use our knowledge, experience and imagination. Let's pretend  it's pre-9/11, back in the 1990s and we've not seen a plane hit a building before. What would you expect would have happened? The plane might penetrate the building, and given the right material it might even make a plane shaped hole. But we should all be familiar with Newton's Third Law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This means the building is applying the same force to the plane at the moment they come in contact; it is equivalent to the building hurtling towards a stationary plane. You would expect to see a reaction from both the building and the plane the moment they come in contact.

In the 9/11 context, we know Newton's Third Law applied because the building did eventually stop the plane. But if you watch the impact video carefully (and in slow motion) you'll notice that the plane shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The plane just glides smoothly into the building until fully embedded or obscured from sight. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.

WTC structural design

According to the Wikipedia entry, the WTC towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.

Radar data

In regards to the 3D analysis in that last video I posted; thanks Misj' for mentioning the radar data in more detail. I personally don't know why the two data sets are inconsistent; the main thing I got out of the analysis was that claims of video fakery can be dismissed. So it was either a real plane or a real illusion, and I hate to admit it but the impossible physics as I mentioned above force me to acknowledge the latter as the more sensible option. If I was to speculate, maybe there was a real object that hit the building (as detected by radar) but made to appear like a plane.

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

TAKING THE PISS

NickyNice

I've seen the Greg Jenkins video before and have already pointed out it is an ambush interview to attempt to undermine Dr Wood. Did you not read this article about that particular video? Please read and comment.

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

The other video you posted is just some guy judging a book by its cover. For a more detailed set of reviews, look for the book on Amazon and read the reviews there.

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

JOHN HUTCHISON

I cannot comment on the credibility of John Hutchison. I understand he is not a "typical" scientist (i.e. no formal education, tends not to write things down, etc). I believe he is more of an enthusiast trying to replicate Tesla's work, and may have succeeded. The photographic evidence of his experiments are either real or fake. He is a fool if he deliberately used fakery in attempt to prove he can replicate the effects. So, did he really admit to fakery? I don't know. I can't find any record of the man himself saying that. I also heard that the video with the toy UFO was taken out of context. Nevertheless it is indeed problematic that he allegedly cannot replicate the results on demand.

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

EVIDENCE

Now, in my opinion Judy Wood didn't need to mention John Hutchison or the inferred energy weapon. She could have just presented the evidence. I think this is the most important thing to focus on.

List of things I believe are true:

1. Buildings were destroyed and resulted in an unrealistic amount of debris, which was immediately questioned by people.

2. Most of the buildings turned to dust. You can actually see falling pieces of debris had large amounts of dust trailing off them. After the the bulk of the building had peeled away, 200 m tall steel core columns were left standing, appearing rigid with crisp edges against a blue sky, then became fuzzy and apparently turned to dust in mid air. There was no evidence that the columns tipped over because that would have taken out the neighboring blocks.

3. The seismic signal doesn't make sense assuming a normal collapse like the Seattle Kingdome. Likewise, the survival of the bathtub, basements and underground train line also don't make sense in this regard, however these facts do make sense given the above two statements.

4. Anomalous effects including:
- materials disintegrating / breaking down (and continuing to break down);
- excellerated rusting (e.g. steel columns of Bankers Trust building once stripped down prior to rebuilding);
- steel beams twisted into unexplainable shapes;
- apparent spontaneous combustion / weird fires targeting certain materials;
- pools of molten metal but no evidence of heat (i.e. no reports of burnt feet; oxygen fuel hoses laid near to the molten pools, potentially dangerous if extreme heat is present);
- curved holes in windows unlike normal holes caused by a projectile;
- toasted cars displaying some of the above phenomena (some not even near the site, like at FDR Drive where a firefighter witnessed apparent spontaneous combustion)

5. First hand witnesses describing similar experiences:
- dust felt cool, not hot
- unusually quiet collapse (e.g. "If a building was hitting the ground hard, why don't I remember the sound of it?" - EMT Michael Ober, p10)
- odd sensation like being swept into a tornado or weather event, being picked up and transported 30-40 feet

List of things I can't accept:

1. A couple of planes can cause all of the above.
2. Planted explosives or thermite in the buildings can cause all of the above.
3. All of the scrap steel had been immediately shipped off to China within two days.

List of things perhaps unrelated to the events but nevertheless true:

1. Hurricane Erin. Check the Wikipedia entry for it's movements (i.e. closest to NY and most intense on 9/11). It received virtually no media attention.

2. Earth's magnetic field exhibited a pattern of fluctuations coinciding with specific events on 9/11, including when the planes hit.

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

MYTHBUSTERS & GOOD SCIENCE

I referenced MythBusters as a joke of course, but I have nothing against the show. I believe it is an example of good science, i.e. actually testing to see if something is true. Judy Wood's evidence (e.g. small debris pile, little impact, toasted cars, etc) is just that - evidence. No science or theory required at this stage - just observations. This is what happened.

Now try and replicate it.

What would MythBusters do? First test the myth that fire did it. So, they'd construct a small scale model of one of the buildings, subject it to fire and see what happens. When it doesn't fail they'd step it up a notch and apply more heat and let it burn for twice as long. When it still doesn't fail they'd blow it up! But the point is they will ultimately say "Myth busted!"

Well, believe it or not, this is the exact experiment NIST carried out. But when their model didn't fail they instead said "Myth plausible". They didn't even consider the explosives theory! That is bad science.
    

Crimson Wizard

#154
Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
In the 9/11 context, we know Newton's Third Law applied because the building did eventually stop the plane. But if you watch the impact video carefully (and in slow motion) you'll notice that the plane shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The plane just glides smoothly into the building until fully embedded or obscured from sight. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.

The behavior that you describe is possible if the head parts of the moving object get destroyed much enough to not provide any obstacle for the rest of the structure, which continues to move by inertia it had.

Here is an example of head part of moving object not being destroyed:
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2186272/crash-test-dummy-o.gif
As you may see, the head of the car is hard enough to maintain integrity after impact, and thus provide impenetratable obstacle to the rest of its structure, making it decelerate and finally stop before even touching the wall.

And here is an example of moving object being destroyed on contact with an obstacle:
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Bullet+hitting+concrete+wall+fucking+awesome_b07d26_3742988.gif
As you may see, the bullet shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The bullet just glides smoothly into the concrete until fully... err... splattered. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.
The difference between the bullet case and 9/11 case is obviously the fact that destroyed parts of the bullet do not go inside the wall.

So, the question is, what happened when the plane hits a non-uniform construction, which contains both very hard parts ( steel columns ) and relatively softer parts.
I would not pretend I am expert on planes hitting buildings, so, unfortunately, I cannot give the "correct" answer here; however, I can use the amount of knowledge, experience and imagination I possess, and suggest, that plane destruction could look like shown on this computed model:
http://i.imgur.com/nVSAQYF.gif

By the way, speaking of plane "gliding into building".
If you look closely on this plane hitting WTC:
http://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-content/uploads/911-plane-anim.gif
you could notice its engines (probably having harder structure, and less hard connection to the rest of the plane) fall off on impact.

UPD: I was not sure if I should mention this first, but you can't expect to observe "correct" deceleration on objects hitting obstacle on such a high speed anyway without properly set recording mode (which the news crews and occasional witnesses did not have).

Khris

I'm not going to address the countless typical conspiracy theory red flags or the anomaly hunting that's exhibited over and over again. Instead I'm just mentioning something that was discussed on the most recent episode of one of my favorite podcasts, the SGU.

It was about the Dunning Kruger effect, and Steven Novella basically said that people who are experts in a certain field will often notice other people or the media getting it wrong, often spectacularly so. However, precisely because they have reached expert level in a certain field, they also tend to overestimate their competence when it comes to other fields. What they fail to realize is that they suck just as bad at "other field X" as the guy they found cringe-worthy a minute ago sucks at theirs.
He also mentioned how he would look back at the time he got out of med school (out!) and basically knew nothing, despite having studied for years, compared to his current knowledge.

There's also the famous Asimov quote:
Quote“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
This is why I will follow NIST's assessment over that of random internet people's again and again and again, no matter how "weird" it might appear to me.

Mandle

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
TAKING THE PISS

NickyNice

I've seen the Greg Jenkins video before and have already pointed out it is an ambush interview to attempt to undermine Dr Wood. Did you not read this article about that particular video? Please read and comment.

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

The other video you posted is just some guy judging a book by its cover. For a more detailed set of reviews, look for the book on Amazon and read the reviews there.

I read the link you provided here and all I really have to say is:

The guy that wrote it links all his photographic evidence to photobucket.com...

Really?! Is he presenting an actual serious paper here or releasing an AGS game?

And this line is also great:

"Further comments about the interview can be found here. From this selection, I found this comment to be one of the most pertinent."

Just try clicking on the "here" link, or to save you the trouble I will just say what happens: Server not found error!

(Yeah... I reproduced the quote and link here but I took the actual URL from the original site link)

So...we have here a guy linking his photographic evidence to a Photobucket account and a further link to a site that no longer exists but the URL contains his name...

This is obviously some keyboard jockey typing a blog out of his parents' basement but couldn't keep up the payments on his site's domain and lost interest anyway so it disappeared...

Real reliable material all around anyways!

Also he talks over and over again about this being an "ambush" interview... Well all I can say about that is that if Dr. Woods actually knows what she is talking about then no interview..."ambush" or not...should be able to discredit her in the way that this one has...

As for the "judging a book by its cover"...Nope, this guy has read the book. He even opens it and shows you all the parts he has read that he has good points about conerning the falsehood of what is claimed in those parts...

He even reads the part where Dr. Woods started cracking up laughing while watching the footage of the plane striking the side of the building while watching the event as it unfolded live on TV:

This woman actually wrote that she was laughing while watching the planes hit the buildings on 9/11...

And she even shows a photoshopped image on that page of what a Warners Bros. cartoon cutout of a plane hitting the building would look like for additional comical material...

Sorry Monkey. I'm also loving this thread and having fun in it talking about these conspiracy theories...

But Dr. Woods is a despicable human being...

KodiakBehr

What's the name of the effect where the public overestimates the capacity of their government's ability to keep secrets from them?

Under the list of things you can't accept, you might want to consider adding:

"4.  A massive conspiracy to commit the greatest fraud in human history*, implicating hundreds, if not thousands of weapons scientists, engineers, public officials and others, all with their own personal agendas and loyalties, has been uncovered by an exceedingly small group of individuals who are alive and continue to speak freely, sharing their discovery with the masses without impediment."

Why is social engineering exempt from analysis?

* I am also willing to accept the premise that the country of North Korea itself may be arguably the greatest fraud in human history, in this case perpetuated against it's own people, but that is way, way, way off-topic.

Darth Mandarb

Quote from: Mandle on Tue 05/05/2015 02:54:29Al Qaeda and indeed ISIS are not religions. They are cults which use a religion as an excuse to wield power over others and wage war against anyone trying to take that power from their hands.

Did I say that al Qaeda and ISIS were religions?  I don't think I said (or implied) that in any way.  They do, however, carry out their barbaric agenda in the name of religion.  To me there's no difference.  Also, from how you phrased that, you make it sound like the leaders of these groups are pretending to be religious?  And then using that to make 12 year old kids strap bombs to their bodies?  Not trying to be confrontational, really, just genuinely curious what you meant.

I don't want to derail this thread any further though ... if you have any desire to discuss it further feel free to PM me!

Now... back to the entertainment!!

Mandle

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 05/05/2015 14:52:32
Also, from how you phrased that, you make it sound like the leaders of these groups are pretending to be religious?  And then using that to make 12 year old kids strap bombs to their bodies?  Not trying to be confrontational, really, just genuinely curious what you meant!

I meant that they are using the facade of religion to create a weapon of mass followers so that they can wield power in a power vacuum.

I'm sure that anyone intelligent enough to be able to build such an infrastucture of fanatical followers is not completely ignorant of that fact that they are running a business and that they are the CEO...

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk