9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood Ph.D. (MUST SEE..!)

[jackovesk]

Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11..!

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=669643709331&id=9368688ddeaf6de33565a2e225b12f68&url=http%3a%2f%2fimg194.imageshack.us%2fimg194%2f5 601%2fjudybook.jpg

I apologise if this has been posted before. I did a search Dr Judy Wood and found some radio interviews but not this Video Presentation. With only 316 You Tube views, this one seems to have flown 'Under the Radar', WHY?


Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

So if it hasn't been posted before, grab a pot of coffee and put your Thinking Cap on because this information is both Mind-boggling and Thorough in its context and Needs to be Seen!

Part 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGsuzNmfdOI

Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EX45sQhIOI&feature=related

Dr. Judy Wood has been researching 9/11 since 2001 and has already filed several law suits against NIST's contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST's fraudulent data gets reexamined? Dr. Judy Wood has received more than one threat due to the research she has done and the evidence she has gathered, and one of her students was also murdered in 2006. Surprisingly, Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

I. In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the corporations NIST had contracted to conduct the 9/11 "investigations", many of which are military / defense / weapons organizations involved in Directed Energy research (huge conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. One of her legal cases made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 2009. She has been actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Steven Jones and other members of the 9/11 Truth community. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

II. Dr. Judy Wood has collected an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind was used to powderize ('dustify') the primary steel and concrete portions of the WTC buildings, while burning and bending aluminum, yet leaving paper and many other materials unharmed. These characteristics are matched by those of "The Hutchison Effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John Hutchison has filed an affidavit in Dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between The Hutchison Effect and the 9/11 attacks.

III. Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing.

...UPDATE...

1/10-Dr Judy Wood & Andrew Johnson-Edge Media TV - 25 Feb 2010


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ (http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/)

[applepie]

Thanks for posting this.

Judy Woods was interviewed on the Veritas show some months ago and provided some interesting insights, including the fact that on 9/11 a hurricane was going on. Her claim that a direct energy weapon was used is consistent with what Ashayana Deane writes about in her book Voyagers. The Secrets of Amenti. Ashayana Deane goes into the specifics of this black ops secret weapon and calls it Trumpet Technology. Deane gives the details on pages 407 to 410. The hurricane that Woods refers to is commented on by Deane as a wormhole. It gets rather complicated and convoluted but reading Deane's account throws a totally new perspective of how to look at what happened in 2001. It is worth the read.

[majapahit]

also look at the other post
Richard Hoagland discussing Dr. Booth's data
his latest presentation in Amsterdam, 3rd april 2011

a mp3 download (no pictures)

Richard Hoagland is a very easy talker, and his coaching through the material is an easy ride

Dr. Judy Booth herself did all the work, but her presentation is a lot harder to follow

at
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17871-Hoagland-3rd-April-11-AMSTERDAM-definitive-report-on-Torsion-Field-Weapon-911

with my synopsis:
disappearing concrete / steel / aluminium
paper not burned
'cold melted' steel
Hoagland makes references to the russian scientists who pioneered the theory of torsion fields

[Calz]

The work by Judy Woods is as close to scientific "evidence" that I have found out there regarding what happened "that day".

Connect her "dots" with a few others and it is quite compelling (though out there for the "I need 100% proof that fits comfortably into my own little box" crowd).

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

[astrid]

Mel has inteviewed her on Veritas also , it was an excellent listen.
First free hour is here.......

http://www.veritasshow.com/guests/2010/09sep/VS-100910-jwood.php

[majapahit]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?
it's hidden in the front of your brain :cool:

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?
it's hidden in the front of your brain :cool:

No, but really, where is it?

Are you aware of these? All peer-reviewed.

They destroy her theories:

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf


Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/20....ry-Jenkins.pdf


Wood and others have taken part in ad hominem attacks against other in the 9/11 movement which exposed the papers she HAS written as primarily hit pieces rather than scientific papers.

In my opnion she has put years onto the 9/11 truth movement and has set a poor benchmark for 9/11 truth by filing her case.

The case she took to court was deemed "frivolous" thus making any new future 9/11 case twice as hard to get filed.

The judge said:


"Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government."

There is physical evidence for nano-thermite. Indeed, there is, within the dust, unexploded nano-themite. How can physical evidence be weaker than conjecture?

Look at this list:

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC.; S.K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWING & MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES.

All these defendants have this dismissal to point to the next time some 9/11 Truth activists come calling in a New York District Court with a legal complaint alleging that something other than airplanes took down the Towers.

J.W is nothing but a hinderence to the truth movement.

She does not follow the scientific method. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.

[majapahit]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?
it's hidden in the front of your brain :cool:
No, but really, where is it?

perhaps you are asking a serious answer
so, I'll start an answer, and perhaps that will help

contemporary academics is a scam ..
.. because Nuclear Physics (= military) is the top of the Totempole
.. they are the top of the funding pyramid
.. and they do not tolerate anything but E=MC2 in the public domain
.. and anything beyond is denied, prosecuted, starved from funding, stolen, killed
.. and/or is decreed top-secret and/or classified
.. and guess what
.. is used in black ops
.. before a stupefied and unwitting public

.. thus your question arises
.. in this land of OZ

and in this - particular, and Utterly Unwelcome - case ..



Are you aware of these? All peer-reviewed.

They destroy her theories:
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf

.. ok, let me take a look at link # one
.. first (1st! .. sic.. ) paragraph:

" .. However, multiple quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols. A review of the photographic record (flickr) shows no gas, dust, aerosols, or debris moved upwards during the collapse, and physical principles reveal that that no significant fraction of structural steel from the towers could reasonably be supported by air during or immediately after collapse .." etc.

well now ..

and in my post in this forum concerning Richard Hoagland's analysis of Dr Woo's data

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17871-Hoagland-3rd-April-11-AMSTERDAM-definitive-report-on-Torsion-Field-Weapon-911

I entered a link that goes to this picture:

http://serendipito.us/911 steel turns to dust 911_170_06.jpg
From left to right:
A huge steel beam from the south tower falters, turns to “dust” and blows away.

now, look carefully what s happening in these pictures
looks like a wooden pole, like burned in a forest fire .. poef, up in smoke doesn't it?

well,
.. that cannot be
(.. quiz: why not ..)
.. so we'd rather must assume it's a steal beam, or (part of) a steel re-enforced concrete beam, or part thereof
.. what?

this concerns the very core of the hypothesis 'a advanced weapon has been used' ..
.. through observation
.. the only academic method that can be used against Thugs and Murderers
.. that will stand up in court
.. if you want to go that route
.. I dont

et voila
"However, multiple quantitative dust and aerosol measurements show that no significant fraction of structural steel was dissociated into dust or aerosols .." etc
.. up in smoke
.. four stills from an unwelcome video

you get the picture?

same thing happened in the Official NIST 911 report ..
(and the Warren Commission Report on the JFK Assassination, manned by killers)

.. orders from upstairs are:
.. you are to be kept dumb (.. and sick, .. and without a pension, and .. etc.)

we're surrounded by evil ..
.. and the higher up the - present - money totem

.. the worse it gets

.. this helps?

(or perhaps, did I ruin your day :cool:)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

If you are going to research 9/11 at least do it correctly. Not only is your logic non-scientific, its also out of date.

Here is video from another angle. The core is ALREADY covered with dust. It then collapses and the dust falls off of it. The end. No "space lazers" required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE

I suggest you download the NIST torrent and get up to date with the available evidence.
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page
Download torrent 14 for 1000s of videos that NIST kept from the public.


Here is one showing the core very clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

As you can see, the core falls. It does not turn to dust.

J.D needs to go back to the drawing board. I know she might not like it but little things called "evidence" and "facts" are standing in her way! :p

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Also, your point about academic repression is moot. The papers show that all the evidence can be explained in other ways. You don't need some exotic weapon to account for what happened to the buildings.

[majapahit]

If you are going to research 9/11 at least do it correctly. Not only is your logic non-scientific, its also out of date.

says a person who can't read/understand what Dr. Judy Wood is writing ..

she is a ..
.. former professor of mechanical engineering
.. B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
.. M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
.. Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

.. and your credentials are?



Here is video from another angle. The core is ALREADY covered with dust. It then collapses and the dust falls off of it. The end. No "space lazers" required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE

what you see is
.. dust

.. you can NOT see 'a core'
.. what you see is a - lot of - dust, and too much of it, at that
.. it is NOT what you SHOULD see (ask Ventura, he's a demolition expert)



Here is one showing the core very clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

As you can see, the core falls. It does not turn to dust.

nope
.. what you see is a cloud of dust
.. you're not supposed to see a cloud of dust
.. you supposed to see big chunks of concrete and steel girders fall



J.D needs to go back to the drawing board. I know she might not like it but little things called "evidence" and "facts" are standing in her way! :p

really ..

perhaps your glasses are in your way ..
.. because you seem to see a core in your linked Youtube video's
.. and there's only a cloud of dust to see (and broken-off pieces at it's fringes)

BTW,
as Dr JB points out
.. what you also see in your linked YouTube video's
.. the tower(s) fall in freefall (she timed it)
.. it shouldnt fall in freefall either

.. but of course they taught you that in highschool


Also, your point about academic repression is moot. The papers show that all the evidence can be explained in other ways. You don't need some exotic weapon to account for what happened to the buildings.


EDIT2:
Reading <Eyes Wide Open>'s post somewhat carefully
I think I see where he is coming from

"There is physical evidence for nano-thermite. Indeed, there is, within the dust, unexploded nano-themite. How can physical evidence be weaker than conjecture?"

<Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
and the 'competition' of nasty Dr J Wood is a hindrance to their court case, or something

.. thus, "let nothing of Dr Wood findings be heard"

Oh, dear ..
.. where did I hear that 'logic' before
.. <Eyes Wide Open> it not your place, nor anyones, to hinder the research for truth

.. that's what history teaches us
.. wherever it leads, cowards need not apply

(did I mention I hate this 'competition' and foul mouthing within the truth "movement" ..
did I? What, I hadn't yet .. well then.. here then)

[Calz]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

[
nope
.. what you see is a cloud of dust
.. you're not supposed to see a cloud of dust
.. you supposed to see big chunks of concrete and steel girders fall


It DOES fall.
It’s amazing to me to think that Judy Wood has convinced you not to believe your eyes.
It falls straight down.
The dust from the collapse covers the core and that is what you are seeing left behind as the core falls straight down.
For the core to fall straight down, explosives must have been used in the basement.

Watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI




Perhaps your glasses are in your way ..
.. because you seem to see a core in your linked Youtube video's
.. and there's only a cloud of dust to see (and broken-off pieces at it's fringes)


I "SEEM" to see a core? Are you seriously telling me that you don’t see the core at 15 secs into this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bj_gqdi1oI

THAT IS THE CORE.
So your argument consists of telling me that what I am looking at and what hundreds of people have commented on all over the internet does not exist. Really? Is that really your argument?



I just saw your profile ..
.. you're making statements about 'scientific' and you ask for a supplier of Jim Humble MMS ?


So you went and checked my profile.
Why?
Maybe so you could dig some dirt on me in the hope that you would find something to use so you that you could fall back onto because you know Judy Wood’s science is weak and you need the distraction to hide behind.




Why is your posting style aimed at those reading rather than addressing me?



Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
And….


It’s almost as if you want to plant in reader’s minds that I am somehow “bad” or not to be trusted. The truth is, you don’t know what my views are on nano-thermite. I only pointed out that there is physical evidence of nano-thermite and that a paper had been written where as Judy Wood has nothing to prove her ideas and as I said already, they can be explained away in a more conventional manner.



Eyes Wide Open> considers himself a defender of the nano-thermite 'camp'
and the 'competition' of nasty Dr J Wood is a hindrance to their court case, or something


No, I never said Judy was “nasty”.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
I only say that she cannot prove her theories and because of that, the judge threw her out of court.
Whoever goes next in trying to present evidence will have a tougher time doing it because she presented zero evidence for her theories.
After all, the whole point of this is to get a new investigation open for the 9/11 family members.
Presenting zero evidence in a court will not achieve this.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise this.
The best option is to follow the physical evidence. Not invisible space lasers.

Plus like I already said, all her theories can be explained in other ways as I pointed out so easily with your “dust” clip.


In my previous post I suggested you download the NIST torrent to look at the hundreds of videos you obviously have never seen to get up to date with the evidence.
Your reply?



EYES WIDE OPEN, believes JFK was killed by a lonely nut :pound:


What on earth has that got to do with anything? Who said anything about JFK? Why not just respond to the point instead of creating a diversion? It’s not very adult is it? Stick to the topic. (if you can).






.. What the heck are you doing on this forum?
.. because - my guess - 99% of this forum is convinced 911 was an inside job
(.. and 1% considering themselves not properly educated, I would guess)



Where did I say that I believe the official story?
NOWHERE DID I SAY THIS!

This is the crux of your problem and thinking. You jump to bad and incorrect conclusions based on your desperation to believe that anyone who does not agree with you must be an idiot.
It’s obvious you are blinded by your unwillingness to accept any challenges because you fear you may be proved wrong and so have to say things such as
“I don’t have the time for the likes of you” rather than stick around and debate.

Either that, or you resort to changing the subject:


you're making statements about 'scientific' and you ask for a supplier of Jim Humble MMS ?.. errrrr
.. you do know JH acknowledges it's a detergent?, scientifically speaking
.. Fox news and the BBC say you Really Should Not Use It?, because their science desk says so
.. and btw, I use it


What on earth has that got to do with anything? Stop hijacking this thread. You seem desperate to change the topic to something else. What are you afraid of?
Dont get angry at me for pointing this out. They are your own words after all.

Also, it’s rather childish to get angry at me for having a different point of view from you, don’t you think?

If you can stay on topic and be civilised, we can debate and talk about what is wrong with J.W.s ideas and I will elaborate on where I stand with nano-thermite. Until then stop telling me and others what I think and stop putting words into my mouth. (also I dont have glassess)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to risk her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

[Calz]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to rick her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

I tried to be clear as I could possibly be I was only offering my own opinion.

I never suggested to know anything whatsover about you (or your belief systems).

My response was *100%* based on my own personal opinion of the "peer reviewed system".

I stated and will repeat I am not a scientist ... my opinion is based entirely on other scientists articles or interviews talking about how "the system" is regarding their profession.

Not sure how you could have read any more into than that ... but I am sorry if that is how you took it.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

This is true. The peer-system is corrupt in certain areas. But this paper was published in an open journal and the editor resigned over it becuase she could not debunk it in a scientific way. This means the science held up and so she must have left for political reasons. I.E she didnt want to rick her carrier by admitting that nano-thermite was present in the dust.
Also, to say the peer-system is corrupt and therfore the nano-thermite paper must be corrupted and dishonest without actually reading the paper is unfair and biased. Nothing is black and white. Those that reviewed the paper had everything to lose by putting their names to it. And yet, they still stand by it.
Also, for the record, science is not my god as some seem to be suggesting. No offence, but you know nothing about me so please dont project onto me or pressume you have me and my belief systems down. Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

I tried to be clear as I could possibly be I was only offering my own opinion.

I never suggested to know anything whatsover about you (or your belief systems).

My response was *100%* based on my own personal opinion of the "peer reviewed system".

I stated and will repeat I am not a scientist ... my opinion is based entirely on other scientists articles or interviews talking about how "the system" is regarding their profession.

Not sure how you could have read any more into than that ... but I am sorry if that is how you took it.

Hey no problem. If we all agreed, the world would be a dull place! :) I think I was just a bit touchy from replying to the other posters points. No disrespect was meant towards you. Or indeed anyone. :)

*admin-edit* - removed no longer relevant quote.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

For the record and so no more conclusion are jumped to, here is where I stand. I think the core was blown up with nanothermite and cutter charges were on key floors. After initiation, the collapse itself was gravity driven. I might strat a seperate thread as we can try and keep this one about Judy wood.

[modwiz]

Thank you Jackovesk for this thread. That it is still needed is sad.

I sometimes feel there are those who know a poo pie when they smell it on one end and the terminally asleep and disinfo agents at the other.

The first group already know they are being lied to and the latter two either don't/can't care or are abetting the the perps; wittingly or otherwise.

To state that those who spread false information are, in fact, doing so maliciously is beyond my purview or desire. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[majapahit]

For the record and so no more conclusion are jumped to, here is where I stand. I think the core was blown up with nanothermite and cutter charges were on key floors. After initiation, the collapse itself was gravity driven. I might strat a seperate thread as we can try and keep this one about Judy wood.
The nano thermite theory is well known
It contains valid arguments also, residu of what would be a thermite explosion has been found, I know the case well

There's a problem though, ..
.. that it holds a 'advanced' version of nano thermite responsible, that has unknown super characteristics, above and beyond to the thermite that is known and available to the US Army

.. thus, this constitutes the same problem as Dr JW's arguments, that an 'unknown' quality is introduced before the court, and can be dismissed

.. which is exactly the reason why Black Ops does what they do
.. they thrive on 'plausible deniability'
.. and they can make anything (&not) stick, with - presumed - any present judge
.. forget about the court system, but for propaganda purposes
.. just off there heads

.. Dr JW analysis does not rule out use of any thermite

.. she found 'missing mass' after the incident, and that rules in a whole new approach of what - might - have happened
.. she made a very valid and solid statement, backed by her scientific background

.. bashing her for not backing the thermite camp and their theory in court (and this party, who'se names escape me now here, do this with anyone not totally agreeing with them, I have observed)

.. is a deplorable fools game

[ThePythonicCow]

Once again we are seeing how difficult it is to discuss the events of 9/11 without the level of discourse collapsing to the personal.

We are not going to elevate our awareness to level needed to get past TPTB this way.

[Ilie Pandia]

Hello,

I have to support Paul on this issue. Please keep this discussion a debate: present your different points of view politely and do not attack the posters. If you support this or that theory it is not a statement of your level of intelligence or understanding. Let's agree to disagree.

:focus:

[Icecold]

Problems with peer review

mark.henderson@thetimes.co.uk
Several recent high profile cases have raised questions about the effectiveness of peer review in ensuring the quality of published research. Mark Henderson investigates

Mention peer review to any researcher and the chances are that he or she will soon start to grumble. Although the system by which research papers and grant applications are vetted is often described as science’s “gold standard,” it has always garnered mixed reviews from academics at its sharp end.

Most researchers have a story about a beautiful study that has been unreasonably rejected. An editor might have turned it down summarily without review. A referee might have demanded a futile and time consuming extra analysis. Or a rival might have sat on a manuscript for months, consigning it to limbo under the cloak of anonymity.

Barely less common are mordant criticisms of high profile papers published by high impact journals. How could Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai’s 1990s research on genetically modified food have been passed by the Lancet? 1 How could studies that describe mere technical advances be deemed worthy of Cell or Nature? And how could Science have failed to rumble the fraudulent cloning work of Hwang Woo-suk? 2

A bubbling undercurrent of resentment and jealousy, of course, afflicts every fiercely competitive professional field. But in recent weeks, three incidents have brought concern about peer review to a head.

.............................

Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.

A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.




Peer review has many problems and as a result has lost most of its credibility as a process of filtering truth...its largely Bullshiit.

EWO will likely be scurrying for another document which in the end will be another attempt at icing the unpalatable truth. In my view, and I am a skeptic, there is enough evidence of a kind that would suggest something very wrong with the official view of 9/11. Its not rocket science.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Problems with peer review

EWO will likely be scurrying for another document which in the end will be another attempt at icing the unpalatable truth. In my view, and I am a skeptic, there is enough evidence of a kind that would suggest something very wrong with the official view of 9/11. Its not rocket science.

Once again, people seem too ready to jump to concusions about me. Not once have I suggested I suport the offical story. People need to stop making jumps in logic and painting me as some kind of disinfo artist or worse.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



For the record and so no more conclusion are jumped to, here is where I stand. I think the core was blown up with nanothermite and cutter charges were on key floors. After initiation, the collapse itself was gravity driven. I might strat a seperate thread as we can try and keep this one about Judy wood.
The nano thermite theory is well known
It contains valid arguments also, residu of what would be a thermite explosion has been found, I know the case well

There's a problem though, ..
.. that it holds a 'advanced' version of nano thermite responsible, that has unknown super characteristics, above and beyond to the thermite that is known and available to the US Army

.. thus, this constitutes the same problem as Dr JW's arguments, that an 'unknown' quality is introduced before the court, and can be dismissed

.. which is exactly the reason why Black Ops does what they do
.. they thrive on 'plausible deniability'
.. and they can make anything (&not) stick, with - presumed - any present judge
.. forget about the court system, but for propaganda purposes
.. just off there heads

.. Dr JW analysis does not rule out use of any thermite

.. she found 'missing mass' after the incident, and that rules in a whole new approach of what - might - have happened
.. she made a very valid and solid statement, backed by her scientific background

.. bashing her for not backing the thermite camp and their theory in court (and this party, who'se names escape me now here, do this with anyone not totally agreeing with them, I have observed)

.. is a deplorable fools game

Judy Wood went to court with no evidence. How did she expect the court to react? It was an incredibly stupid thing to do and very damaging to anyone else that tries to bring another case in the future. Cant you see that?

Your point regarding an advanced form nano-thermite being a problem holds no problem for me. There is still un-exploded nano-thermite from the dust available for testing. The red/grey nanothermite chips when viewed in an electron microsope are uniform at the NANO scale. This mean they can only have been produced in a lab. That right there is your evidence of advanced thermite. It is not an "unkwon quantity" as you say. Its real and you can hold it your hands. This is not so easily dismmsed in court. The nanothermite is the hard proof that judy wood cannot offer.

I feel that A&E9/11 9/11 blogger are wrong on many points however. The best model I have seen is that of OOS collapse meaning Open Office Space flooring which was kicked off wih explosives (but not all the way down.)

[iceni tribe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7PC95XGEk&feature=player_embedded#at=141


Greg Jenkins' Debut in his New Roll


Steve Jones recruited this "interview" for submission to his website he calls a "peer-reviewed scientific journal." A segment of this "interview" is shown to the right.

Apparently this "interview" passed the "peer-review" process for it's exceptional "scientific analysis." From Greg's conclusion, the WTC towers are still there because it would require at least five times the entire world's energy to destroy them.

Steve Jones relies on this stellar piece of "research" to prove that only "nanothermite" from outer space could have destroyed the towers.

If it required over five times the earth's total energy to destroy the towers, then sufficient energy couldn't have come from the earth. That is, all of the thermite on the entire earth would still be insufficient. Therefore, according to Greg and Steve, if the towers aren't still there, what destroyed them had to have come from outer space.

So, Steve's "new and improved, super-duper nanothermite" must have come from outer space.

There you have it, proved in his "peer-reviewed" "journal."

source
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/criticscorner.html

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I suggest viewing the original unedited interview for those intersted in a fair perspective.

I dont care what in-fights are going on in 9/11 truth. I am pointing out how stupid and detrimental to the truth movemnt it was of Judy to take this court with nothing but her words.

As people seem down on peer-review, I would like to see Judy produce at least 1 scientific experiment to back herself up. That would be nice. It would give her at least some credibility in my eyes. Is it too much to ask? Or is practical science tainted by "the man" as well? :)

My argument is not all just about peer-review guys. I am not an eggs in one basket kinda person.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

How many of you know what ROOSD is? Go to google to look it up. Its a new theory based on OBSERVARTION. Not nanothermite and not lasers from space.

[majapahit]

(*admin-edit* - removed unnecessary comment)


I dont care what in-fights are going on in 9/11 truth.
yes you do/did ..
.. because ..

I am pointing out how stupid and detrimental to the truth movemnt it was of Judy to take this court with nothing but her words.
.. you canot call Dr JW stuped, because 'others' have a court case
.. this only reflects on you

.. one might discuss the wiseness of any decision that puts the issue of 911 before a present US court

think about it
.. a coup-d'etat kills 3000+ people and sickens 10000+ helpers afterwards
.. with the hard core of black ops in army and government assisting
.. and is the starting point, a call to arms, for the Industrial Military (and Banking) complex, to activate an Agenda of worldwide full-spectrum dominance

.. & they are even hard to identify (in a legal sense) and you think these people can be brought before a proper judge ? in present USA ? that is under martial law ? and people dont even know that ? ..

.. a very long time ago I have concluded that is a feeble thing to contemplate
.. Dr JW just couldnt help herself, I imagine, she is an engineer & a nerd with a very big heart basically, not a lawyer or a public organizer, and kudo's to her

N.B.
thus ..
.. you job is to take back power, so she can put her case before a proper court
.. your job is not to critique Dr JW (nor the likes of her), who has done way beyond her call of duty

.. off their haeds
:painkiller:

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

(*admin-edit* - removed unnecessary comment)


I dont care what in-fights are going on in 9/11 truth.
yes you do/did ..
.. because ..

I am pointing out how stupid and detrimental to the truth movemnt it was of Judy to take this court with nothing but her words.


No. Once again you are telling me what I think.
I am the best judge of that.
Not you.

I would be saying the same thing about ANYONE who went to court with zero evidence and expected to get results.
If YOU went to court and did it, I would still say its stupid.
If I did it, I would expect others to say it of me and they would be correct.
I am sure her heart was in the right place but it was a very naive thing to do.
Put yourself in the judges position.
What else could he do but throw it out?
She presented only hearsay and nothing more.

However, your points about corruption are valid and I suspect that is why Jones and his gang have not brought a case as they know it would not gt very far.
The best way to tackle this is raise awareness with things like the Building 7 TV add so a critical mass can be reached and governments will buckle under public pressure.

Its a shame Jones has a big ego that stops him debating the weaker points of his ideas.
But like I said, I dont want to get bogged down in that area.

Lets keep this about science.

So ROOSD? Any comments on this?

[firstlook]

@ ewo


these characteristics are matched by those of "the hutchison effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John hutchison has filed an affidavit in dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between the hutchison effect and the 9/11 attacks.

:)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

@ ewo


these characteristics are matched by those of "the hutchison effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John hutchison has filed an affidavit in dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between the hutchison effect and the 9/11 attacks.

:)

Hutchison seems to be the only one who can produce the effects, but not even he can replicate them—at least not in the presence of unbiased observers. His evidence consists mainly of his word and his videos.

Judy is basing her unprovable theory on another unprovable theory. That is not science. :)

[firstlook]

@ ewo


these characteristics are matched by those of "the hutchison effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John hutchison has filed an affidavit in dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between the hutchison effect and the 9/11 attacks.

:)

Hutchison seems to be the only one who can produce the effects, but not even he can replicate them—at least not in the presence of unbiased observers. His evidence consists mainly of his word and his videos.

Judy is basing her unprovable theory on another unprovable theory. That is not science. :)

You dont have to subscribe, but the theory isn't unprovable, it just is not applicable in mainstream science yet.

But I wonder what your theory is on UFO propulsion?

I only ask because you seem to assume that there is no such thing as the vacuum field/ torsion physics.

Of course your going to have a bias opinion on Dr. Judy Wood.

Just saying. But your argument that this science isn't real, doesn't serve yourself. Look into things and do a bit of research.

If you so choose.

Peace :)

[majapahit]

@ ewo


these characteristics are matched by those of "the hutchison effect", and are the result of "field effects" and energy interference. John hutchison has filed an affidavit in dr. Wood's court case, to legally testify to the numerous similarities between the hutchison effect and the 9/11 attacks.

:)

Hutchison seems to be the only one who can produce the effects, but not even he can replicate them—at least not in the presence of unbiased observers.

when you Demonstrate an effect, i.c. a before Unknown effect ..

you do Not have to 'prove' this effect ..
.. it is 'there' before the observer
.. it is the empirical side of science
.. in the best of Anglo Saxon School of Empirical Science


His evidence consists mainly of his word and his videos.


His Video's prove ..
.. there is a certain effect
.. and so many times
.. it cannot be denied

.. he does Not have to provide a concise theory for the Demonstration
.. as per the Anglo Saxon School of Empirical Science


Judy is basing her unprovable theory on another unprovable theory. That is not science. :)

.. this is called scientific speculation
.. following of Observed Empirical Phenomena

& formulating scientific speculation, build on present knowledge, inducing a theorem, that explains the phenomenon, and has not necessarily be True ..

.. the validity of such a theorem must then be proven
.. by empirical experiment

as per the Anglo Saxon School of Empirical Science
.. as per the ontological development (or perhaps philological, depending from where you look at it) per the findings and publication of a certain mr. Newton

..

(P.S. a certain mr. Bill R. PM'ed me personally that I should not have my bad humor unloaded on - what I find - silly posters (he did tell me, he thinks me rather smart, and should set an example), so, that's why this post is ending so boringly :cool:)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

This all brings us back to the main question. Why are we all looking for answers regarding how the towers collapsed? The reason is of course to bring justice for those that died and those that survive them.
Which line of investigation has the best chance of re-opening 9/11?
We already know its not Judy woods way as she has no hard evidence and has been thrown out of court already so what is the point in pursuing this approach when we all know it will NEVER bring justice?
After all, this is what the core issue is all about.
Despite what you might think, of course you have prove yourself in a court. Saying you don't have to is ridiculous. The jury and judge would want proof of the Hutchinson effect and there is no repeatable experiments that would ever convince a jury.
Stephen Jones HAS provided hard evidence but has not brought a case.

Regarding the topic of UFO which has NOTHING to do with this thread, I do believe that anti gravity craft exist (i am an abductee and perhaps contactee but cant bring myself to talk about it) and are used by black operation. indeed, see my thread about Edgar Fuche who worked on these projects.
However, even I recognize that a judge and jury would never believe him without hard proof. Weather it is real or not is moot. It will not help with a new investigation.

why do you post everything
..like this..
.. its hard to make sense
.. of what you post

Just curious.

[Ilie Pandia]

We already know its not Judy woods way as she has no hard evidence and has been thrown out of court already so what is the point in pursuing this approach when we all know it will NEVER bring justice?

Eyes Wide Open this is really not the case here.

Everyone is free to pursue their own approach and theories regardless of how you feel about their chance of success.

This arguing has been extended long enough.

Everybody now knows how you think about this, let the other members study their own theories and look for their own evidence.

If you wish, I suggest you start a totally different thread where you can debate the theory that you support, and let's keep this thread for supporters of Dr Judy Wood.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Fair enough, I have no problem with that. Indeed, I suggested it myself a few posts back. :)

I will make a new thread and only speak about Judy Wood and address the problems with her evidence in this thread. (Hutchinson, non-exotic reasons for her theories and so on)
:)

Peace to all.

[majapahit]

read this 7 months old link on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...18&topic=15458

and the comments below the post by a mr Michael Rose

it reports on the 'handling & managing' of the
nano thermite 'faction' of Dr. Steven Jones
towards the 'competing' research and views of Dr Judy Wood

"I recently messaged Richard Gage and AE911Truth to ask him to contact Dr. Judy Wood, and as a result, I have been removed from the Petition Signers list on AE911Truth.org ..'

" .. Major Doug Rokke from the U.S. Army contacted me .. He does not want to meet with me in public, but insists that I come meet him at his private dwelling just outside of Urbana-Champaign."

unauthorized biography of Rokke, his inflated credentials here:
http://www.archive.org/details/rokkemadisonaug5part1

".. he claims to have treated combat casualties in Vietnam. That is categorically false"

" .. That is just part of the persona that Rokke has effected since he has learned that it pays well to be flown around the world and wined and dined as the former Director of the Army DU Program (a title he never actually held) beginning about in 1999. .."

comment Michael Rose:
"It was Prof Jones who INTENTIONALLY distracted attention away from Cold Fusion in 1989."

".. whatever Jones says may or may not be credible, but we MUST assume that his motives for ANYTHING he does or says in connection with 9-11 is HIGHLY suspect."

"Richard Gage is a fellow architect .. why his organization AE911Truth dutifully ignores any email from me if I so much as breathe the verboten words "Dr Judy Wood"

.. I merely report
.. smells bad enough though, what do you say Dr Watson
:tsk:

[majapahit]

on a serious note
.. there is a lot of infighting in the 'truth movement', and that I find, is way beyond irresponsible

sombody here, is obviously carrying water for the 911 'nano thermite' faction ..
.. I heard an interview betwen them (Steven Jones, as I can remember) and Dr Beagle ..

it was quite horrendous (civilized cloak and dagger as it were, from the Nano Thermite group)

Mr. Steven Jones makes proper points
.. that does not give him dominion on the issue
.. neither, and specifically, will his view win his day in court, is my clever estimation
.. so, what is that about

yes
.. I think nano thermite was used

but is doesnt explain everything
.. and Dr JW's blog makes a very good case of additional problem solving
.. and is shared with Richard Hoagland (apart, from the 'I am sure' part, but that's Hoagland for ye)

and 'supporters' Bashing DR JW tremendous efforts
.. and admittedly she is not the best of public speakers, but he, we cannot all be Hoaglands

.. should be under scrutiny

[firstlook]

This all brings us back to the main question. Why are we all looking for answers regarding how the towers collapsed? The reason is of course to bring justice for those that died and those that survive them.
Which line of investigation has the best chance of re-opening 9/11?
We already know its not Judy woods way as she has no hard evidence and has been thrown out of court already so what is the point in pursuing this approach when we all know it will NEVER bring justice?
After all, this is what the core issue is all about.
Despite what you might think, of course you have prove yourself in a court. Saying you don't have to is ridiculous. The jury and judge would want proof of the Hutchinson effect and there is no repeatable experiments that would ever convince a jury.
Stephen Jones HAS provided hard evidence but has not brought a case.

Regarding the topic of UFO which has NOTHING to do with this thread, I do believe that anti gravity craft exist (i am an abductee and perhaps contactee but cant bring myself to talk about it) and are used by black operation. indeed, see my thread about Edgar Fuche who worked on these projects.
However, even I recognize that a judge and jury would never believe him without hard proof. Weather it is real or not is moot. It will not help with a new investigation.

why do you post everything
..like this..
.. its hard to make sense
.. of what you post

Just curious.

Your question about "the best line of investigation" is IMO what is wrong with our Court system and Moral compass today. Too much we are told that results must come before truth. That it doesn't matter if there is supporting evidence, because its what you can "prove". This is all said in the name of truth. Its actually a way to ignore the countless lies we are lead to believe. It covers up the truth while picking the parts that help package it in a comfortable manner that doesn't address too many issues of contradiction.

The reason I brought the UFO topic up is because this topic can PROVE what you are trying to say has no validity.

I type like this because it helps focus on what I'm thinking about. Thoughts race through my head alot.

Also, I think the issue we are divided on is that somehow "justice" will be brought in a court of law. Now this is a noble and somewhat naive belief. I wish everyone who makes any attempts to make this a reality the best of luck. I do not put down anyone who has an opinion and plan of approach on the matter. But you seem to think your standing on a high ground. While effective is indeed the measure of truth, when you start perverting evidence, which we are in disagreement, you cannot simply demand that the truth is not good enough because it doesn't fit your accepted plan of approach on justice.

All in all, your basing your support for investigation on the guidelines of what can be proved ion a court of law. I and many others want evidence that can be proved by individuals who have the critical thinking and understanding of ALL the different pieces. Not just what is Mainstream accepted.

Look at this forum. You cant be that surprised that many of us a coming from a more complex angle that isn't just about what is accepted. Were gonna challenge the norm every step of the way.

Thats what progress demands of each of us.

Peace :)

[Bo Atkinson]

First thanks everyone for discussing various POVs. Perhaps this subject needs millions of websites to cover so many aspects of the world's greatest crime scene.

I would like to see high resolution pictures of steel, which provide visuals for the arguments around Falling vs Dust-ifying steel.

Has any site posted high resolution sequences of steel-columns-falling? Or perhaps multiple, distinctive, non-sequence pictures corresponding to key moments of the videos? I certainly have appreciated the lower resolution sequences. Dr Judy Wood's book prints a famous sequence, but the resolution is possibly limited by the video camera and print conversion issues. Yet thanks to the videos, we do get a sequence versions. At some points in the sequences, steel-structures do seem solid. Subsequently, it is indeed difficult to see solidity. This much might appear agreeable on all sides.

Some Related Curiosity:
- about the lean-angles of falling steel-- should the angle match the movement of dust and air currents? will 'triangulating' video versions help model this?
-would an initial free fall speed match the timing of the video frames? (if plain-falling is claimed).
-does replicating falling steel with dusty surfaces match the look of these videos? how much can such 'looks' vary?
-what triggers the steel to suddenly begin emitting dust along it's surface? what sort of vibration might be evident in video sound track? can such be replicated in models?
- are all small scale models accepted by academic science as 100% equivalent to large scale phenomena? would nano-dust behave the same as ordinary dust?

[majapahit]

- scale models
- replicating falling

research on this would be 10k? - 100k? - a million+ USD?
and needs an accredited lab with certified researchers?

- who would fund that
- which Head of Faculty would approve of such research
- and if something bad has happened at 911, who would be calling this Head of Faculty, to dissuade such ..

in the Netherlands, our premier Tech University (our best, & I went there) ..
.. 'volunteered' research to calculate fall of the towers (materials), and flightpath of planes (aero)

all has been wonderfully calculated in mathematical computer models by professorial staff ..

.. an I am desperately ashamed, I ever went there

a dutch newschannel interviewed a dutch demolition expert on building 7 ..
.. "that's a controlled demolition for sure"

then he was informed this happened on 911
the next day it was reported: 'I never said that, and I never will' ..

and that is Holland for ye, zero points
:panda:

[Meesh]

Really? Where is her peer-reviewed paper?

Not a scientist so all I can do is offer my own HUMBLE opinion.

As such my OBSERVATION over the years has led to my HUMBLE opinion that the "peer-reviewed" system means little or nothing more than coming up with the answers that the power structure wants the scientific community to come up with.

Those whose jobs and research depends on grants (directly or otherwise) most times find themselves looking for a new career if they come up with "truths" that don't match the "expected truths" of the "system".

The more such "independent truth" threatens the power structure ... be it military industrial, big pharma or whatever ... obviously the more that would be applicable.

As always ... completely IMHO.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. The power structure determines (1) what is studies (2) how it is studied and (3) the conclusions that may be drawn from the study. A published journal article on the effects of sexual abuse was essentially disavowed by the APA in the late 90's after a congressional hearing determined that the results would encourage pedophilia. It certainly opened my eyes--and this is my field!
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/child_sex_abuse.htm

[Calz]

For anyone interested in hearing more from Judy Wood it appears she is going to be on Coast to Coast on this coming Tuesday night.

Which is interesting in and of itself because she had been scheduled before in the past and pulled before airtime.

Anyway ... to appreciate her work you need to have the visual "evidence" she presents:


9-11 & Energy Weapons

Date: 05-03-11

Host: George Noory

Guests: Judy D. Wood

Former professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, Dr. Judy Wood will discuss how the destruction of buildings in NYC on 9-11 was the result of directed energy technology, not planes, fire, thermite or bombs.

Website(s):

• drjudywood.com

Book(s):

• Where Did the Towers Go?