Thread split from "Excellent Judy Wood Presentation" - some anti-Judy views

[gooty64]

I watched the whole thing.

Pretty good.

So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

===

[ Mod-edit: The first 12 posts of this thread began life on a different thread - Excellent Judy Wood Presentation - Where did the towers go? (Penzance, Nov 2012) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54719-Excellent-Judy-Wood-Presentation-Where-did-the-towers-go--Penzance-Nov-2012-). The attacks (a fair choice of words, I believe) on Judy Wood were becoming too distracting on the original thread, so I split them off to this thread. - Paul. ]

[ThePythonicCow]

So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question." :)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Its true, Jones does not come off well in that last clip. I wonder why he stopped the research into fusion?
I find this as troubling as Wood working with the Bush insider.
Both things are very strange.


(Steven Jones, of 9/11 thermite fame, does not come off looking so good, in the last video of this talk, which rather amused me.)


The most amusing bit to me in the video is when the words "science by vote" came up.
I had to raise a smile as the irony of Judy putting this remark in made me laugh.
She has done zero experiments so maybe she should try "science by science" before she stars lecturing those who actually do science. :confused:
Its a shame she feels she has to spend a large amount of time attacking Jones and Harriet (what did Harriet ever do to upset her anyway) instead of actually answering their criticisms or actually doing science to proving her theories. By just attacking her critics or those who want clarification instead of answering them, she discredits herself as if her theory is sound, it should be able to stand up on its own.
She seems to take criticisms of her work as some kind of personal attack.
She should just answer her critics rather than shoot the messenger IMO.


I watched the whole thing.
Pretty good.
So what is her whole point?
I get that "truthers" are bad.
Clearly she is an agent imho.

I don't think she is disinfo. I think she is just plain wrong and a bit misguided. But her heart is in the right place. That is my honest opinion. Not a popular one I know.

[gooty64]

Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

dxSjCanohp8




So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question." :)

[ThePythonicCow]

Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

That video is not available ... sorry.

[gooty64]

Ok, I fixed it. These new youtube video codes and numbers are so long and more complicated than before:o.



Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

That video is not available ... sorry.

[modwiz]

Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.






So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question." :)

I will not question Judy Woods science. Just her motive. This is a murder mystery and she is focused on what dunnit rather than who dunnit. Once you have the criminals in custody, what done it will all come out. So focus on what rather than who is smokescreen, or disinfo. Even if the technical info is correct. She is changing the subject in a way that is not obvious.

We want to know who, not what.

[ThePythonicCow]

I will not question Judy Woods science. Just her motive. This is a murder mystery and she is focused on what dunnit rather than who dunnit. Once you have the criminals in custody, what done it will all come out. So focus on what rather than who is smokescreen, or disinfo. Even if the technical info is correct. She is changing the subject in a way that is not obvious.

We want to know who, not what.
If you want to know the "who dunnit", that's fine. Go for it.

Your preference to focus on that question in no way indicates whether Judy's motives are questionable, and she certainly is not "changing the subject in a way that is not obvious". She quite up front that she's looking at the how ... that's entirely obvious.

Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times.

To my way of thinking, she's right that solving a "murder mystery" starts with figuring out what happened. Depending on the results of that investigation (and a difficult investigation it has been in this case, with the several layers of lies and disinfo thrown up at us), different answers to the "who dunnit" become more likely.

I wonder about those who make insinuations as to her motives being questionable, based on the flimsy grounds that they are interested in some different question ... what are their motives ? :)

[gripreaper]

Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times

With all due respect Paul, it's been ten years since the event, and are we still discussing whether nano-thermite was planted in the towers and charges went off, or whether particle beam technology was used?

Nothing against Judy Wood, for I think she has done a stellar job in her extensive research, and the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth as well.

But, is it not time to quit focusing on whether there was a second shot from the grassy knoll and shine the light on the murderous psychopaths who did this? Otherwise, the discourse never changes and decades turn into centuries and the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

I am with Modwiz on this one. It's time to get the bastards who did this and roll back all the illegal draconian measures which have been foisted on us as a result of this fraud.

[ThePythonicCow]

I am with Modwiz on this one. It's time to get the bastards who did this and roll back all the illegal draconian measures which have been foisted on us as a result of this fraud.
I wasn't recommending you or modwiz not do that.

Indeed, I hope you do, and I will at times contribute in what ways I can to such efforts.

Modwiz wrote something else ... to which I disagreed.

[onawah]

Figuring out what technology was actually used is a big step on the way to uncovering who did it.
When the evidence is conclusive enough that the official story was a fabrication, then the question as to who was behind it will take center stage.
I don't understand enough about the technical aspects to see why the young man in this video is so critical of Judy Wood's work
dxSjCanohp8

But it's encouraging that questions continue to be asked and the disinfo agents have still not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up, imho...

[ThePythonicCow]

When the evidence is conclusive enough that the official story was a fabrication, then the question as to who was behind it will take center stage.
I wouldn't wait to look into the who, or the why ...

This is not an either-or situation.

Different people, with different expertise, interests, opportunities, ..., can focus on different aspects of this, at the same time.

I hope those who are interested in the "what happened" and "how it happened" have taken the opportunity to listen to this excellent presentation of Judy Wood's.

[onawah]

Agreed, Paul. It doesn't have to be a linear progression of events, and hopefully it won't be.

[ThePythonicCow]

... and the disinfo agents have still not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up, imho...

Yes it is encouraging that the disinfo agents (such as alienscientist, in my view) have not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up (thanks to the dedication of people such as Judy Wood, in my view.)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Is it possible to disagree with Judy would without being called a disinfo agent or a shill?
This is an honest question.
Im starting to think its not. I have seen on this forum and others on the net that those that don't agree with her ideas have this unfair title thrust on them. It seems to be a default position for many of her supporters. Its a shame.

People mentioned motive earlier on this thread. Here is a great little video that puts it together: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54548-Black-9-11-Money-Motive-Technology-and-Plausible-Deniability

[ThePythonicCow]

Is it possible to disagree with Judy would without being called a disinfo agent or a shill?
Yes.

Notice the manner in which the disagreement was presented above in the posts and in alienscientist's video -- name calling, innuendo, misinformation, and the other usual tricks of the disinfo business.

I occasionally call out some of these tricks when I see them, as above.

From what I can tell, the goal seems to be to mire any thread that is usefully presenting the work of Judy Wood in the muck of dissension, disinformation and conflict, so that any ordinary person who might find something useful there will be driven away.

That's why I split off this thread.

[Akasha]

I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I think its a good idea you split the thread. It keeps misunderstanding and friction to a minimum. Plus there is already the other thread were myself and others are debating her work in a calm way.

[Akasha]

I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.

:bump: :bump: :bump:

[observer]

The single point that is being missed by those objecting to Dr. Judy Woods conclusions:


If we were all to focus only on who did it, and ignore the how we could spend years sifting through the paper trails of evidence attempting to prove or disprove any particular suspect.


If, on the other hand, we focus on the how, and from that focus we conclude Dr. Wood's hypothesis to be correct, we eliminate all the possible who's down to only one single entity - the global elite with their exclusive access to this type of weaponry.


If one accepts all the other theories of aviation fuel, thermite, mini-nukes, etc. the list of perpetrators is endless.


If one accepts Dr. Wood's theory, the list of possible perpetrators is narrowed-down to one group - the hyperdimensional controlleed-global elite/international banking network complex.

[EnergyGardener]

Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times

With all due respect Paul, it's been ten years since the event, and are we still discussing whether nano-thermite was planted in the towers and charges went off, or whether particle beam technology was used?

Nothing against Judy Wood, for I think she has done a stellar job in her extensive research, and the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth as well.

But, is it not time to quit focusing on whether there was a second shot from the grassy knoll and shine the light on the murderous psychopaths who did this? Otherwise, the discourse never changes and decades turn into centuries and the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

I am with Modwiz on this one. It's time to get the bastards who did this and roll back all the illegal draconian measures which have been foisted on us as a result of this fraud.

Dr. Judy Wood's careful analysis has not been refuted by a single credible and unbiased scientist. Only her character has—in this case her motive—and completely without merit. Dr. Judy Wood does not claim the cause of anything, only presents the facts, so there is no room for criticism. But, alas the personal attacks flood in anyway. She claims these baseless attacks are a great comfort to her, further evidence she is making the status quo extremely uncomfortable.

Observing the lame patterns of doubt-creators should be recognized by anyone with any experience in forums such as PA.

Asserting that there is any consideration of elapsed time since 9/11, as with the cover-up of the JFK assassination, is too far gone to ponder it evidence. This claim of attention-span-deficit-disorder, is to suggest that any measure of time is relevant for not bringing forth the truth to the forefront of any individual's death, over 3000 human lives in the case of 9/11. How many billions is the US still spending as a result of this event. How many billions and are being further spent in the Middle East, and now on the "homeland", pretending to deal with the "terrorism." This "terrorism" that Dr. Judy Wood is helping reveal is home-grown, and certainly government sponsored. Home grown, evidenced by all the defenses that were deliberately shut down on 9/11, the refusal to bring disclose the truth, silence and even kill those that do. Home grown to start wars , stage mass shootings, murdering those at home and abroad. These continued criminal efforts at all levels of the cabal, including the federal government, media, entertainment and even by many within this forum—aid in that cover up, furthering their aims and adding to their horrific crimes.

This would seem like a logical issue to raise for any party that is part of the cover-up that hopes it just goes away already: "With all due respect, can we move on already, so we can stop discussing relevant facts and just continue the arguments with false evidence, personal slams a baseless conjecture?"

There is no statute of limitation for murder.

There is no statute of limitation for the realization for our freedom.

Despite these futile efforts to maintain ignorance, power and control, the awakening of the public is moving forward. This awakening is growing rapidly because brave and intelligent Americans like Dr. Judy Wood will not be silenced by lame personal attacks. Americans are recognizing the smell of BS and also those that carry it.

For when the last battle is won, it is important to appreciate that our patriots, and our enemies—including those disinformation agents that have worked against our freedom, whether paid or not—will not be forgotten....

[Akasha]

So am I to conclude that none of the Wood skeptics can explain the bizarrely incinerated vehicle phenomenon then?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

So am I to conclude that none of the Wood skeptics can explain the bizarrely incinerated vehicle phenomenon then?

Will give an answer as soon as I get some time to dedicate to it.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I really don't want to take part in any thread that has name calling in it but feel I have to respond to this:



Dr. Judy Wood's careful analysis has not been refuted by a single credible and unbiased scientist.


You need to define your terms with a statement like that. Name a scientist who you deem credible and unbiased.
IMO her analysis has been refuted by many credible and unbiased scientists.



Dr. Judy Wood does not claim the cause of anything,


I though she claimed DEW were responsible?



so there is no room for criticism.


Are you saying she should not be criticised or that she does not need to answer her critics or did I misinterpret your statement?
Judy herself seems to ignore all criticism and her actions make me think she cannot answer her critics. Why does she keep filing copyright claims against youtube videos the criticise her work and none against those that support her work? It does not seem honest to me. Her ideas should be able to stand up scientifically if they are valid.



Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times

For once, Paul and I actually agree. (never thought this would happen!).
The how and the who and indeed the why are not mutually exclusive.
To stop this thread becoming a confusing mess I recommend we use this other thread to talk about the who and the why: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54548-Black-9-11-Money-Motive-Technology-and-Plausible-Deniability



If, on the other hand, we focus on the how, and from that focus we conclude Dr. Wood's hypothesis to be correct, we eliminate all the possible who's down to only one single entity - the global elite with their exclusive access to this type of weaponry.


There is a logical problem with this.
Saying the "global elite" are responsible helps nobody IMO.
The global elite is a nameless collection of groups.
Even if Judy was correct, then what?
We are left with the term "global elite" and weapons that nobody can prove exist.



If one accepts all the other theories of aviation fuel, thermite, mini-nukes, etc. the list of perpetrators is endless.


You dismiss thermite and other ideas as a waste of time because there are too many leads to follow and thus too many perpetrators?!
Having so many leads to follow is a GOOD thing!
This is illustrated by Kevin Ryan in his amazing paper, Demolition Access To The World Trade Centres parts 1, 2, 3 & 4.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

These are a MUST read for any student of 9/11.

These intricately connect companies and people of interest together.
He names names and makes it plainly obvious who was responsible for various parts of 9/11.
He is also currently writing a book that names the small group of perpetrators:
http://www.another19.com/index.html/index.html

So right there, you have what we all want.
A list of names of the bastards that did this.
This information was originally discovered with detective work and research because of connections to companies that produce thermite that also had offices in the towers.

For me, I don't really see where Judy can go with her ideas or how it will help to get justice.
I have to look at the two hypophysis (Thermite / DEW) and ask myself objectively which has produced the best evidence with regards to the who and the how?
Which thesis has made the most progress or could be the most useful?
The one that names names and has photos of the perps, and has resulted in repeatable experiments with physical evidence or the one that was thrown out of court for having no evidence at all and is apparently beyond criticism?
I know which one has won me over.
Before people get angry at me, Im not trying to stir the pot but mearly trying to explain my thought process behind why I reject Judys ideas.
I hope this post does not offend anyone and hope people take it in the spirit it is meant.

But back to the evidence:


I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.

Because I think its important we keep discussion of evidence and personal opinions of Judy separate, I have tried to answer this in the other thread where the focus is on scientific discussion here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54143-Alien-Scientist-Aidan-Monaghan-debunk-Pod-theory-Judy-Wood&p=630773#post630773

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Its true, Jones does not come off well in that last clip. I wonder why he stopped the research into fusion?
I find this as troubling as Wood working with the Bush insider.
Both things are very strange.


(Steven Jones, of 9/11 thermite fame, does not come off looking so good, in the last video of this talk, which rather amused me.)


The most amusing bit to me in the video is when the words "science by vote" came up.
I had to raise a smile as the irony of Judy putting this remark in made me laugh.
She has done zero experiments so maybe she should try "science by science" before she stars lecturing those who actually do science. :confused:
Its a shame she feels she has to spend a large amount of time attacking Jones and Harriet (what did Harriet ever do to upset her anyway) instead of actually answering their criticisms or actually doing science to proving her theories.

I don't think she is disinfo. I think she is just plain wrong and a bit misguided. But her heart is in the right place. That is my honest opinion. Not a popular one I know.

So, I did a bit of reading on the whole Stephen Jones Cold fusion thing. It left me confused.

In this paper: http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=7095 “The Trouble with Steven E. Jones’ 9/11 Research.” by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, they write


“Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.”

So are Wood & Reynolds themselves debunking cold fusion or what? It seems like they are doing what they accuse Jones himself of doing.

Am I missing something? I am confused. Its been known!

Anyway, here is an extract of the reply by Stephen Jones to the Wood article and the quote above specifically:


“Their statement above is false.

I led a team at Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility which experimentally studied the original cold fusion, called muon-catalyzed fusion, and demonstrated that fusion does indeed occur very rapidly at room temperature and below. (Other physicists had demonstrated the reality of the room-temperature fusion effect before us.) Indeed, we achieved our best results at liquid hydrogen temps, around 21 Kelvin. A little quantum mechanics explains how this works – the deuterons (or deuteron + triton for higher yields) TUNNEL THROUGH THE COULOMB BARRIER. High temperatures are NOT required for fusion.

This is not controversial in the physics community, although some may forget about muon-catalyzed room-temperature fusion until one reminds them.

The same quantum mechanical tunneling occurs for d-d fusion in our metal-catalyzed fusion experiments. Our hypothesis in the late 1980’s was: “Metals catalyze nuclear fusion, and some metals will enhance fusion more than others.” I agree that our results were controversial, as is common at the forefront of science. The unequivocal confirmation of this claim, with 100% reproducibility if you will actually read the papers, came in the late 1990’s and after. The papers are published in peer-reviewed Journals and are referenced in my recent paper and in the table below http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf"

To me, it seems not only does Jones NOT debunk cold fusion, but in fact he performed an experiment, since repeated by others that shows great promise in the field.

I also found this from 1989:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html


Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.


Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.

and this:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Steven_E_Jones_-_Cold_Fusion/id/5489052


In the mid 1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists demonstrated an interesting new effect related to the potential for harnessing energy from cold fusion, now also referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. The Jones process – not to be confused with the Cold fusion research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann – did not produce excess heat, and therefore did not provide a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment.

All adds to the info pot! :)