Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

There isn't one. There. I've proven it. All you have to do to disprove my claim is to produce a real scientific paper released by John Hutchison or anyone else about the Hutchison effect. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I double dog dare ya. Now run along and come up with another excuse why nobody can reproduce Hutchison's claims including Hutchison.

 

Why assume? Just reproduce the results. Hell, I'll even settle for a procedure to reproduce the results. If this guy has discovered free energy in his garage why the heck is he keeping its production a secret? Why hasn't he sold it for bazzilions of dollars? Why hasn't his method been reproduced all over the world to eliminate poverty, end wars, and advance human civilization further then its ever been advanced?

It's because he's either (A.) Lying, or (B.) the biggest dick on the planet.

 

Is this credible enough for you or are you going to raise the bar like a good Pseudoskeptic would do? If you would like to purchase bulk orders of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. send an email to: book@wheredidthetowersgo.com

"I know John Huchtison, who Dr Judy Wood based some of her research on. I have held his test specimens in my hand. I don't know of one single engineer who could draw a free body diagram (to) show how metal bars failed in his lab. As a thought experiment, try to tell me how you jam a wooden pencil through a steel bar. Dr Judy Wood's book will change the world. It is easy to see from her photographic evidence that nothing about that day matches our limited understanding of the laws of physics. This means something extraordinary to the planet. It means that a technology exists and is being used at this time in a very destructive way, which is different from anything we have seen before. Imagine, if we used this knowledge in a constructive way."
-Jeff R. Besant, M.B.A., P.Eng.

Jeff R. Besant, M.B.A., P.Eng., of Vancouver, British Columbia, is a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience, as well as author of several published technical articles.

Besant and Associates Engineers Ltd.
http://www.besanteng.ca/​

 

All you do is post the same (*)(*)(*)(*) time and time again. No. Judy Woods' book ISN'T credible. It is quack science at best. Total horse (*)(*)(*)(*) at worst.

So why is it you can't produce a single hutchison effect experiment that can be reproduced? Science can be reproduced. Quack science cannot except under specific circumstances like no witnesses. Hutchison gave up on his quackery. When will Judy do the same?

 

DITTO​

The Modus Operandi of Pseudoskeptics

1.) If it was true, there is no way that science could have missed it!
2.) Confusing Assumptions with Findings
3.) "Debate Closed" Mentality
4.) Overreaching and Armchair Quarterbacking
5.) Assuming False Scientific Authority
6.) Double Standards of Acceptable Proof and Ad-Hoc Hypotheses
7.) Responding to Claims that were not made aka Demolishing Straw Men
8.) Technically Correct Pseudo-Refutation
9.) Making criticisms that apply equally to conventional and unconventional research
10.) Demanding an Unreasonable Degree of Reproducibility
11.) Profit Motive
12.) Statistics can prove Anything!
13.) Fraud cannot be ruled out!
14.) In Medicine: It's Unsafe!
15.) Accusations of Selective Reporting (the "File Drawer Effect")
16.) Trying to End the Race when Their Side is Ahead
17.) Theory overrides Evidence
18.) Misapplying Occam's Razor
19.) Dislike of the consequences
20.) Setting Arbitrary Standards of Proof and Moving the goalposts
21.) Debunkery by association
22.) Dismissing claims because of their philosophical pedigree
23.) Slurs and Ridicule
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html

THE TRUTH IS KNOWABLE​

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?​

 

They fell down into a pile of rubble. The real question is, how delusional/paranoid does a person have to be to think otherwise?

 

So quit your whining and crying and produce the documentation for the hutchison effect so real scientists can reproduce it or produce where Hutchison wrote a peer reviewed scientific paper. We're waiting!

 

Make up your mind truther! first you say the collapse looked like a contriolled demolition, and now it was like 'nothing we've seen before'

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk"]DUSTIFICATION IN SLOW MOTION - YouTube[/ame]​

Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair, yet small pieces of aluminum cladding (wheatchex) from the building's exterior are not.

I'm not a "Truther" and neither is Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.

Anytime you hear the words “9/11 Truth” or “9/11 Was An Inside Job” it is a continuation of the ongoing cover-up of what really happened on 9/11. Truth doesn’t need a movement, only lies do.

I've never said "the collapse looked like a controlled demolition". It wasn't a collapse. The World Trade Center towers were "dustified" from the top down. Make all the personal attacks you want, it doesn't make the evidence go away. Ridicule is a common and overly used Pseudoskeptic technique.

This past Hanukkah I gifted a copy of the textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D., to a research scientist I have known for sixteen years. He is a Professor at a leading university and was born in a German concentration camp during WWII.

On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining ‘why and how World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 collapsed,’ the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood’s disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.

She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Judy Wood’s investigation is the ONLY comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.

<<<Mod Edit: Oversized text reduced>>>

 

Large pieces of steel could not have turned to dust. Steel is pyrophoric. When the pure iron contained within the crystalline structure of the steel is freed, it ignites at room temperature. We call this phenominon a spark. We did not see any evidence of sparks in any photographic, video, or physical evidence.

It must not have happened.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Off Topic Removed>>>

Judy Wood awoke from her coma with some serious mental problems. She is to be pitied and cared for.

Those who try to make a profit off of her, however ... not so much.​

 

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Your objections mimic the Pseudoskeptic&#8217;s &#8220;Debate Closed&#8221; Mentality technique.

Since Pseudoskeptics have by their nature made up their minds on any question long before the evidence is in, they are not interested in participating in what could become an involved, drawn-out debate. On the contrary, their concern is with preserving their own understanding of how nature works, so discordant evidence has to be disposed of as quickly as possible. When sound evidence to that end is unavailable, anything that sufficiently resembles it will suffice. Pseudoskeptics like to jump to conclusions quickly &#8211; when the conclusion is their own, preconceived one. Once the pseudoskeptical community has agreed on an &#8220;explanation&#8221; that is thought to debunk claim X, that explanation then becomes enshrined in pseudoskeptical lore and is repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam in the pseudoskeptical literature. Subsequent rebuttals are ignored, as is new data that support claims X.

​

Extreme ruin, say engineers, architects, ironworkers, and FDNY. NYPD Deputy Inspector and lead investigator on-site (working with FBI) at Fresh Kills Landfill, James Luongo, when asked if there were one particular artifact of interest, replied: "I think the lack of artifacts stands out to me quite a bit. I think the fact that I haven't seen a door, I haven't seen a phone, I haven't seen a computer. I haven't seen a doorknob. I think that stands out."
- Relics from the Rubble (History Channel, 2002)

"When you look at where the towers used to stand, there is surprisingly so little rubble. Where did all the rubble go?"
- ABC News anchor Peter Jennings to on-scene reporter George Stephanopoulos 9/12/2001 at 12:44 p.m.

Don't be confused with words used in the videos below like fire, vaporized, molten, smoke, burning, and high heat because none of that existed. Remember, like fireflies, everything that glows is not hot. It would be unfair to be critical of the people who experienced the aftermath and used these words when there are no accurate words to describe the effects of "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnXTrw88P4"]9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero Part 1 [/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ"]9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero Part 2 [/ame]​

<<<Mod Edit: Oversized Text Reformatted>>>

 

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>
If Dr Wood wants to use Hutchinson's work to support the theories Dr Wood forms from her supposed evidence, then we must have access to Hutchinson's work so that we can determine the merits of her claims. As it stands right now, without the work, her claims are unfalsifiable, and that's not good science at all. Without his work she might as well claim that unicorns turned the towers to dust.

 

So if you don't believe the empirical evidence presented in a textbook that you have never read, then what "dustified" the World Trade Center Towers leaving only ONE crumpled file cabinet with unburnt paper inside? Has science ended and there is nothing more to discover?

 

Why do truthers expect to see intact file cabinets,telephones and toilet fixtures after literally either falling a thousand feet or being smashed unrecognizable by tons of debris?

 

,

Anything else you would like to assume about me?

Dust you see in the air is from pulverized concrete, fire retardant, smoke from fires, and other typical office contents. You do not see significant quantities of steel dust because steel is pyrophoric. If steel were turned to dust it would ignite in the air and release massive amounts of light and heat. The fact that Judy doesn't realize this would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

A picture on the internet with some text on it is hardly empirical evidence that the remains of only one file cabinet were present in the rubble. Sadly that is the caliber of most of Dr. Wood's "empirical" evidence. Fortunately for mankind, most scientists do a better job of documenting their data then Photoshopping some unsubstantiated claims on a few .JPG images.

Science requires the ability to reproduce results, and falsifiability. If Judy wants to do some science, you should ask her to show some actual quantitative and qualitative data. If she thinks steel was "dustified" she needs to provide a mechanism by which this could possibly take place.

 

1.) I'm not a "Truther"
2.) What empirical evidence do you have to support your theory of "dustification"?

 

You are absolutely a truther. You believe the official story is a lie and you think you know the truth, yet you can't respond to the major lies in your theory. OK, so it's Woods' theory and she can't respond to the lies either.

There was no "dustification". What you and Woods claim is "dustification" is the dust you find in ANY collapse from concrete and gypsum board, both of which turn to dust when put under pressure. You try to pretend you know the chemical composition of the dust when we all know you can't and don't.

1.5 million tons of steel and debris was removed from ground zero. If the towers were turned to dust, you would have a LOT less than that.

 

I don't HAVE one......'dustification' isn't even a real word

and you ARE a truther.....

 

1.) I am not a "Truther". Don't put words in my mouth. If you label me a "Truther" what are you? An "Untruther"? Do Supernovae exist? We believe they exist from photographic images. Why the double standard when it is applied to to the research of Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.?

2.) Would you agree that 9/11 was a crime scene? Photographic evidence is one of the most effective means of piercing the mask of doubt when preparing a legal court case. A photograph continues to "testify" from the moment it is put into evidence until the verdict is rendered. Photographic evidence is good enough for a court of law but is below your standards of proof?

3.) Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. is presenting evidence not theory.

4.) Conventional collapse from kinetic energy does not create microscopic particles smaller than a blood cell.

5.) I never mentioned the chemical composition of the dust at any time.

6.) How do you know the tonnage removed? Did you weigh it yourself?

 

What is your theory for all of the below?

1. The presence of Hurricane Erin on that day went almost totally unreported. Hurricane Erin was omitted on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean where she stood was covered by the map.
2. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
3. During destruction, there appeared alongside the buildings curious corkscrewtrails, called in this book Sillystrings.
4. Nano-sized particulate dust in volume enough to achieve sun-light-blocking density constituted the remains of the greatest part of the destroyed buildings’ material substance.
5. During the destruction, there was an absence of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures.
6. Evidence that the WTC dust continued to break down and become finer and finer long after 9/11 itself came through the observable presence of non-settling dust at the feet of pedestrians.
7. First responders on 9/11 testified as to toasted cars, spontaneous “fires” (including the flaming heavy coat of a running medic, who survived), the instant disappearance of people, a plane turning into a fireball in mid-air, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
8. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
9. Hazy clouds appeared in the vicinity of material undergoing destruction.
10. Magnetometer readings from six stations in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field as each of the major destructive events unfolded at the WTC on 9/11.
11. Many cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex were flipped upside down. They couldn’t have been flipped by hurricane-force winds, since they stood adjacent to trees with full foliage, not stripped by high wind.
12. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
13. Most of the destroyed towers underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
14. Near-instant rusting of affected steel provided evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation.
15. Of the estimated 3,000 toilets in WTC1 and WTC2, not one survived, nor was any recognizable portion of one whatsoever found.
16. Only one piece of office equipment in the entire WTC complex, a filing cabinet with folder dividers, survived.
17. Only the north wing of WTC4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body, which virtually disappeared.
18. Rail lines, tunnels and most of the rail cars at levels under the WTC complex had only light damage, if any.
19. Cylindrical holes were cut into the vertical faces of buildings 4, 5 and 6, Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6. In addition, a cylindrical arc was cut into the facade of Bankers Trust.
20. Scott-Paks—portable air-tanks for firemen—frequently exploded for no visible reason. Entire fire trucks themselves that were parked near the WTC exploded.
21. Sheets of plain office paper were omnipresent throughout lower Manhattan after each tower’s destruction. This paper, however, remained unburned, even though it was often immediately adjacent to flaming cars or to steel beams glowing red, yellow, and even white.
22. Some steel beams and pieces of glass at and near GZ had a Swiss-Cheese appearance.
23. Steel columns from the towers were curled around vertical axes like rolled up carpets instead of the horizontal overload axis.
24. The “collapse” of the towers took place with remarkably little damage to neighboring buildings. The only seriously damaged or entirely destroyed buildings, in fact, were those with the WTC prefix, only those, that is, that were a part of the WTC complex.
25. The destruction of WTC7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The seismic signal during its disappearance was not significantly greater than background noise.
26. The facades of WFC1 and WFC2 showed no apparent structural damage from the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2, yet the decorative marble facade around the entry to the buildings was completely missing, entirely gone.
27. In the dirt pile, the Fuming was unusual for its quality of immediately decreasing when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat, where an initial steam-up is the response to watering.
28. The majority of the towers (WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC7) did not remain as rigid bodies as they “fell.”
29. The method of destruction in the case of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings, whereas terrorists would have been expected to maximize damage, including that of infrastructure.
30. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
31. The seismic impact was minimal during the destruction of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 and far too small to correspond with a conventional “collapse” as based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
32. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not from the bottom up.
33. The Twin Towers were destroyed in a shorter time than can be explained by physics as a “collapse” even at free-fall speed.
34. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
35. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
36. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Brothers’ Road Runner and friends.
37. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
38. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building, and much of it consisted of mud.
39. Truckloads of dirt were hauled both into and out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
40. What this book calls lather, thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings’ mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for several hours before its destruction.
41. What this book calls weird fire appeared frequently on 9/11. This “fire” flamed but gave no evidence of providing heat, not even enough to burn nearby sheets of paper.
42. Glass windows on nearby buildings received circular and other odd-shaped holes without the entire panes breaking.
43. Changes and alterations in materials on 9/11 were similar or even identical in a great many ways to the changes and alterations in materials caused by The Hutchison Effect. The Hutchison Effect is known to result in material-altering phenomena of the kinds we have listed here.

 

You are a truther from what you've claimed. You can whine about it all you want, but the fact of the matter is you fit the description of a truther to a "T". You believe the government and not (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up Muslim terrorists carried out 9/11 even though you have no evidence that your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is true. That is a truther. Oh sure, you point to Judy's book and say "This is evidence", but it isn't. It is quack science at best and fraudulent deception at worst.

Photographs are great. It is when stupid idiots try and pretend photographs show something they don't or that they know what caused what appears in the photo that you run into issues.

No, she is presenting a very retarded OPINION of what she THINKS happened, but can neither explain nor demonstrate how it happened. Learn the difference because someone who doesn't know the difference only makes a fool out of themselves.

And your evidence of this is what..... your massive ego? Conventional collapses are almost ALWAYS accompanied by fine dust clouds and many things, gypsum included, produce fine dust where particle size can be smaller that 5 micrometers. Try again.

Sure you did. You said it was steel that had been through "dustification". If you're going to lie about something, make sure you lie about something that is at least been a few pages back.

Here is an example from you. "Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair, yet small pieces of aluminum cladding (wheatchex) from the building's exterior are not."

Nope. I did something called research. All that debris had to go somewhere and it's never free. Thus you can find out what the total tonnage was. You should try research some time outside of Wood's big pack of lies. 108,342 truckloads of debris were removed from ground zero and 3.1 million man hours were spent in cleanup. Why is it nobody said "Gee. Where is all the steel and what is all this dust"?

 

False.

Scientists do not rely on photographic images to confirm the existence of Supernovas. Supernovas radiate energy and particles that can be detected. These particles and energy can be measured, and they can be used to predict future behavior. This is how science works.

Photographs are not self evident. A photograph requires explanation and supporting data to establish relevance. A photograph of some shredded metal is not evidence that only 1 file cabinet survived the collapse, for example. The problem isn't that your photographs aren't good enough. The problem is that your interpretation of the photographs is lousy, and your supporting data is non existent. What is the provenance of the file cabinet picture? Who took it? When did they take it? How did they conclude that it was the only file cabinet that survived?

What do you mean she's not presenting a theory? The title of her book is a theory. She doesn't just present evidence. She presents specific evidence, and omits specific evidence. The purpose of this exercise is purported to be (RIGHT IN THE TITLE OF THE BOOK) to provide evidence of: Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11. The entire book is an argument that directed energy weapons are the cause of the collapse.

This is her theory. If you didn't know that, maybe you didn't read the book?

Yes, we are aware. In fact it's a major point. Someone who claimed to be a scientist providing evidence for the "dustification" of an entire building would be remiss to exclude such data from their "evidence" Instead Judy chooses to rely on photographs, incredulity, and speculation.

Are you suggesting that the contractors employed to remove debris were also "in on it?"

 

I've responded to many of these already, and the reward for my efforts was total silence on your part. I'll start with the first 5. If you respond I'll do more.

This is a lie. Hurricane Erin was reported that day. I posted news footage from the 9/11 video archive that proves this fact. The hurricane was not tremendous cause for concern because it was more than 400 miles off the East coast with no prediction showing it coming even close to landfall. In fact, the skies were clear in all of Long Island and the wind that day was very low. The hurricane was given a few moments time in the local and national weather news, and did not warrant further coverage. No news outlet was going to run a story about a hurricane that was not going to impact its viewers, or anyone the viewers cared about. What were they going to do, run a story about people not filling sandbags, not taping windows, or leaving their lawn furniture on their lawns?

This type of "evidence" of the days events is just another "rear view mirror" attempt to ascribe relevance to something that had nothing to do with the event. My wife got a ticket that day too. Does that fit in some how?

Car fires in the presence of massive building fires is not strange. It's expected. Dr Judy Wood provided no evidence that these fires were in any way atypical. She did not attempt to reproduce this effect. She did not attempt to study this effect. She simply looked at some photos and declared them strange.

Again, Dr Wood did not attempt to reproduce these effects. She did not attempt to study these effects. She looked at some photographs and declared them strange.

Dr Judy Wood did not measure particle size in the photographs she presented. She did not analyze the chemical composition of the particles in the photographs. She did not measure the mass of the particles in the photographs. Her claim that they constituted the greatest part of the building's mass is unfounded in any scientific basis. She simply looked at some photographs and declared this to be so. This is not called science. This is called guessing.

Dr. Judy Wood did not measure the heat of destruction. She did not calculate the expected amount of heat of destruction. She did not attempt to reproduce the heat of destruction. She did not attempt to locate the heat of destruction. This is not science. This is just nonsense glurge intended to confuse people who don't know any better.

 

1.) So then you admit you're Unthuthers!

2.) I never said I believe the government did it. I believe people did it.

3.) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

4.) Many Internet bullies share some common characteristics. They like to dominate others and are generally focused on themselves. They often have poor social skills and poor social judgment. Sometimes they have no feelings of empathy or caring toward other people.