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

It gets better. Woods claims 90% of the steel was "vaporized". Now, you know and I know you can't just "vaporize" matter without a MASSIVE release of energy. I believe Einstein said it best with Energy = Mass times the speed of light (C) squared. So why isn't the Eastern Seaboard a smoking crater? Hundreds of thousands of TONS of material had to have been converted into energy, yet not so much as a warm breeze was produced.

The more you know, the more you know Woods is a whackjob.

 

A release of energy that massive would have lead to quite the explosion.

 

Not counting the energy input required, you have the energy released from the crystalline structure of the steel, and you also have the energy released by the oxidation of the iron within the steel. If the WTC was turned to dust in the way Judy claims, the release of energy would make it look like the sun touched down on the Earth in lower Manhattan.

We clearly didn't see the release of energy, so we can conclude that large portions of the steel were not turned to dust, "dustified," or vaporized.

Quite comically, in the video I posted Dr Judy Wood compares her "dustification" technology to leaving something in the microwave too long. I think the comparison does well to show exactly how little she knows about the subject.

 

But she has a Ph.D!!!!111 Therefore she cannot be wrong.

(Attempts to mimic the blatant Appeal to Authority fallacy that appeared in OP)

 

wow , how very absolutely clever you are , WLV .

 

Either way,Judy Woods has shown a profound lack of common sense,But the troofer line of reasoning is 'But she has a PhD!!'

 

Even people with a PhD can be crazy.

"Let's not get distracted with the calculations, let's just look at the pictures". Sound very scientific to me.

 

This is my favorite part from that discussion:

I know what science is, and that ain't it.

 

​

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?​

CHAPTER 17
THE TESLA-HUTCHISON EFFECT
pages 349 to 387

A. INTRODUCTION​

Many people have criticized my research into the destruction of the WTC complex because I have not named the exact technology that was used in the destruction, including its make, model, and serial number. But it is erroneous to blindly discard evidence that does not conveniently describe a known weapon or blindly discard evidence that contradicts one's pet theory. Remember, empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic, not the other way around. The pages of this book include a very great amount of evidence-evidence that must be explained. This evidence unarguably rules out kerosene-fueled fire, conventional controlled demolition, thermite (and its variations) and mini nukes as being the cause of the WTC destruction or even making a significant contribution to it. At the same time, the evidence in this book also strongly implicates a particular class of technology. This class of technology produces effects on various materials that are similar to the effects produced on various materials by whatever exact technology was used in the WTC destruction.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUTCHISON EFFECT AND WTC REMAINS
Jellification
Bent Beams
Slow Bending of Metals
Shredded Metal Structures
Fractured Metal Structures
Peeling Appearance
Fusion of Dissimular Materials
Thinning and Rapid Aging
Lift or Disruption
Toasted-Looking Metal
Circular Holes in Material
Reduced Mass of Material
Round Holes in Glass
Lather
Fuming
Crumbling Transmutation
Weird Fires
Melting Without Heat
Metal Luminance Without Heat
EVO Strikes Abounding in Sample
Propulsion- Both Slow and Impulsive​

Nikola Tesla Patent Search​

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Nikola+Tesla&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=Nikola+Tesla&FIELD2=&d=PTXT​

 

Except the "hutchison effect" was a complete and utter hoax.

http://www.skepdic.com/hutchisonhoax.html

 

Please produce these effects, Dr Wood.

 

This oughta be good! Even John Hutchison couldn't reproduce his own claims when people were watching. Funny how truthers will hang their hat on whatever voodoo smoke and mirrors fulfills their fantasies.

 

Her site,for laughs http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html

 

I love how on the bottom of that page they show how glass broke on 9/11 vs. how glass "typically" breaks. OMG TOO FUNNY! Apparently she is so clueless she doesn't understand the difference between plate glass and laminated glass. Plate glass is just that. A sheet of glass. When hit, it can break off into large shards. Laminated glass, like what you find windshields made of, are sheets of glass with an inner layer the glass is bonded to. When laminated glass is hit, you get the spiderweb effect that idiot Judy pretends is "how glass typically breaks".

This kind of idiocy is exactly why one has to regard Woods the same way you do a nutjob from the looney bin. They make claims, but the claims are nothing but (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Thre funniest picture on that page is the one wherer she uses one of those novelty 'fake baseball through car window' as an example of how glass 'typically' breaks.

And as someone who knoed more than one baseball through a glass window, it IS possible to have a hole in the glass,while the rest is intact

It's why I say she has no common sense

 

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."

-Sir Arthur Charles Clarke ( 16 December 1917 – 19 March 2008 )​

"A mind unwilling to believe or even undesirous to be instructed, our weightiest evidence must ever fail to impress. It will insist on taking that evidence in bits and rejecting item by item. As all the facts come singly, anyone who dismisses them one by one is destroying the condition under which the conviction of a new truth could ever arise in the mind."

-Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller ( August 16, 1864 - August 9, 1937 )



SKEPDIC.COM - Dr. Robert Todd Caroll

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/skepdic.com​

As a Pseudoskeptic, Dr. Robert Carroll acts as a public relations advocate for scientific orthodoxy. He does not represent the scientific community but only serves as a gatekeeper by ridiculing the unconventional. His reliance on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and using ad-hominem smear, slander and ridicule is characteristic of the attacks against Dr. Judy Wood on this forum which only serves to create a climate of hostility toward her research. The unspoken motto of the Pseudoskeptic is, "The Mainstream Consensus Is Always Right". Has science discovered everything there is to know?


Many who loudly advertise themselves as skeptics are actually disbelievers. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics, I will follow Truzzi and call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html

THE TRUTH IS KNOWABLE

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?​

 

Your quotes do not address the problem with Hutchinson's work. The problem is not that we refuse to believe. The problem is that the results are not repeatable. Everyone you quoted would agree that science is founded on repeatable experiment. Please reproduce Hutchinson's results.

 

And an off topic question that I don't think quite warrants its own thread:

If Osama is an Emmanuel Goldstein figure why is he dead?

 

EG, why do you have to attack the people instead of addressing the very real fact Hutchison can't duplicate his supposed scientific discoveries that the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up whack job Judy Woods bases her whole bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theory on?

 

10.) Demanding an Unreasonable Degree of Reproducibility

Reproducibility means that a phenomenon can be demonstrated on demand, anywhere, at any time.

Pseudoskeptics believe that an unconventional phenomenon can safely be considered nonexistent unless it is

reproducible in this sense. But the same standard of evidence would invalidate much of accepted science.

Discoveries in archeology are by their nature unique, non reproducible. Astronomy and geology are not reproducible

in the strictest sense - astronomers cannot produce a supernova on demand, nor can geologists an earthquake. Even

physics, the "hardest" of all sciences, is less and less reproducible in practice. Cutting-edge discoveries of

high-energy physics, such as the discovery of the top quark are accepted by the physical community and then the

public largely on faith, because no one else has the facilities to replicate them. The top quark is simply one of those

discoveries whose experimental verification is beyond amateur science.

Why Does The Sun Go On Shining? Why Does The Sea Rush to Shore?

10.) Demanding an Unreasonable Degree of Reproducibility

Reproducibility means that a phenomenon can be demonstrated on demand, anywhere, at any time.

Pseudoskeptics believe that an unconventional phenomenon can safely be considered nonexistent unless it is

reproducible in this sense. But the same standard of evidence would invalidate much of accepted science.

Discoveries in archeology are by their nature unique, non reproducible. Astronomy and geology are not reproducible

in the strictest sense - astronomers cannot produce a supernova on demand, nor can geologists an earthquake. Even

physics, the "hardest" of all sciences, is less and less reproducible in practice. Cutting-edge discoveries of

high-energy physics, such as the discovery of the top quark are accepted by the physical community and then the

public largely on faith, because no one else has the facilities to replicate them. The top quark is simply one of those

discoveries whose experimental verification is beyond amateur science.

17.) Theory overrides Evidence

The Pseudoskeptic holds a firm belief that certain phenomena are a priori impossible, regardless of the

evidence. This belief is contrary to the scientific method were theory always yields to the primacy of observation.

“Empirical evidence is the truth theory must mimic.”

23.) Slurs and Ridicule

The true skeptic refrains from ad hominem attacks and name calling while the Pseudoskeptic elevates

them to an art form.

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?​

[/QUOTE]

 

We're not demanding an unreasonable degree of reproduction. We're just asking for him to be able to reproduce it JUST ONCE in front of a credible witness from the scientific community. Better yet, produce the instructions for anyone to be able to reproduce the results.

That is the beauty of science. Scientific principals are reproduceable.

So cut the whining and excuses. Time to put up or shut up.

 

Someone clearly needs to review the scientific method. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is the repetition of results and independent confirmation of conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluation_and_improvement

So I say again, please reproduce these results. If you cannot, find someone who can.

Bologna. The legitimate scientific community publishes its work for review. Methodology and procedures are described in total. Data is made public. This is done so that the rest of the scientific community can review the process and attempt to reproduce the results. No one, not even Hutchinson, has been able to reproduce these results for review.

 

Who's "We"? You and your mother? Prove he hasn't reproduced the Hutchison Effect.​

Ace Baker’s Double-Standard?​

It is worth mentioning that Dr Wood is not the only person to have suggested how the WTC complex was destroyed. People such as Dr Steven E Jones have suggested thermite or thermate (or some variant thereof) was used to destroy the WTC. Ed Ward and others have previously stated that “micro-nukes” must have been used. Ace Baker has not, however, offered $100,000 to Prof Steve E Jones for a demonstration of thermite, nor has he offered Ed Ward, or anyone else to my knowledge, any sum of money for a demonstration of micro-nuke technology. If Ace was being even handed in his assessment of 9/11 research, surely he would have made such an offer when these theories were first “put on the table”. Can we conclude there is some special reason why linking 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect is so “dangerous”?
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=60

9.) Making criticisms that apply equally to conventional and unconventional research
It should be obvious that a criticism is invalid if it applies just as well to established science as it applies to an unconventional claim (such a criticism is called uncontrolled). But Pseudoskeptics get away with using this technique anyway.

Let's assume that your demands of producing the Hutchison Effect JUST ONCE in front of a credible witness from the scientific community is met. Then what? Will you attack the credentials of the witness? If your acceptance of the credentials are met, what's next? Will you demand that it be performed in front of two credible witnesses? If that is met will you demand that it be performed in front of a room full of credible witnesses? If that demand is met will you demand that it be performed on television in front of an arena full of credible witnesses? If that demand is met will you
request it be performed on the Willis Tower filled with credible witnesses? (Formerly known as Sears Tower)

20.) Setting Arbitrary Standards of Proof and Moving the goalposts
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html

(Side Note: Ace Baker withdrew his $1000,000 offer to reproduce the Hutchison Effect on short notice by telephone. John Hutchison recorded the conversation and posted it on YouTube. Ace Baker had the conversation removed.)

 

Simple. There isn't a single scientific paper produced by Hutchison. There isn't a single person who has been able to reproduce Hutchison's claims INCLUDING Hutchison when asked to do so in front of witnesses.

Yet none of these (*)(*)(*)(*)quacks can back up their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with anything resembling evidence. The end result of thermite? Iron and Aluminum oxide; both standard elements in nature. Are there any pieces of steel showing signs of being cut with thermite? No. Does Jones offer any kind of explanation of how it can be done? No. Thermite isn't used in demolitions because of reliability, quantity and lack of speed.

How is one suppose to "demonstrate" micro-nukes? You DO realize that any kind of nuclear reaction would be traceable all over the NYC area, right? Or does that little fact warrant truthers running from it like the plague?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You truthers run like scared dogs from ANY kind of criticism. Do you address it? No. You hide behind platitudes like "the same criticism isn't applied to conventional theories", which, of course, is utter nonsense. The "conventional theory" has been examined by numerous universities and engineering groups and not one of them has been able to refute the conventional theory even though they had issues with some of the conclusions of the NIST.

You've already been presented with what it takes. Publish a paper explaining the effect and how to replicate it. It is how the entire scientific community moves forward and validates peoples' findings. Has Hutchison done so? No. He can't even get it to reproduce when others watch.

So why can't Hutchison produce this Hutchison effect on anything other than videos that can be manipulated and only witnessed by seriously deranged people? Why can't Hutchison document the process so others can replicate his work? Why hasn't he patented it? Why did he try to sell it on ebay and fail? Why was he charging 10,000 per person to try and replicate anti-gravity?

All this stuff is way old news and Hutchison gave up. Seems as whacked out looney as he is, he is STILL smarter than truthers.

 

Prove there isn't a single scientific paper produced by Hutchison or that there isn't a single person who has been able to reproduce Hutchison's claims.

WTC buildings’ destruction unlike what we’ve ever seen before
by Jeff Besant - The Gazette January 29, 2012​

Jeff Besant, of Vancouver, British Columbia, is a mechanical and electrical engineer with 20 years’ consulting experience, as well as author of several published technical articles. The Gazette is the newspaper Eastern Iowans have depended on for more than 125 years. We are Iowa’s second largest newspaper with 166,900 daily readers and 200,800 on Sunday. Our award-winning journalists serve our 16-county community with the highest level of news, sports, business, and arts and entertainment coverage, and engage our readers in a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Founded in 1883 and owned by the same families since 1884, plus our employees, The Gazette is a respected industry leader.
http://thegazette.com/2012/01/29/wtc-buildings%E2%80%99-destruction-unlike-what-we%E2%80%99ve-ever-seen-before/comment-page-1/#comment-1071760

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood not only educated me on how the World Trade Center towers were “dustified”, but it also revealed to me how people seeking the truth have been manipulated. 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. For example, one of the exclusionary vetting criteria for affiliation with AE911TRUTH is an association with or promotion of Dr. Judy Wood’s research. Truth doesn’t need a movement, only lies do.

1.) Dr. Judy Wood filed her NIST Request for Correction per Section 515 Public Law 106-554 March 16, 2007
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_002667.pdf

2.)The first record of AE911TRUTH in the Internet Archive is April 6, 2007.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070415000000*/http://AE911TRUTH.ORG

3.) In Appendix C, page 238, Section C, (Refined Searches) of Michael Armenia's book, Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation, the name "Judy Wood" is a search term used to disqualify a person's affiliation with AE911TRUTH.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/nanomanagement-michael-armenia/1105735667

​