Dr Wood's claim that 80% of the steel from the towers was turned to dust.

One may ask, Why the lecture on what a hyperlink is? How do you know weather I clicked it on and read it or not? You have shown me some of the cards you are playing.

It’s getting easier to identify the promoters of disinformation when they are self-identifying like this.

Nothing in Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook has been refuted and cannot be. The only thing that has been refuted is the disinformation that has been promoted.

Anyone who claims that Dr. Judy Wood has said that “laser beams from space” destroyed the WTC have identified themselves as promoting disinformation and have destroyed their credibility in doing so.

Anyone who claims that Dr. Judy Wood has said that “space beams” destroyed the WTC have identified themselves as promoting disinformation and have destroyed their credibility in doing so.

Anyone who claims that Dr. Judy Wood has said that “ray beams from space” destroyed the WTC have identified themselves as promoting disinformation and have destroyed their credibility in doing so.

Anyone who implies that Dr. Judy Wood has said that (any of the above terms) destroyed the WTC have identified themselves as promoting disinformation and have destroyed their credibility in doing so.

Let's list those who have destroyed their credibility so we will know to disregard anything they say:

Steven Jones,
Jim Fetzer,
Greg Jenkins,
Adam Taylor,
Fangbeer

It's so obvious what is going on in numerous Internet forums and yet the gaslighting and gang stalking of supporters of Dr. Judy Wood continues as if unnoticed!

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.

​

 

while I do not know all the answers, I do know a cover up of the magnitude the truthers claim would never be kept quite by everyone involved, it would of leaked BEFORE it happened

now do I think some want to cover up what they DID NOT do, that they should of done, sure, that could happen

do I think some in government will make up stuff as explanations of how it happened even though they do not have a clue, sure, that could happen


.

 

Judy Wood herself must be spreading disinfo herself then.....ALL her work is not contained in herbook of fiction....She HAS promoted the idea that space based energy weapons brought down the towers,but can't say what they are,or were made up of.

 

hate to break your heart but there WERE whistleblowers and whenever some FBI people reported it,their superiours told them to back off the case and not pursue it.

 

Back it up. Point out one of these whistleblowers that the FBI told them not to pursue it. You going to pretend Sibel Edmonds? She went forward with it and exposed inefficiencies and bad policies within the FBI, but she never uncovered the US or anyone other than Al Qaeda being behind the attacks. So go ahead 9/11. Surprise everyone by finally backing up some of your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims.

 

as I said, there could be a cover up, but I do not believe it to be to the level the truthers are talking

 

I know you don't know what a hyperlink is because if you had, you would have been able to read the content I linked, which contradicts your claim that Dr Judy Wood does not claim that beam weapons from space are possible explanations for the destruction of the towers. Your argument is based solely in semantics, and is based entirely on her inability to explain or produce exactly the types of energy weapons she claims could be responsible. She talks about microwave ovens (despite the fact that metal reflects microwave). She talks about laser weapons, she talks about "STAR WARS BEAM" programs that could have been instituted by Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, Star Wars Beam Weapons are right in the title of the paper she co-wrote. If you had known what a hyperlink was, you wouldn't be so blatantly and obviously trying to deceive readers like this.

Are you talking about yourself? I'm only referencing information disseminated by Wood herself. Wood talks about Star Wars Beam weapons right in the report I linked. Was she just talking about that to fill pages for her publisher, or do you think she might think they had something to do with the events that day?

Then why is it that you can't answer the question about the pyrophoric nature of iron?

 

Before 1947 the terms transistor, microchip, laser, and cold fusion were not words either. Making an issue of "rustification" or "dustification" not being words is meant to denigrate Dr. Judy Wood and the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable EVIDENCE she has compiled that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifiing" the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Judy Wood clearly explains why she uses words like "dutification" in her textbook and anyone who has read it knows this.

​

The EVIDENCE speaks for itself and the EVIDENCE disproves kinetic energy "dustified" the World Trade center complex. End of story.

But then, gaslighting supporters of Dr. Judy Wood's research keeps you employed.

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.
​

 

It seems to me like you just took issue with the rustification and dustification to attempt to distract from the fact that you couldn't respond to the actual content and intent of the post.

No one was fooled.

And for your information "rustification" is called oxidation. You don't need to make up a new word to describe a phenomenon when that word already exists.

 

Well? What would it look like Fangbeer?

 

Have you ever seen a spark? A spark is the light energy released by the oxidation of a very tiny sample of burning iron. Have you ever felt a spark on your skin? The heat is generated by the oxidation of a tiny sample of iron. I've already posted the energy released by just 4 grams of burning iron. Multiply that by 80% of the mass of the towers and you can begin to understand that it's impossible for that amount of energy to have been released on the site without being noticed in the form of light, and or heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIe7mH9gHc8

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ps3e7VNqW1Y/TT_PQ80EZ1I/AAAAAAAAAFo/LDqsU3ZJDKQ/s1600/Steel-Mill.jpg

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/incoming/article385710.ece/ALTERNATES/g3l/107901319.jpg

 

Why must you be nonresponsive?

Why can't you simply answer this plain and direct question?

 

Impossible even with all of that dust?

 

According to the retarded claims of Wood, all that dust WAS the steel, thus that entire cloud should have reacted to the atmosphere.

 

OH! I get it now.

She didn't think the dust was crushed concrete? I don't know anything about the lady.

 

​

Do not confuse "rustification" with oxidation. Rapid "rustification" is evidence of the use of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Judy Wood explains the use of these new words in her textbook. Anyone who has read the EVIDENCE contain in her textbook knows this fact.

Have you read the following documents? The fox is guarding the hen house. The organizations given the task of "investigating" the "dustification" of the World Trade Center complex were experts in Directed Energy Weapons. There are no claims made by Dr. Judy Wood or Dr. Morgan Reynolds of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex that were “laser beams from space”, “space beams”, or “ray beams from space”. Supporters of Dr. Judy Wood also notice what distractions an agent provocateur like yourself practice. Careful listeners learn more from what people do not say rather than what they do say. As you termed it so well, "No one was fooled." It's so obvious what is going on in numerous Internet forums and yet the gaslighting and gang stalking of supporters of Dr. Judy Wood continues as if unnoticed! But it still will not make the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable EVIDENCE that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex go away.

Request for Correction March 16, 2007
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_002667.pdf

Request for Correction Supplement NIST's World Trade Center Fire Report May 1, 2007
http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_003887

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.
​

 

This is why you and your ilk have absolutely zero credibility, even among other 9/11 Deniers.

You are asked to respond to a simple, direct, question, and instead you respond with irrelevancies, hairsplitting over terms used, and completely unfounded personal attacks on the people asking you questions, accusing them of being part of this conspiracy you allege.

Now, once again, I'm looking for a direct answer to this question:

 

Do not confuse my saying you and Judy are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)e with any sort of praise.......

There's a word already for 'dustify'.......its 'disinigrate'


As for 'rustification' not being about oxidation,that's just to silly to comprehend....

 

Enlighten me. How does a directed energy weapon cause "rustification?" Do you have any examples of this process? Can it be reproduced? How does it cause "rustification" in some samples, and inhibit oxidation in others? Why can't you answer these questions? Is it because Judy's textbook does a poor job of educating readers, or is it because Judy doesn't have the answers either?

I think there's a whole lot of "begging the question" going on here. It sounds like there's a bunch of phenomenon that Dr Wood doesn't understand, so she attributes that phenomenon to an effect of a technology that she can't explain.

At its heart, it's almost as if Judy doesn't understand energy at all. It's quite clear that Wood's supporters don't understand it. I keep seeing references to microwave ovens and lasers as examples of technology that could be improved to cause 80% of the steel in the towers to turn to dust. Microwaves reflect off iron. They aren't absorbed. Lasers are visible and require massive amounts of energy. Even if some form of radiant energy could impart the energy necessary to break apart the crystal lattice of the steel, it would still be detectable if for no other reason than the energy still has to go somewhere after it does work. It doesn't just disappear.

That's why I find EG's argument that Wood never specifically claims weapons from space caused the damage so ironic. She never specifically names any technology at all in her "textbook" She obviously doesn't know what caused the phenomenon that she doesn't understand. She lists weapons from space as a possibility, along with allusions to a bunch of other technology that she doesn't understand. She calls her papers "Star Wars" and hopes no one notices that she doesn't have any clue about the technology she's talking about.

 

To quote Dennis Miller, ITT Emmanuel (and by extension Judy Wood) is getting "stomped like a narc at a biker rally".

I almost feel sorry for you E_G. Almost.

 

I'd like to point to your signature which reads:

Dr. Judy Wood is being attacked on all fronts especially by Jim Fetzer and Richard Gage.
Anybody who attacks Dr. Judy Wood's textbook is, in my opinion, a full fledged disinformation tool.
Buy WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S. , Ph.D. and empower yourself with this textbook and its evidence of how the World Trade Center was "dustified".​

It's not accurate. Leaving aside Wood's history with Fetzer which has been documented, I found this review at Amazon by Fetzer praising Judy Wood's book:

Masterful argument by elmination, May 20, 2012
By
James H. Fetzer
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (Hardcover)
Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that appropriately functions as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done in this masterpiece has classically been referred to as a "prolegomenon", or as a prelude to further research. The word "indirect" belongs in her subtitle, since "Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" is exactly right.

She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite either. And she offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using mini or micro-nukes, although there is room for dispute as to whether or not she has actually shown that they cannot have been used.

What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go--and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds--they are all going to be measured on the basis of the stupendous accumulation of photos, graphs, diagrams and studies that she has assembled. This is an exceptional work that moves us far forward in the study of 9/11.

--James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
​

Hardly the words of someone "attacking" Wood.

My question: why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is attacking Wood when that's obviously not true?

 

Alienation is a feature of most cults. I'm not saying that Judy is a cult leader, or anything like that. I think in this case, it's a personal strategy to avoid resolving a cognitive dissonance. Rather than come to terms with some of the problems with Judy's statements it's much easier to simply imagine that the folks who bring those problems to light are being deceptive, or are intentionally trying to confuse.

 

[video=youtube_share;kbjReHfgwuU]http://youtu.be/kbjReHfgwuU[/video]​

Deanna Spingola interviews Dr Judy Wood, Dr Eric Larsen and Andrew Johnson.
The Smith Mundt Act comes into play here in a way which is very interesting.

(But as it turns out, Smith-Mundt has never actually prohibited the Pentagon from distributing propaganda domestically; it only applies to the State Department.)
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/21/lift-the-ban-on-domestic-propaganda

Also discussed in this part is the multi-layered aspect of the cover-up and how those who discover Dr Wood's work are largely individual thinkers not usually comfortable with large groups...this makes a lot of sense as the leaders of such groups tend to dictate what is deemed as acceptable thinking, regardless of whether it is scientifically correct.

Dr Larsen also makes an interesting comment about Francis A. Boyle's reaction to Dr Wood's work.

"When the subject turns to 9/11, it’s clear that we live in no First Amendment rose garden. Wood sacrificed her faculty position and career because of her interest in 9/11. She has been smeared and calumniated ever since. A student of hers was murdered. And knowledgeable scientists everywhere, afraid to speak out, are lying low and keeping mum. Can they be blamed? Consider that almost the entire scientific establishment, academic and non-academic, depends on support either from government or corporate interests for its continued existence."
http://thegazette.com/2011/05/08/%E2%80%98where-did-the-towers-go%E2%80%99-the-%E2%80%98most-important-book-of-the-21st-century%E2%80%99/

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.
​

 

Speaking of distributing propaganda, are you going to answer the questions you ignored?

 

Speaking of distributing propaganda, are you going to answer the questions you ignored?