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

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

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.

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/...d01_002667.pdf

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

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.

Originally Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein

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/...d01_002667.pdf

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

Originally Posted by Fangbeer

If 80% of the steel from the towers was finely divided into tiny particles of dust capable of floating away, why did we not witness the rapid oxidation of these particles?

Originally Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein

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/...d01_002667.pdf

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

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.

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....

Originally Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein

Rapid "rustification" is evidence of the use of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex.

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.

Originally Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I approve this message.

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?

Hardly the words of someone "attacking" Wood.

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.

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/2012/06/2...tic-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...tury%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?