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

Why all the Internet forum gang stalking and gaslighting directed at supporters of Dr. Judy Wood's overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex if she is wrong?

No one has disputed her research and nobody can because the evidence speaks for itself.

What is Gaslighting?
http://geeldon.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/what-is-gaslighting/

Delusional America and 9/11

How can I be so sure that Al Qaeda didn’t pull off 9/11? Well, that’s a truth that’s been obvious, known, and clear for a decade, although at the same time it has also been commandeered, lied about, misrepresented, muddled up and contradicted by all manner of spies, deceivers, infiltrators, propagandists, and false representatives of one position or another. For anyone who seriously wonders how an entire decade could have passed without any real clarity emerging to provide conclusive focus on the truth about 9/11—well, here’s the answer: So complete and so effective and so nearly-universal has been the control and suppression of ideas and information in our land of freedom that the brigands, pirates, and murderers who constitute our leaders have carried on quite unhindered not only in keeping the big falsehood alive and well but also in using it as their excuse to go on despoiling the planet, killing legions of human beings, destroying the Constitution, and sucking out the last drop of life-blood from the America nation itself.

What a perverted, murderous, earth-killing whopper of a lie it has been, the 9/11 lie, and how well—how diabolically, murderously, well—it has worked. And yet now, at last, its time in power is over—or, by all that’s right and true and honest, its time in power should be over. For, finally, a change has been made in the equation. Finally, we have been provided with a weapon against the great black lie. Finally, we have been given a stake to drive through its ugly, putrid, black, oozing heart. And what does this stake consist of? A book. It consists of a book. A book has been published, a book of science, a book powerful, irrefutable, extraordinarily moving, and true.
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/2515

​

 

Fangbeer is disputing her 'research' based on a very simple principle. Please address the question in the OP.

Or continue to dodge, your choice.

 

Oh maybe it's because what Ms. Wood is arguing isn't physically possible with any currently available technology with out using up most of the power wattage in the Northeast and shoved through a machine that no one has bothered to invent yet.

 

Sigh...no one is being gangstalked.

I refer you to a previous post on the subject:

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...irected-energy-weapons-49.html#post1061323039

This assertion is ridiculous. While your definition and examples of gas-lighting are correct, claiming they apply on a forum, and are directed at a person (Judy Wood), who as far as we know isn't a registered participant, is obtuse.

Equally obtuse is your reference to "gang stalking", which would require we actually have personal contact with you in real life:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gang stalking

Gang Stalking is a form of bullying and intimidation from multiple perpertraitors.

Whereas ordinary bullying is usually one on one, and workplace mobbing is where multiple people in one workplace attack one (or a few) person(s), Gang Stalking involves multiple people attacking one person in any situation.

Groups of people, or, loosely organised people pick a target, and attempt to destroy the victims life in any way that they can.

They attempt to scare and terrorise their target, causing anxiety and other problems.

They will do whatever they can to get the target fired from their job.

People become a victim when they have attacked a member of a group (ie gang) as part of revenge, or, in the case of political groups, attack their political opponents such as authors, etc.

The person who is responsible for picking the victim out is called the Gang Stalking Rat.

All of this is done secretly, and is usually known only to the attackers, and the victims. Other people around the victim will be oblivious as to what is going on.


It's in extreme bad taste to paint yourself a victim of this serious form of bullying just because people don't agree with you. However, if you really believe that is the case, go to the moderators.

This vaguely reminds me of another conspiracy troll who equates disagreement with "attacks".

Now that madness is out of the way, you can reply to OP.

 

I hate it when that happens.

 

Dr. Wood has managed, probably inspite of herself, to demostrate three facts none of which have much of anything to do with her premise. They are:

1. What the average truther knows about the physical sciences could be written in large print on a samll postage stamp with room left over for one great amercan novel.

2. That truthers are altogether to willing to believe almost anything other than the truth.

3. That you can make money off of crazy people.

 

1.) Dr. Judy Wood does not have a theory. Dr. Judy Wood has presented EVIDENCE that leads to a conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex.

2.) If you would read the empirical evidence presented in Dr. Judy Wood's textbook you would understand why your question is baseless and contributes to the 9/11 cover-up.

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 WTC complex. Dr. Judy Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11.

Forensic engineering does not contain "theory" or "hypothesis"

“Generally the purpose of a Forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the FACTS of an accident.”

“Facts” are not theory.

Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The field also deals with retracing processes and procedures leading to accidents in operation of vehicles or machinery. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally the purpose of a Forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident. It can also involve investigation of intellectual property claims, especially patents.


Forensic Engineering

A branch of forensic engineering, the subject focuses on the material evidence from crime or accident scenes, seeking defects in those materials which might explain why an accident occurred, or the source of a specific material to identify a criminal. Many analytical methods used for material identification may be used in investigations, the exact set being determined by the nature of the material in question, be it metal, glass, ceramic, polymer or composite. An important aspect is the analysis of trace evidence such as skid marks on exposed surfaces, where contact between dissimilar materials leaves material traces of one left on the other. Provided the traces can be analyzed successfully, then an accident or crime can often be reconstructed. Another aim will be to determine the cause of a broken component using the technique of fractography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_engineering

Empirical Evidence

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.

In some fields, quantitative research may begin with a research question (e.g., "Does listening to vocal music during the learning of a word list have an effect on later memory for these words?") which is tested through experimentation in a lab. Usually, a researcher has a certain theory regarding the topic under investigation. Based on this theory some statements, or hypotheses, will be proposed (e.g., "Listening to vocal music has a negative effect on learning a word list."). From these hypotheses predictions about specific events are derived (e.g., "People who study a word list while listening to vocal music will remember fewer words on a later memory test than people who study a word list in silence."). These predictions can then be tested with a suitable experiment. Depending on the outcomes of the experiment, the theory on which the hypotheses and predictions were based will be supported or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Fact in science

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.

Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;

* whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;

* to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation; and

* to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.

Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method. Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_law

​

 

Please read rule 14 and come back when you have something to add to the thread. Until then, stop attempting to hijack this thread with your own topics.

I'm quite sure I don't understand why you feel you are being stalked simply because your premise is being challenged. If you can't answer the question, that's fine. This post is directed at ANY Wood supporter that can answer the question. I do directly dispute her so called research, and I clearly outlined a point of contention. When you keep repeating that no one disputes her research you are not speaking the truth.

 

She has provided NO clear evidence in either her website or her fiction riddled 'textbook'





give it a rest manny,you're tilting at windmills

 

You should review the scientific method. You are incorrect on the definition of a scientific theory, and you are incorrect on the definition of a conclusion. You cannot form a conclusion without a hypothesis. Dr Wood does form a hypothesis, and fails to perform any experimentation to test that hypothesis. Beyond that, Wood can't even produce an example of many key components of her hypothesis. Wood has not done any science. What she has done is commonly referred to as "Leaping to conclusions."

Please tell me what page in Wood's book I can find evidence of the inhibition of iron's pyrophoric nature.

 

Why do you keep gaslighting me? The following is a comprehensive list of the technics used to attack Dr. Judy Wood's overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable collection of FORENSIC EVIDENCE that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifing" the World Trade Center complex:

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.) Accusations of Selective Reporting (the “File Drawer Effect”)
15.) Trying to End the Race when Their Side is Ahead
16.) Theory overrides Evidence
17.) Misapplying Occam’s Razor
18.) Dislike of the consequences
19.) Setting Arbitrary Standards of Proof and Moving the goalposts
20.) Debunkery by association
21.) Dismissing claims because of their philosophical pedigree

​

 

It appears that besides gaslighting supporters of Dr. Judy Wood's overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable collection of EVIDENCE that leads to the conclusion of a Directed Energy Weapon "dustifiing" the World Trade Center complex and the human life contained within, you also like to give orders. What branch of the armed services are you in or are you a private contractor?

​

 

If this is true, why is it you can't simply produce this "forensic evidence"? Maybe you should look the words forensic and evidence up. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

 

I'm MOSSAD, of course.

 

I understand, to answer the question directly would be in violation of classified information so you continue to gaslight.

​

 

​

I wonder if Dr. Judy Wood is aware that when she becomes victorious in her message to the public that it will result in the entire overthrow of our ruling elite?

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

 

I wonder if you will ever stop dodging and address the question posed in the OP.

Actually, no I don't wonder that. You won't. Ever.

 

I ask for some forensic evidence you claim to have and instead I get a cartoon and an absurdly egotistical claim of Wood's impending overthrow of the ruling elite. Good comedy, but so typical of responses from the Woods worship group; nothing but bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The posits a theory that would require the use of a weapon that does not exist and even if something like it did with currently available technology it would have blacked out most of the Northeast simply from the energy drain and been the size of a house and nearly as mobile. Somehow I don't think we would have missed it.

The good doctor has conned you and you lapped it up like there was no tomorrow because you so despertely wish to impute evil to someone else.

 

Clearly, Judy Wood is a fan of playing Civilization and the concept of "future technology".

aka, a player to be named later.

 

The only gaslighting going on in this forum are the continual blue flames you keep lighting.

 

What? You don't believe I'm MOSSAD? What's a shill to do....

 

So regularly posting on a topic that one finds interesting is dedication? Meh, a hobby maybe.

I find the truther debate interesting at this point because of their rabid acceptance of anything OTHER THAN the "official" version. Regardless of how ridiculous it may be -- widespread video fakery, faked phone calls, hollow buildings, DEWs -- there are plenty of people who will lap that stuff up and not analyze it with any form of critical thinking.

Calling themselves truthers is really a farce. They do not seek the truth. They seek an alternative explanation of the events that fits their world view -- Jews are evil, the government is evil -- to name a couple prominent ones. Oddly enough they dismiss the fact that some radical Muslims are indeed evil.

When presented with huge gaping holes in their theories that they can't explain or defend such as what Fangbeer has presented, they result to total denial or the shill card. This happens repeatedly with posters like RghtWngFraud, 9/11 was an inside job, and now you, Jango.

 

Honestly,what part of 'beams from space dustifying most of the WTC towers' DOESN'T deserve ridicule?

 

The overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable forensic evidence is contained in Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. If you are truly interested you would read it instead of pestering people who have. Much to Matthew Olsen's dismay, gang stalking supporters of Dr. Judy Wood's research on countless Internet forums has backfired.
Sales of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook continues to rise!

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

: