| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Just the usual joining of random dots to create a Rorschach ink blot that Dr Woods (and only Dr Woods) believes is recognisable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not only have I examined her 'research' (if you think a bunch of photos with ad hoc interpretations should be called that - I don't) but I even had one of my articles refuting Prof. Jones's thermate claims posted on her website, whilst one of her most loyal supporters - Prof. Jim Fetzer - invited me to appear on his radio program. I declined because by then I had ceased to support Dr Woods' work because of her association with Hutchinson, which was the fatal move that destroyed her credibility amongst 9/11 researchers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What do we know about this alleged trucked in decontaminant WTC site earth? Giuliani claimed to have shifted all that debris on 9/11, Dr.Wood suggests this is unlikely when a delicate first response rescue operation is going on in the carnage and theorises the dirt was being trucked in. I vaguely recall a youtube about a mystery NIST earth mountain that grew in some location in the US post 9/11, if true, it must be seeping contaminant into the local groundwater and impacting deliteriously the ecology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What do we know about this alleged trucked in decontaminant WTC site earth? Giuliani claimed to have shifted all that debris on 9/11, Dr.Wood suggests this is unlikely when a delicate first response rescue operation is going on in the carnage and theorises the dirt was being trucked in. I vaguely recall a youtube about a mystery NIST earth mountain that grew in some location in the US post 9/11, if true, it must be seeping contaminant into the local groundwater and impacting deliteriously the ecology. |
I think the dirt was trucked in to cover and absorb as much as possible poisonous, heavy metal/plastic contaminants/etc in the dust and debris on the ground that had been released into the air by the explosions and which would have entered the air again during clean-up unless they were absorbed. Nothing more exotic than that, despite what Dr Wood imagines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What do we know about this alleged trucked in decontaminant WTC site earth? Giuliani claimed to have shifted all that debris on 9/11, Dr.Wood suggests this is unlikely when a delicate first response rescue operation is going on in the carnage and theorises the dirt was being trucked in. I vaguely recall a youtube about a mystery NIST earth mountain that grew in some location in the US post 9/11, if true, it must be seeping contaminant into the local groundwater and impacting deliteriously the ecology. |
I think the dirt was trucked in to cover and absorb as much as possible poisonous, heavy metal/plastic contaminants/etc in the dust and debris on the ground that had been released into the air by the explosions and which would have entered the air again during clean-up unless they were absorbed. Nothing more exotic than that, despite what Dr Wood imagines. |
(MY VERY OWN CYBER STALKER?) It would STILL be contaminated, I'd rather not have it relocated in my back yard, how about you?. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What do we know about this alleged trucked in decontaminant WTC site earth? Giuliani claimed to have shifted all that debris on 9/11, Dr.Wood suggests this is unlikely when a delicate first response rescue operation is going on in the carnage and theorises the dirt was being trucked in. I vaguely recall a youtube about a mystery NIST earth mountain that grew in some location in the US post 9/11, if true, it must be seeping contaminant into the local groundwater and impacting deliteriously the ecology. |
I think the dirt was trucked in to cover and absorb as much as possible poisonous, heavy metal/plastic contaminants/etc in the dust and debris on the ground that had been released into the air by the explosions and which would have entered the air again during clean-up unless they were absorbed. Nothing more exotic than that, despite what Dr Wood imagines. |
(MY VERY OWN CYBER STALKER?)
|
Er, no. Just someone with three university degrees in theoretical physics and with over 50 research papers published who can't tolerate bad science.
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
It would STILL be contaminated, I'd rather not have it relocated in my back yard, how about you?. |
You miss the point. The contaminated soil would be much easier to transport away once poisonous contaminants in the air or poisonous dust had been absorbed. The traffic police use sand to absorb oil spillages on roads. It's the same idea. But you can believe in metals becoming "dustified" by space beams if you like.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted due to cookie refresh error
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: |
Er, no. Just someone with three university degrees in theoretical physics and with over 50 research papers published who can't tolerate bad science.
|
and
| Quote: | | But you can believe in metals becoming "dustified" by space beams if you like..... |
Wow! 3 degrees and what not, and you still mistake the term "Space Beams" for "directed energy weapon", "hutchison effect" and "field effecfts"? Pretty weird!
So what about Erin micpsi? Coincidence or was it put there? If it was a coincidence, why wasn't it reported as a danger to the east coast?
Heck! So many problems for these 3-degreed scientists!!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: |
Er, no. Just someone with three university degrees in theoretical physics and with over 50 research papers published who can't tolerate bad science.
|
and
| Quote: | | But you can believe in metals becoming "dustified" by space beams if you like..... |
Wow! 3 degrees and what not, and you still mistake the term "Space Beams" for "directed energy weapon", "hutchison effect" and "field effecfts"? Pretty weird!
|
A pedantic point. I was being deliberately sarcastic. My remark stands if we replace "space beams" by DEW.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: |
So what about Erin micpsi? Coincidence or was it put there?
|
Coincidence.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: |
If it was a coincidence, why wasn't it reported as a danger to the east coast?
|
Er, because it was not moving inland?
| Andrew Johnson wrote: |
Heck! So many problems for these 3-degreed scientists!! |
Not really. Only if we took these random dots as being causally connected. This is what Dr Wood believes. But few in the 9/11 truth movement agree because her work is not good science. And the so-called "problems" are mere pseudo-issues created by a bogus interpretation of irrelevant data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should add that many (including me) can be forgiven for using the word "space beams" as this was the conception that Dr Wood favours (or did favour) for the source of the DEW. Witness her interview with Prof James Fetzer:
Jim Fetzer: "I must say I think we're finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 ... I'm going to make a wild guess Judy; I'm going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?"
Judy Wood: "Nope. I don't think so."
Fetzer: "Planes?"
Judy Wood: "No ... I think it's very likely it's in orbit."
Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge ... this is huge Judy."
Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood; November 11, 2006
http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3
If she has now retracted this public statement about her belief in (presumably) orbiting satellites mounted with DEWS destroying the WTC towers, perhaps she might add a note to the effect on her website so that people will no longer upset her small band of acolytes by continuing to use the term "space beams" in reference to her claims? As she herself originally believed this and said so publicly, she can hardly accuse others of putting words in her mouth so as to discredit her! The words came from her own mouth  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah but when the plod truck in sand for an oil spill they don't usually do it covertly as , say , ambulances carrying away fake casualties! Wasn't ground zero still fuming as late as January 2008? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | I should add that many (including me) can be forgiven for using the word "space beams" as this was the conception that Dr Wood favours (or did favour) for the source of the DEW. Witness her interview with Prof James Fetzer:
Jim Fetzer: "I must say I think we're finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 ... I'm going to make a wild guess Judy; I'm going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?"
Judy Wood: "Nope. I don't think so."
Fetzer: "Planes?"
Judy Wood: "No ... I think it's very likely it's in orbit."
Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge ... this is huge Judy."
Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood; November 11, 2006
http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3
If she has now retracted this public statement about her belief in (presumably) orbiting satellites mounted with DEWS destroying the WTC towers, perhaps she might add a note to the effect on her website so that people will no longer upset her small band of acolytes by continuing to use the term "space beams" in reference to her claims? As she herself originally believed this and said so publicly, she can hardly accuse others of putting words in her mouth so as to discredit her! The words came from her own mouth |
Nice to know you've studied the evidence. I am perfectly aware of the wording of the remark and how people like you have misquoted it.
Glad to know you're on record saying Erin is a coincidence. I suppose this is too:
That was the same time the "plane hit", in case you needed reminding.
JFK airport weather data was also very interesting - with windspeed and barometric pressure constanct for 16 or 24 hours throughout the events of 9/11.
"Just another coincidence. Ignore the evidence. It's ok. Doesn't matter. Nothing to it. It was really Bin Laden after all. Why worry?"
Oh sorry - I forgot - you have 3 degrees - you must be right!! Sorry I spoke!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are some people still taking Judy Wood seriously? Oh dear....
If the WTC steel was "dustified" by some unidentified energy beam fired by some unknown device from some unknown location by persons unknown - then the most pertinent evidence for this would be in the dust from the WTC that ended up coating so much of Manhattan and beyond.
In order for Wood's "theory" to be plausible, the WTC dust would have to contain unusually high levels of iron. However, none of the many analyses of the WTC dust show this.
See the USGS study for example: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
The iron content of the dust samples they analysed varied from less than 1% to 4.13%.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
Judy Wood's "theory" is a complete non-starter, unless you believe that after "dustifying" the steel the perps then somehow made the "dustified steel" disappear - like magic!
_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Judy Wood's "theory" is a complete non-starter, unless you believe that after "dustifying" the steel the perps then somehow made the "dustified steel" disappear - like magic! |
they did do a pretty quick clean up job of it. Roads scrubed clean and hosed down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forgot that you guys have an infinite capacity to completely miss the point - even when it's staring you in the face.
the point is that if judy wood's "theory" that a space beam "dustified" the WTC steel was true, then the WTC dust would have contained unusually high levels of iron.
however, all the WTC dust samples that have ever been analysed to determine their content show very low levels of iron - thus indicating that judy wood's "theory" is a load of *.
do you understand that?
_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
