tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post3233175948268924824..comments2023-03-24T16:40:13.496-07:00Comments on Onebornfree's 9/11 Research Review: 9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood -Part 4 of 4Onebornfreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-9756218167316421462014-12-31T00:58:54.792-08:002014-12-31T00:58:54.792-08:00Dr. Judy woods mentions websites she took the phot...Dr. Judy woods mentions websites she took the photos from that is secondary not primary source meaning well her search was Google based not actutally her data.<br />So she not only does not follow academic standards in her reporting of data she fails in forensics of chain of handling of evidence and of the photos to link back to physical source. She removed Infowars and Alex Jones as he actually came out and stated the cars she was making speculations about had been moved along with an ambulance displayed that had been moved out of an underground parking structure. Theses inconsistancies are common place in all 911truth research and render their findings speculative fiction.Quinazagga https://www.blogger.com/profile/00330696440738599694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-60675336835888130852014-12-31T00:33:31.633-08:002014-12-31T00:33:31.633-08:00also since she could not prove her case in court a...also since she could not prove her case in court and has been proven to use speculative fiction as fact and you assume she has expertise in the areas she claims to have when in fact most of the research she claims to is in fact a friend of hers so she is not even the primary researcher but a talking head utilized for false appeal to authority In talking to her and to Dr. James Feltzer Neither are qualified to make the statements they do. They lack the basic understanding of EMP or EMF propagation in the use of high energy weaponry nor do they look at the physical cause of the WTC1 and 2 collapse after being impacted by the hijacked jets. The no plane theory was started by webfairy and by dick Eastman all of which have admitted that no plane hoax is exactly that a scam Dick Eastman created it to generate money for his daughter's schooling. Ther is enough physical evidence planes hit the towers and were a causation of secondary initiators that caused the collapses in both towers. WTC 1 and 2 both exterior may be similar but Physically are different when it comes to floor lay out and interior structure physical layout. They reacted some what differently to the impacts of Aircraft that were outside of the technical specifications of what the impact study that the buildings were designed to resist. Each collapse is an individual event. Therefore they have different initiators although the primary is floor failure and that leads to connections between impact floors and supports. This failure also was Present in other structures damaged then repaired. The Marriott hotel was a primary example of this reinforcement after the failed 93 attack<br />Quinazagga https://www.blogger.com/profile/00330696440738599694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-61940467855197850642014-12-31T00:13:09.668-08:002014-12-31T00:13:09.668-08:00actually Dr. Judy woods did Alter the NOAA data. S...actually Dr. Judy woods did Alter the NOAA data. She withdrew it from her website because of a failed discussion via skype where she was presented with the data and hers was inconsistent with physical evidence collected by multiple qualified meteorologist. A feild that Dr. Judy Woods dose not hold any expertise. Her photos of Vehicles lack a chain of handling that means time and date, where they were taken at physically, She acknowledged in court that the cars had been moved to the locations where they were photographed and it was in her speculation/observation she was reporting in her book Quinazagga https://www.blogger.com/profile/00330696440738599694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-63151112375707932052013-05-29T10:06:42.371-07:002013-05-29T10:06:42.371-07:00Second continuation from previous entry by TEL
Ob...Second continuation from previous entry by TEL<br /><br />Obviously, this is the first time that the world has ever seen this type of destruction. What is the mechanism? Any form of conventional demolition does not result in the physical evidence. I believe that Wood supplies the only logical answer – some form of directed energy weapon combined with missiles and preset, precisely timed.<br /><br />There is no question that DEW weapons have been under development for a long time – probably on the order of 60 years and funded by trillions of top-secret, black budget dollars. The effects of directed energy and various field effects have been demonstrated on a laboratory scale by John Hutchinson. Wood devotes many pages in her book to this subject. Virtually all of the physical evidence of the destruction of the WTC complex, including, all of the unusual anomalies –dustification of materials, fuming, light without heat, radical bending of steel, toasted cars and so forth, can be produced using directed energy/field effects technology.<br /><br />In conclusion, the truth is that Dr. Wood:<br />- Did not alter the NOAA graph as you allege.<br />- Was accurate in her statement that Hurricane Erin was closest to NYC around 8:00am<br />- Was aware of the cold front, and did acknowledge that it would effect the direction of Hurricane Erin.<br />- Does thoroughly document the sources of her photographs/videos and I believe uses them in good faith. I have seen nothing to think otherwise.<br />- Uses “destruction” videos that show a destructive event that would produce the physical evidence that was in fact left by that destruction and are therefore most likely authentic. <br />- Has shown how DEW can cause all of the highly unusual results of the destruction.<br /><br />I think in all fairness, that if you are going to hold Wood’s feet to the fire on her research and theories, that you should make your case on why you think the building destruction videos are fabrications. In addition, I would be interested in hearing why you believe that as you say, “standard, bottom-up demolition off camera possibly behind standard military smoke screens” makes the most sense to you. You say you have no proof. Then, what leads you to this conclusion? I am open to other possibilities, but it has to fit ALL of the evidence. After researching as many other possibilities as I can find, at his point, I find Wood’s research and explanation the most valid. <br /><br />Thanks for reading my comments. Again, I hope you will leave them up. - TEL <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-77698006717063950522013-05-29T10:04:21.658-07:002013-05-29T10:04:21.658-07:001st Continuation from previous entry by TEL
Regar...1st Continuation from previous entry by TEL<br /><br />Regarding the “destruction” videos – I think Shack accurately points out some problems with some of the tower destruction photography. However, unlike the “plane” photography, I don’t find Shack’s evidence compelling enough to conclude that ALL of the video and still photos depicting the destruction of the towers is as you say, “fake, prefabricated, 100% computer generated imagery.” <br /><br />One of the main reasons I say this is because, unlike the “plane” videos, which are physically impossible, it is physically possible for the twin towers to “go away”. They in fact did go away. And unlike the plane hoaxes, which can’t by definition leave any hard, physical evidence, the destruction of the Twin Towers left plenty of hard, physical evidence. Therefore, if there are any authentic videos/still photos of the destruction they should show destruction that results in the physical evidence. At a minimum that physical evidence includes, but is certainly not limited to:<br />- Seismological data that shows a complete destruction time of 8-10 seconds for each tower.<br />- Seismological data that shows a magnitude dramatically smaller than one would expect when a 500,000 ton, quarter-mile tall building slams into the ground<br />- The basement under the towers and the bathtub that are virtually intact.<br />- A debris pile that is dramatically smaller than one would expect when a 500,000 ton, quarter-mile tall building falls to the ground<br />- An absence of any office furniture, file cabinets, equipment, toilets, etc.<br />- A thick layer of extremely fine dust coating all of lower Manhattan. <br /><br />For a destruction event to conform to that physical evidence, the majority of the material in the tower must have been turned to dust in mid-air. There is no other explanation that fits the evidence. This is precisely what the video of the destruction of the towers shows – the vast majority of building material was “dustified”, to use Wood’s verb, before it hit the ground.<br /><br />To be continued: I maxed out the word limit again. - TEL<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-76611387181854734012013-05-29T09:53:35.450-07:002013-05-29T09:53:35.450-07:00You make the statement:
“Prof. Wood has never mad...You make the statement:<br /><br />“Prof. Wood has never made any serious, concerted effort to verify the authenticity of any of the videos or photos she has used as evidentiary proofs for her hypothesis, either on her website , or in her latest book .”<br /><br />You obviously cannot make that statement based on first hand experience or knowledge. You are not a part of Dr. Wood’s research efforts, and therefore do not know what she actually did or did not do with regards to photographic selection. There are 500 figures in her book. Many of them are photographs. The source for each one is cited directly under the photo or referenced by a footnote that identifies the source. To me, Wood seems to have conducted and presented her research with integrity and a good deal of courage. I personally believe that she would not use a photograph or any source of data if she had a question as to its authenticity. <br /><br />Since you have no direct knowledge, I assume then that you make such a claim based on your statement:<br /><br />“…I no longer believe that Prof. Wood’s Direct Energy Weapon theory makes the most sense, simply because her hypothesis is based almost 100% on the analysis of what is, as Simon Shack has relentlessly demonstrated, in the final analysis, fake, prefabricated, 100% computer generated imagery of the twin towers collapsing, plus photographic”stills” taken either from the exact same faked footage, or by an alleged government [i.e.F.E.M.A.] or “amateur” photographer”. <br /><br />I will address your statement shortly, but I first want to say that I am familiar with Simon Shack’s work. I agree with him that there was extensive video fakery, media manipulation and complicity on 9/11. There were no planes. EVERY video or still photo of a “plane” crashing into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or the field in Shanksville is a fabrication. Shack does a good job of presenting the many anomalies and mistakes that show these videos to be CGI.<br /><br />However, the main reason I know that all videos/stills of planes crashing into any of the 4 locations are fakes is not because Shack showed them to be. It is rather that every scenario where “planes” are supposedly used is physically impossible. There are many reasons why this is so – the laws of physics being the most significant. Any type of “evidence” that would appear to indicate otherwise is simply incorrect - either through innocent mistake, as in some eye witness accounts (well known to be some of the most unreliable type of evidence), poor thinking (for any number of reasons) or willful fabrication with intent to deceive (which again, Shack has done a good job of exposing).<br /><br />In addition, there is a total lack of any authentic, genuine physical evidence that proves beyond a doubt that passenger planes were used (which if fact, has to be the case since the plane videos are hoaxes). All of the reasons why this is the truth have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and are readily accessible to anyone who is willing to take the time to look. It seems that you would agree with this, yes?<br /><br />Therefore, I discount any part of a 9/11 theory of what happened that includes the use of passenger jets. That’s not to say that some other parts of a particular theory may have merit. It is clear to me that something else made holes in the towers and the Pentagon – almost certainly missiles and preset explosives, as Shack proposes. And obviously something else was responsible for completely or partially destroying all seven, WTC buildings. More on that later. <br /><br />I believe that you must be using thinking similar to mine regarding videos of “planes”. You dismiss any 9/11 explanation that relies on videos of the event because you believe them all to be fake. Therefore, you believe that whoever is espousing that theory cannot be authenticating their evidence, thus being unscientific at best – criminal at worst. Is this about right? - TEL<br /><br />To be continued. I have maxed out the word limit.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9197151690623934783.post-38576162933844030602013-04-11T16:39:29.080-07:002013-04-11T16:39:29.080-07:00I am an expert in ", if i see it ,i might bel...I am an expert in ", if i see it ,i might believe it . All this scientific stuff is very interesting ,; i appreciate all the work anyone does in this field , so you have my congratulations your challenge to anyone and everyone . You m,ay have to employ a group of scientists ,architects ? to demonstrate all the different Logical ? means that individuals present . Sounds like a one week seminar or something . My point is 9-11-2001 is soon to be 12 years behind us .No one is even close to getting thru to the 99% of those who still believe the Gov. version . Thank you again for your work , Seems like everyone is just critical of everyone's personal view . Checkmate ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com