|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 31, 2008 2:48:06 GMT -4
And Judy Wood is still an A Grade Nut.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 31, 2008 2:58:00 GMT -4
Some people might think my posts are little more than Ad Hominem argument, so I'll point out the reason I state it. Judy Wood is a no planer. Hundreds of thousands of people saw the planes with their own eyes. People were seriously injured and killed when they were hit by the plane parts. Anyone that says there were no planes is a NUT plane and simple (and yes I meant to spell it that way)
Judy Wood believes the towers disintergrated into dust, she claims that their was no rubble and that a million of ton of build were unaccounted for. This is rubbish. 1,462,000 tons of material was received and processed by over 1,000 FBI agents and others including 35,000 tons of steel, at around 500,000 tons per building, (worked out by several people including some truthers) that's most of all 3 buildings. Anyone that believes that most of the buildings disintergrated into dust is a NUT.
Judy Wood believes in an impossible technology that can suck the energy from a hurricane and turn it into a directed energy beam. She believes that this is sitting in a satelite that was able to orbit the Earth and shoot the Towers from above. This alone makes her clinically insane.
Once again, purely based entirely on her own claims, Judy Wood is an A Grade Nut.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2008 8:39:50 GMT -4
Judy Wood believes the towers disintergrated into dust, she claims that their was no rubble... If she's correct, how come there's a big chunk of buckled WTC steel set up as a monument to firemen down here in New Zealand, next to the Avon River in Christchurch? And how come I've seen on TV, big, burly New Zealand firemen getting pretty emotional, almost with tears in their eyes, over what it represents to them?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 31, 2008 9:56:10 GMT -4
And Judy Wood is still an A Grade Nut. While she did work in mechanical engineering, her specialty was in designing dental fixtures. She has no background in building or construction design. Much less forensic investigation. And here in the US we know her as a Grade A Nut.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 31, 2008 11:48:35 GMT -4
Sucking the energy from hurricanes and beaming it down from a satellite? Love to know how that is supposed to work. Looking at that web site, I see holes in the holes theory.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 31, 2008 15:11:11 GMT -4
Here is the thread on JREF I mentioned before. It was pretty sad... a rather fervent Judy Wood fan tried to slide a tangle of misrepresentations, insinuations, vague accusations, flat-out untruths, and just plain made-up stuff, and we dissected and dismantled all of it. It was clear that Ms. Wood couldn't even "define" her claim, but in general the whole thing is prima facie absurd. She really does appear to be mentally ill. cbbrooklyn, do you have any specific claims to make, or are you just going to wave your hands about an irrelevant hurricane out in the Atlantic, and make vague allegations that a field which changes constantly happened to be doing just that on a particular date?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 31, 2008 15:51:45 GMT -4
The wind speeds were stronger than Katrina. Try looking at the data. As pointed out by Tanalia just two posts down from yours, that is wrong. Maybe you should look at the data yourself. It appears that you haven't. Yes, at times, Erin was physically BIGGER (not stronger) than Katrina but size is not measure of strength. And it still doesn't change the fact that it was mentioned in the news on the day before and the day of and that projections had it turning for days beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 31, 2008 16:37:22 GMT -4
I didn't have the patience to read the whole thread. It just amazes me how something can go on for so long with no questions being answered.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 31, 2008 17:42:49 GMT -4
Did the satellite have a giant mirror encrusted with diamonds?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 31, 2008 17:57:35 GMT -4
I don't think Ms. Wood ever actually said what exactly her supposed skyscraper-dustifyin' death ray o' doom was supposed to be, either in terms of where it was (in space? in the air?) or what it was (laser (X-ray? infrared?) maser? charged particle beam? neutrons?).
That's what elevates this whole thing from the merely laughable to what M.S. Dworkin called "empyreal absurdity". All that interminable, disjointed rambling - even a lawsuit against random government contractors (recently dismissed with prejudice) - and she can't even state what she thinks was going on!
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 1, 2008 4:41:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 1, 2008 6:28:21 GMT -4
Notice how Erin's wind and pressure were controlled on 9/11:
I would like an explanation. Not much of a hurricane buff but I understand there are huge energies involved with them. Massive. What would it take to control one, and how would it be achieved? Call me very skeptical of that web site so a bit of explanation would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 1, 2008 7:41:21 GMT -4
The day before 9/11, Erin was projected to be stronger than Katrina had been projected to be. So how come the east coast of the USA wasn't evacuated? What part of had been predicted for days that it would turn do you not understand? What evidence have you provided that it was projected to be stronger when it would have to pass over colder air and water? This one I know is wrong because not too long ago I found an archive for aviation METARS. These are direct observations for aviation purposes recorded at JFK. english.wunderground.com/history/airport/KJFK/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html?theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1all day long for 11 September 2001 and no mention of thunder and lightning. Also of note is each METAR is an hour after the previous one. If something significant happens, like say lightning, they issue a special one. There are none of those. Judy Wood is wrong and likely a liar. Why does she have to lie about the weather that day? What does that say about her credibility? How does this show that? All it is is a record of wind speed and pressure. It shows no evidence of control. You posted figure 8a (same as figure 7). figure 8b (which you can see on the very next link you posted) shows more data which shows that the flat areas on 8a are not out of the ordinary. What part of size does not equate to strength do you not understand? This is humorous and all but so far you have shown us no actual science. I'm starting to see why even truthers laugh at Judy Wood.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 1, 2008 7:41:32 GMT -4
Sorry to be picky and, dare I say it, scientific about this but if you are going to produce links to other information to back up your arguments, linking to the person who has a vested interest in the evidence pointing in a particular direction is not good practice. Particularly on a board like this. Do you have any links to independent meteorological sites that evidence the aspects you point to here, or are you just taking Judy Woods' word on everything? Also, I had thunder and lightning at my home on the Eastern side of England yesterday evening ... does that mean we had a hurricane just off the Humber Estuary? Or could it be that JFK airport might well have had a thunderstorm on 9/11 (although the news feed I watched showing an aeroplane actually hitting the second tower as it happened showed NYC bathed in sunlight) irrespective of any offshoer hurricane?
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Aug 1, 2008 7:46:46 GMT -4
I echo the previous comments. Let's have the evidence that the drop in windspeed, rise in pressure, and change in direction were not due to natural properties of a hurricane in those sea/atmosphere conditions.
edited for typo
|
|