Why have most members of this 911 site stopped posting since I started on my logical and serious debunking of Dr. Judy Wood.

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Why have most members of this 911 site stopped posting since I started on by debunking of Dr. Judy Wood.

[Thoth II]

now that you've discovered the truth, weird stuff starts happening.  It's like people don't want the truth.  I've often thought there is some deep pathology in this country that would let, for example, the JFK lies fester for 50 years, when it clearly is a dirty little secret of this country that people sweep under the rug.  But what they don't realize is, you can't sweep nothing under the rug and expect a society to be healthy, it doesn't work, it's just a cognitive dissonance psychological technique.  But that will not change the accuracy of your science, you've finally unearthed how these bastards destroyed the WTC and you deserve some kind of medal for that.

[Jeannon Kralj]

I listened to the show on April 15.  I tuned in when I thought I was listening to the "live stream" time slot, but the show was prerecorded.  I was not able to follow along because I tuned in a couple of minutes late and URL for your slides page was only given once in that first few minutes. If you want people to follow along, you have to give that URL and what page you are currently on after every break at least.   If not listening to the "live" stream version, of course, one can go back to the beginning at pick up the URL.  So that first time I listened I just was not able to follow along with the slides at all.

 

 On listening to my downlodaded April 15 show, you begin by commenting on what you say is the top row, leftmost slide, you say it says

"Science is a self critical, self correcting process", but that is not what I find.  On my screen the top row first slide says

"Thermate steel cutting Chem Trails of white aluminum oxide..."

 

So I am not going to listen through that show again because I guess I won't be able to locate the slides you refer to.

 

I just think that the following along with all of your excellent slides and hard work is crucially important but I have found it darn near impossible to figure out what slide you are on.  (The other of the 3 shows I have listened to was in October and I think I was able to follow along with the slides on that show a little bit, but even then the title of the pages you read off did not match the slide titles that show on the slides page.  You do have some numbered slides like #10 or #10a and referring to those by numbers would be preferable.)

 

I strongly agree with the stupid thing Dr. Woods says something like -- "listening to the evidence" and "it will speak to you" and "it will tell you the truth."    That is total unscientific sounding nonsense. to me.  (It also sounds a bit "New Agey".  It is sort of like "listen with your inner consciousness". That has zero to do with objective observational skills.  Dr. Woods seems to be the only one who has that special listening skill.   I have heard her many times on the radio correct people and tell them something like "no, just focus on....."   It is like ordinary people cannot seem to "listen to the photographs" in just the right way.  What people say they are seeing when they tell her what they see (on past radio shows) is somehow not valid or not allowable and she implies that they just have poor objective observing skills and do not have the ability to tune out "distractions."

 

I have to say that many of the photographs, especially of the toasted cars, just did not show what she claims they did.  She said things like certain parts of the car were completely "burned up" or missing while other parts of the car were left mysteriously untouched, but I could not see, for example, the missing engine blocks etc...     So this "selectivity" characteristic of the substance that caused the damage to the cars never was much elaborated on.  How do we know that selectivity characteristic is characteristic of "DEWS" or "Hutchison Field Effects."  (We only have a few very dark scratchy videos that "show" the Hutchison Effect.)

 

Chuck, I do not think any of us could dispute your quantitative analysis of what you have chosen to analyze.  I could not discuss or debate any of that anyway.

 

I just think that Dr. Wood has her predetermined "beliefs" about what could have caused the destruction, that is, either Hutchison Field Effects, or Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) and she interprets the "data" she has, which is mostly "qualitative" photographs, in such a way as to support her two pet "theories."   I think also that she may have chosen which photographs she put on her website and in her book and which photographs she weeded out, and did this probably because she wanted to choose the ones that best supported her never stated "theory."  Again, that is not "science".  That is like the Downing Street memo - "fixing the intelligence around the policy." 

The photographs make up apparently a large percentage of her "data", not "evidence", and they are "qualitative" not "quantitative" so I do not see how you can quantitatively debunk them.

 

She has always been a bit dodgy about stating an hypothesis and settling on one cause.  Also, I have never heard her comment on why it had to be either DEWS or Hutchison Effect nor comment on if it could be both.   So, she not provided anything in her book that can truly be debunked in your quantitative way..  I guess the seismic data and other outside labs that have real time quantitative measurements of field effects could be quantitavely debated or possible debunked, but I am understanding you accept those numbers but just disagree on what those numbers could mean.   

 

One last comment about still photographs.  If videos can be faked, why can't still photos be faked?  Has anyone examined or checked her phtotographs for evidence of fakery and checked the sources thoroughly?

 

As for "thermate" - I just think it is possible (though not scientifically proven in my opinion)  that it was found everywhere in the dust but just don't believe it "did the work."

 

As for nukes, I remember hearing some M.D. I think who was a show host on either GCN or RBN and who wrote and posted several articles on Rense.com, and he said there was defintite readings of nuclear radiation in the air around Ground Zero and many cases of what were health damage to people from radiation.  I never have explored all that but he seemed to make the strongest case for nukes.  We just have no past historical records showing the microfine pulverization of large amounts of steel caused by nukes.

 

If planes were just a false rabbit trail placed for us to go down and if "19 radical Islamic terrorists" and "stand down orders" were just a fake rabbit trail placed for us to go down, why could not "thermate" and radiation of some amount also be placed as rabbit trails for us to go down?  To me, our darkside government operations and operatives defintitely do place fake rabbit trails and they did they clearly in OKC bombing and maybe even also in JFK assassination, so it is not question that they can and will do that.

 

Dr. Woods' DEWs idea is the only "theory" (and I guess her Hutchison Effect theory too)  that seems to me to totally rule out some Islamic terrorist type humans from getting and placing and getting and using the other things suggested like nukes and thermate.  That seems to be a very strong point in favor of DEWs, but again that is not a good scientific solid reason to favor DEWs.

 

[James H. Fetzer]

Excellent commentaries from Thoth II and from Jeannon.  Chuck is going to prepare "albums" of the posters for each show and make them available at his earliest opportunity.  Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.  He and I appreciate them.

[Jeannon Kralj]

 

I just thought it was interesting how the term "empirical evidence" was stressed three times in this (posted below) email advertising Dr. Wood's appearance on an upcoming Coast to Coast show. 

 

em·pir·i·cal
 (m-pîr-kl)

adj.

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

 

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

I think when most of us read that someone, the only one, has the "empirical evidence" about 9-11, we all pay close attention and think we may be getting closer to some real answers. Of course that sells books. We also seem to think that "empirical evidence" means what Chuck Boldwyn refers to as "quantitative" "evidence", as opposed to qualitative evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

 

Dr. Judy Wood, from what I know about her recent book and about her website and radio guest broadcasts, puts forth her "empirical evidence" based on her observations, for the most part, of qualitative photographic data.  She also, apparently in her new book, makes some "observations" about some numerical ('quantitative") data in the form of seismic readings and real time measurements of "field effects" done by government or university laboratories on 9-11, but even these "observations" of Dr. Wood do not, to me, qualify as "empirical evidence" and appear more like the casual positing of probable interpretations.    Dr. Wood's work is purely observational and not experimental. 

 

NEWS FLASH - Dr. Judy Wood Will be On Coast to Coast

From:

"Ralph Kermit Winterrowd" <[e-mail]>

Add sender to Contacts

To:

undisclosed-recipients

 I just learned that Dr. Judy Wood will be appearing on Coast to Coast for Three hours on May 3rd, 2011.  George Noory is to be congratulated for stepping up the plate by having Dr. Wood and her empirical evidence presented.

This is going to be show not to be missed.

This is going to make a lot of people very, very unhappy to have the only comprehensive forensic Investigation in existence of the destruction of the seven (7) building of the WTC complex presented to millions of people.  Finally the "what" and "how" will be presented.  Then the next step will be for the "who dunnit", wherein Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) and Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), being two companies the Dr. Wood sued in a Qui Tam (whistleblower) suit, have the knowledge of what companies or nations have the technology to accomplish what happened at the WTC.

 Few people even know that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [government] didn't even investigate the "collapse" of the WTC, not to mention that the RUSE has been discredited as misinformation and a cover-up story for the masses.  It seems that Richard Gage of the AE911TRUTH.org and his nano-thermite nonsense is the current NEW coverup story that has been jetting across America pontificating, wherein he only presents a new lie that the American people will buy into precluding the real TRUTH that Dr. Wood presents covering ALL of the issues of the WTC as the American people purportedly can't handle the real truth.  I disagree, I think the American people and others in the world would like to be presented with the REAL truth for change.  Then let each person examine the empirical evidence and make your own mind.

 Those have been shouting the mantra of there needs to be a  NEW INVESTIGATION - "WELL, BUCKLE UP DORTHY, IT IS HERE! It is totally "independent" Investigation uncensored or influenced by anyone including the government.  I challenge anyone to read the book and then debunk the empirical evidence by Dr. Wood. 

 Finally after all of the roadblocks Dr. Wood will prevail to get the empirical evidence out.  

 I would suggest that you purchase the book "Where Did The Towers Go" ( http:/www.wheredidthetowersgo.com ) now and become informed prior to the Coast to Coast Show on May 3rd, 2011.  Call in with some hard questions on the empirical evidence.

 Thank you Dr. Wood for all of the hurdles you have overcome to get to this point and sacrifices you have made by standing firm on the TRUTH and empirical evidence.  Others such as Russell Gerst and Andrew Johnson of the UK (http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/) are to be congratulated also for their firm support for Dr. Wood.

Hoo-haa!!!! 

Ralph

___________

Another thing that seems peculiar to me is how RepublicBroadcasting.org radio show hosts, like Ralph Winterood and all the others, for I guess at least two years have totally avoided interviewing Dr. Wood and if spoken about at all, was referred to in a jeering derisive manner.  This has been true for GCNlive.com and generally for the entire Internet radio outlets with audiences that are interested in 9-11.  Now all of a sudden Goerge Noory of Coast to Coast and I think RBN's Rick Adams and now this unknown Ralph Winterood have come out of nowhere touting how great Dr. Wood's book and work are.  This just seems very peculiar to me.  Before her book's advent, she was persona non grata in the "9-11 truth community".

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Thanks for this post. When I checked the "Coast to Coast" upcoming schedule, Dr. Judy was not on it. She must have just been scheduled in the last day or so.

I should call in to refute her DEWs & Hutchison Field Effects by her own 43 points she claims needs to be explained.

I am scheduled for another interview with Jim Fetzer of May 4, the day after her interview on C2C.

 

She is in for a great, great, ego-busting fall by my most logical debunks.

 

I think Judy has never recovered from her coma, not 100% and she desparately needs to review or learn some basic inorganic chemistry, etc, etc.

 

Chuck Boldwyn

[Thoth II]

I've seen this kind of thing over and over in jfk rfk etc. and now 911 research.  These people get big egos and they refuse to listen to logic.  One guy in JFK actually thinks the Z film is authentic and over 20 year period refuses to consider the obvious truth on that.  Judy will now go into the junk science bag just to save her ego.