Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
CB_Brooklyn

Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt

50 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CB_Brooklyn

In this new paper (still under construction) Dr Wood exposes the information Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins want kept hidden:

"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html

Let Dr Wood walk you through the paper in these recent interviews:

23 May 2007

Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (second half of mp3)

on "The Dynamic Duo"

(image numbers have been updated since this program)

http://tinyurl.com/2zhjjn

25 May 2007

Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Ambrose Lane

on "www.weourselves.org"

Listen: One 25 min segment (mp3)

http://www.frankferg.com/a-lane-5-25-07-jwc.mp3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunofone

first off there is absolutely no evidence within that link verifying that jones has anything to hide-- every argument in the conclusion(considering they agree that there is no doubt 9/11 was an inside job) can easily be attributed to the critics taking things out of context -- considering there were 47 solid steel box columns with walls four inches thick i believe it would be inadequate to rule out thermate as a "key" to the implosion-- even though i know your judy wood does seem to have some sort of particle beam theory to push i dont think jones was very wrong in playing it safe and sticking with what is "easily" provable-- coming out with some sort of particle beam theory by bashing an established figure is not such a good idea-- i sure hope that website expands soon to include "more" than just a ton of images and little real data especially if they are going to convince a mass population that can still look at bldg 7 collapse and actually rationalize it with fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CB_Brooklyn
first off there is absolutely no evidence within that link verifying that jones has anything to hide-- every argument in the conclusion(considering they agree that there is no doubt 9/11 was an inside job) can easily be attributed to the critics taking things out of context -- considering there were 47 solid steel box columns with walls four inches thick i believe it would be inadequate to rule out thermate as a "key" to the implosion-- even though i know your judy wood does seem to have some sort of particle beam theory to push i dont think jones was very wrong in playing it safe and sticking with what is "easily" provable-- coming out with some sort of particle beam theory by bashing an established figure is not such a good idea-- i sure hope that website expands soon to include "more" than just a ton of images and little real data especially if they are going to convince a mass population that can still look at bldg 7 collapse and actually rationalize it with fire

I don't know what Jones can prove. The towers were pulverized, yet Jones still says they "collapsed". I don't think Jones is the right scientist for this.

And Jones did research at Los Alamos, where directed energy weapons are developed. I find it a bit odd for him to be involved in 9/11 "truth"

And on top of that, Dr Wood's Request for Correction (RFC) (and its two supplements) to NIST are archived on an official government website, but for some reason Steven Jones' RFC is not...

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...y/PROD01_002619

Edited by CB_Brooklyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
first off there is absolutely no evidence within that link verifying that jones has anything to hide-- every argument in the conclusion(considering they agree that there is no doubt 9/11 was an inside job) can easily be attributed to the critics taking things out of context -- considering there were 47 solid steel box columns with walls four inches thick i believe it would be inadequate to rule out thermate as a "key" to the implosion-- even though i know your judy wood does seem to have some sort of particle beam theory to push i dont think jones was very wrong in playing it safe and sticking with what is "easily" provable-- coming out with some sort of particle beam theory by bashing an established figure is not such a good idea-- i sure hope that website expands soon to include "more" than just a ton of images and little real data especially if they are going to convince a mass population that can still look at bldg 7 collapse and actually rationalize it with fire

In the sense that there is absolutely no data and plenty of unfounded assertions, I couldn't agree more. And that Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in any way, shape or form could have done this is simply demonstrating a startling lack of knowledge in the field of such; no more could green cheese have been responsible than DEWs. Secondly, it unfortunately tells more of the dear Doctor that she is publishing (not even half finished) "papers" online and not in peer reviewed journals.

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CB_Brooklyn
In the sense that there is absolutely no data and plenty of unfounded assertions, I couldn't agree more. And that Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in any way, shape or form could have done this is simply demonstrating a startling lack of knowledge in the field of such; no more could green cheese have been responsible than DEWs. Secondly, it unfortunately tells more of the dear Doctor that she is publishing (not even half finished) "papers" online and not in peer reviewed journals.

Best,

Badeskov

Actually, photographs are "hard evidence" and Dr Wood's papers are filled with hard evidence. For you to make those comments above demonstrates your own lack of knowledge about the subject.

Prey tell me, what peer reviewed journal do you expect will publish Dr Wood's paper? Which peer reviewed journal is not being controlled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
Actually, photographs are "hard evidence"...

CB, I know you subscribe to the theory that whomever committed 9/11 was using TV/photograph fakery to help sell the 'story' to us. You have both posted on the subject (including this one which suggests the planes flew off before hitting the towers using optical camouflage) and you are affiliated with no-planers, having carried their articles and links on your blog.

So at what point did footage and photographs stop being faked and instead become 'hard evidence' on 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CB_Brooklyn
CB, I know you subscribe to the theory that whomever committed 9/11 was using TV/photograph fakery to help sell the 'story' to us. You have both posted on the subject (including this one which suggests the planes flew off before hitting the towers using optical camouflage) and you are affiliated with no-planers, having carried their articles and links on your blog.

So at what point did footage and photographs stop being faked and instead become 'hard evidence' on 9/11?

First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air. This is no "theory".

Your second question is very important. Videos/photographs cannot automatically be trusted. They must be analyzed for signs of doctoring, as well as compared to others for verification or contradiction. The results must also be compared with non-photographic evidence. Being that every single video shows an aluminum airplane gliding through a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air, then we know it cannot be of a real event. See this site for a complete archive of every single known video: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

The same applies to Dr Wood's photos.

Edited by CB_Brooklyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air. This is no "theory".

Let's say we accept TV Fakery for the time being - not that I am convinced, but just for the sake of argument. Evidence of TV fakey is not evidence that there were no planes. Further, the overarching problem for the no plane theory is that not one genuine image, whether still or moving, can contain a plane. Not one. They must all be fake and the photographers must all be complicit. If just one genuine image of a plane exists, then the no plane argument is a busted flush.

To my mind it is inconceiveable that every image we have of a plane striking the towers is fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunk

I'm sorry, but this tv fakery stuff is just nonsense. Several close friends of mine work on the 42nd floor of a building a couple blocks from the WTC and watched the second impact with their own eyes. Were they halucinating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
I'm sorry, but this tv fakery stuff is just nonsense. Several close friends of mine work on the 42nd floor of a building a couple blocks from the WTC and watched the second impact with their own eyes. Were they halucinating?

I don't believe they were but let's not get back to confusing TV fakery with no-plane theories. The two are seperate theories. Evidence of TV fakery does not prove the no-plane theory, though obviously, evidence of no-planes would prove TV fakery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunk
I don't believe they were but let's not get back to confusing TV fakery with no-plane theories. The two are seperate theories. Evidence of TV fakery does not prove the no-plane theory, though obviously, evidence of no-planes would prove TV fakery.

If what they saw live and then watched on tv minutes later were the same, what fakery are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
If what they saw live and then watched on tv minutes later were the same, what fakery are you talking about?

Don't even send me there!

I'm in another forum where people have been promoting TV fakery real hard. I don't subscribe to it, though I guess I'm prepared to give any theory a look. The problem is that those promoting TV fakery seem to believe that it is inextricably linked to the no-plane theory, which it isn't.

I'm afraid I lack the appetite to expand on the details of the theories in question but if you visit this list of topics, you will see plenty of fakery-oriented threads to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air.

No-one says they did. All the pictures show an intact aircraft entering the tower and a fireball/debris storm coming out the other side. What esle would you expect? For that matter, what makes you think that aircraft are only made of aluminium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air. This is no "theory".

No, it's a theory, and a decidedly shaky one at best.

Please can you explain to me on what authority you can state this as "fact"? Are you an expert in aircraft/building collisions? How many years experience do you have in studying them?

Can you please point me in the direction of ANY 911 evidence of an airplane gliding through a steel/concrete building as if it were air? Last time I checked, the WTC photos showed evidence of explosions and rather a lot of debris. I'm no expert in this field either, but I'm fairly sure that if a large plane flying at high speed crashed into a building, you can reasonably expect an explosion (chemical energy) and plenty of debris (kinetic energy).

I'm sure you didn't mean what you said so I'll put it down to a sloppy statement, in which case can you properly define your opinion? Is it your position that planes should just have bounced off the towers? Crumpled on the outside? Partially entered the building? Something else? What corroborating evidence do you have to support your position?

PS Stating such a theory as a proven fact is only likely to get people's backs up (i.e. mine), especially when that theory is an off the wall one (no pun intended). Just a pointer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Wood lost me with her particle beam theory. I went to her website regarding the matter and she offered dozens of photographs of burned vehicles as evidence of some type of weapon being used. I have been on hundreds of car fires and I looked at each of those photos closely to try and understand what she was trying to get across. I came to the conclusion that she knows nothing about fire and is willing to use random photos as evidence of some beam weapon. Having actual experience with car fires I could explain each and every one of the photos she felt were so mysterious; I see it all of the time. She just didn't know what the heck she was talking about, but presented herself as if she did. I don't trust her, and I do not believe her. She was 100% wrong in the material that I looked at and it was so bad that I really don't that I could take her seriously in any other theory that she may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air. This is no "theory".

What exactly were the planes supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

another factoid:

Professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University, which is named after the founder of the Mormon Church.

http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/

The CIA is replete with Mormons. Jone's dismissal from BYU could have been intentionally staged to send

a chill through academia nationwide. Message: shut up, or you will lose your job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Brigham Young was not the founder of the Mormon church. That would be Joseph Smith. And what evidence is there that the CIA is replete with Mormons? And I must have missed how this relates to how much Judy Wood does not know about directed energy weapons.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone
Brigham Young was not the founder of the Mormon church. That would be Joseph Smith. And what evidence is there that the CIA is replete with Mormons?

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/nov/papr/brighamyoung.html

Brigham Young, as leader of the Mormon Church and architect of the Mormon colonization of Utah, was one of the most influential figures in shaping the American West.

It is a well known fact that the CIA and FBI are full of mormons. A very high represenation in the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HotDogBun

I would like to thank people like CB brooklyn.

It is because of 'people' like him, killtown, nico haupt, gerard holmgren, etc, that i was able to see how completely doomed the 9/11 truth movement was and disassociate myself from it before it had a chance to damage my credibility with friends, family, and co-workers. 95% of the people in it are just like CB, they are deluded, and become aggressive when their delusion is threatened. They are anything but open minded and are in fact every bit as bad as the 'sheeple' in their behavior and ignorance. they do not respond to evidence, logic, or fact. The 9/11 truth movement is now nothing but a lunatic fringe religion, dedicated to maintaining and spreading it's delusional beliefs like any other religion with no consideration for reality.

Great Job!!

Nobody KNOWS who was behind 9/11 or what really happened, including the truthers. It is a shame they are so confused and unorganized, at one point in time they may have had the strength to begin a new investigation and find some REAL answers. Now they are just a footnote of pop culture and a limited internet phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat
It is a well known fact that the CIA and FBI are full of mormons. A very high represenation in the CIA.

So now it is a "well known fact" but still no evidence. Yeah sure. And Brigham Young was still not the founder of the Mormon church. In case English is not your first language, founder and leader do not mean the same thing. The Mormon church was founded by Joseph Smith. And again, what does this have to do with how much Judy Wood does not know about directed energy weapons? Or are you deliberately trying to change the subject?

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone
So now it is a "well known fact" but still no evidence. Yeah sure. And Brigham Young was still not the founder of the Mormon church. In case English is not your first language, founder and leader do not mean the same thing. The Mormon church was founded by Joseph Smith. And again, what does this have to do with how much Judy Wood does not know about directed energy weapons? Or are you deliberately trying to change the subject?

It is you who is changing the subject. My post mentioned nothing about JW.

Brigham Young helped found the Mormon Church and took over after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the founder of the Mormon Church in Utah, where Brigham Young university is located.

You are splitting hairs.

It is a well known fact that CIA and FBI agents have a disproportionately high representation of Mormons among them. Google it or prove me wrong. I will not spoon feed you the world on a silver platter. The Mormons are New Age and heavily into masonic ritual:

video:

Mormons and the Illuminati

What is really going on behind the scenes in the Mormon church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zptF3BIriE...ted&search=

Physics professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University.

Edited by thunkerdrone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goofball_mcgee
It is you who is changing the subject. My post mentioned nothing about JW.

Brigham Young helped found the Mormon Church and took over after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the founder of the Mormon Church in Utah, where Brigham Young university is located.

You are splitting hairs.

It is a well known fact that CIA and FBI agents have a disproportionately high representation of Mormons among them. Google it or prove me wrong. I will not spoon feed you the world on a silver platter. The Mormons are New Age and heavily into masonic ritual:

video:

Mormons and the Illuminati

What is really going on behind the scenes in the Mormon church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zptF3BIriE...ted&search=

Physics professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University.

Brigham Young joined the LDS church two years after it was founded, so how did he help found the church? not only that but he was living in Vermont not Missouri. So you're wrong.

If you have a problem with Mormons take it to the religion board an stop trying to link them to the 9/11 conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat
It is you who is changing the subject. My post mentioned nothing about JW.

Brigham Young helped found the Mormon Church and took over after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the founder of the Mormon Church in Utah, where Brigham Young university is located.

You are splitting hairs.

It is a well known fact that CIA and FBI agents have a disproportionately high representation of Mormons among them. Google it or prove me wrong. I will not spoon feed you the world on a silver platter. The Mormons are New Age and heavily into masonic ritual:

video:

Mormons and the Illuminati

What is really going on behind the scenes in the Mormon church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zptF3BIriE...ted&search=

Physics professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University.

You provide some idea and want others to provide the evidence? Wow, you have some messed up idea about how the burden of proof works. The problem is I and I'm sure many others, don't really even care if you think there are a lot of Mormons in the CIA or FBI. But the existence or not of Mormons in the CIA or FBI is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, as already mentioned, Brigham Young was not the founder and couldn't be as he didn't join until after the church was founded. It is you who is changing the subject as this topic is about Judy Wood and her paper. You even admitted it when you wrote "My post mentioned nothing about JW." Or can you not read the title at the top of each page? If you want to talk about Stephen Jones or Mormons in intelligence, then start a new topic or somehow make it relevant to this one.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.