More Wood
So, I wanted to get a sense if anything was really new in Judy Wood's book, so I forced myself to listen to all 5 parts of this recent interview with her on Red Ice radio:
The first three segments or so are really annoying, as it is painful to see someone so willfully deluded and completely determined to reject obvious explanations for the WTC phenomena on 9/11. On top of this, she fabricates evidence, such as the idea that steel WTC columns turned completely to dust as they fell. To make a long story short-- and to re-iterate what we have written here before-- all of the evidence Wood describes can be explained by known phenomena that revolve around the central fact of nuclear demolition.
1) EMP produced by nuclear explosions can explain the odd burning patterns on cars and other odd WTC occurances.
2) nuclear explosions can explain the vaporization of building contents, the dust coming off the falling columns, and the incredibly fine dust produced during the destruction of the towers -- the dust that blew all over and that lingered at ground zero.
3) she was asked about hanging skin-- a sign of nuclear heat exposure-- and dodged the question.
Also-- conventional forces can also explain much-- something Wood seem to go to pains to deny. Many cars simply burned by normal fire. Many damaged cars were moved to make room for other vehicles, and were probably moved in rough, crude ways, leaving them upside-down at times. WTC7 simply burned just on its damaged face. Orange steel pulled from smoking rubble is almost certainly very hot and not some unknown phenomenon. The bath-tub was damaged by falling debris but not completely damaged. There was concern that moving heavy cranes over the bath-tub might weaken the damaged walls. And so on.
Wood really gets suspect when she gets into the Hutchison effect, which appears to be a complete fraud and seems to have very little to do with what happened at the WTC on 9/11.
Then she gets into the hurricane story. Which at first blush sounds striking, but I would bet a lot of money that it was completely predicted by the weather people that it would turn direction before hitting the east coast due to the pressure system coming off the US. And her tie-in of the hurricane energy to the WTC -- a mechanism to transfer the hurricane energy to the WTC-- is totally non-existent. Essentially she says, a lot of energy was used to destroy the WTC and there was a lot of energy in this nearby hurricane, so someone must have harnessed this energy to destroy the WTC. And there were no lasers-- how silly for people to say there were lasers-- even though everyone knows the main DEW that has been developed and capable of any kind of destruction is laser energy.
The only new thing I heard was the magnetometer distortions in Alaska starting about 10am on 9/11. This is almost certainly a complete coincidence, as there is no data to suggest how much variation occurs in these readings on any given day.
So, overall, color me unimpressed, to say the least. I see no reason to buy her book and no reason to think Wood has any new data on DEW at the WTC.
Also, this.
The first three segments or so are really annoying, as it is painful to see someone so willfully deluded and completely determined to reject obvious explanations for the WTC phenomena on 9/11. On top of this, she fabricates evidence, such as the idea that steel WTC columns turned completely to dust as they fell. To make a long story short-- and to re-iterate what we have written here before-- all of the evidence Wood describes can be explained by known phenomena that revolve around the central fact of nuclear demolition.
1) EMP produced by nuclear explosions can explain the odd burning patterns on cars and other odd WTC occurances.
2) nuclear explosions can explain the vaporization of building contents, the dust coming off the falling columns, and the incredibly fine dust produced during the destruction of the towers -- the dust that blew all over and that lingered at ground zero.
3) she was asked about hanging skin-- a sign of nuclear heat exposure-- and dodged the question.
Also-- conventional forces can also explain much-- something Wood seem to go to pains to deny. Many cars simply burned by normal fire. Many damaged cars were moved to make room for other vehicles, and were probably moved in rough, crude ways, leaving them upside-down at times. WTC7 simply burned just on its damaged face. Orange steel pulled from smoking rubble is almost certainly very hot and not some unknown phenomenon. The bath-tub was damaged by falling debris but not completely damaged. There was concern that moving heavy cranes over the bath-tub might weaken the damaged walls. And so on.
Wood really gets suspect when she gets into the Hutchison effect, which appears to be a complete fraud and seems to have very little to do with what happened at the WTC on 9/11.
Then she gets into the hurricane story. Which at first blush sounds striking, but I would bet a lot of money that it was completely predicted by the weather people that it would turn direction before hitting the east coast due to the pressure system coming off the US. And her tie-in of the hurricane energy to the WTC -- a mechanism to transfer the hurricane energy to the WTC-- is totally non-existent. Essentially she says, a lot of energy was used to destroy the WTC and there was a lot of energy in this nearby hurricane, so someone must have harnessed this energy to destroy the WTC. And there were no lasers-- how silly for people to say there were lasers-- even though everyone knows the main DEW that has been developed and capable of any kind of destruction is laser energy.
The only new thing I heard was the magnetometer distortions in Alaska starting about 10am on 9/11. This is almost certainly a complete coincidence, as there is no data to suggest how much variation occurs in these readings on any given day.
So, overall, color me unimpressed, to say the least. I see no reason to buy her book and no reason to think Wood has any new data on DEW at the WTC.
Also, this.
posted by spooked at 2:21 PM
2 Comments:
"Essentially she says, a lot of energy was used to destroy the WTC and there was a lot of energy in this nearby hurricane, so someone must have harnessed this energy to destroy the WTC."
Essentially, this is completely incorrect and is nowhere stated or implied in the radio broadcast nor the book.
You have not mentioned "field effects", which people can find referenced in the book, in the broadcast and your website. Your omission of this key phrase is revealing.
It is a shame, that in any quest for the truth you may be on, you have chosen to misrepresent the evidence and what is concluded from it. It is a real shame. But that is your choice.
Quote: "The only new thing I heard was the magnetometer distortions in Alaska starting about 10am on 9/11. This is almost certainly a complete coincidence, as there is no data to suggest how much variation occurs in these readings on any given day."
You fail to understand the point. It's not about "how much variation occurs in these readings" respect to average value, but rather, the timing coincidence of the magnetometer changes and the events at the WTC on 9/11.
Regards,
Post a Comment
<< Home