Gov. Jesse Ventura discusses Dr. Judy Wood with Alex Jones

Initiate
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:35 pm

PostThu May 12, 2011 8:58 pm » by Cee420


pookzta wrote:Gov. Jesse Ventura discusses Dr. Judy Wood's 'Where Did The Towers Go?' with Alex Jones | 5/10/2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP65E3I4fD8

I think it is great to see more and more people looking into 9/11 deeper and deeper. I can't wait until the day we finally can take SAIC, ARA, and the other private weapons / defense corporations who participated in science fraud with NIST back to court to get some answers!

Best wishes,

-Abe


Hey, Abe

..are you finally going to address the mistakes in claims made by Judy Wood? ..as I have asked you and in two of your earlier threads
..and also to clarify some of the claims you hold as “empirical evidence” as I have asked you to do before?
Go to your last thread to see what I’m asking you to address.

About Jesse Ventura on the video clip
..at one point he things because King Dome demolition caused larger seismic spike than the destruction of Twin Towers it speaks of ‘Direct Energy Weapon’-demolition.

No, it really does not.

The King Dome demolition caused a larger seismic pike cause during the King Dome demolition there was a larger mass hitting the ground at one instant than during the WTC destruction
..it was the roof structures of King Dome ..nothing this large and heavy hit the ground around WTC complex at one instant.
At the WTC complex the buildings were cut in to smaller pieces, ejected in all directions and also onto another buildings ..so, when you realize this then it is quite easy to understand why the WTC destruction caused smaller spike(s).

Writer
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:19 am

PostThu May 12, 2011 9:20 pm » by Ftt0024


It seems like Jesse Ventura reads a new book every day and then changes his mind. This guy doesn't even believe in ET's, saying on his show that he's never believed in little green men.

This women has a decent theory, but there is more evidence that supports they were brought down by controlled demolition rather some secret energy weapons that no one can describe. Years ago Jesse Ventura even claimed they were brought down by controlled demotion and that he was an expert in the field of explosives. Now he's changed his mind? Come on.
Follow the Truth -- Open your eyes, do your research, and start to prepare

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostThu May 12, 2011 9:59 pm » by Epicfailure


LOL yes sorry, we have debated this a hundred times before where she said the towers "evaporate" when clearly you can see the remaining towers fall as she cherry picks her evidence....

yes microwaves as in burning peoples skin, but lets see WOW no one has BURN marks from a microwave on them, no one outside or inside the towers who made it out had skin burns from anything other than fire.. AHHAH! Indeed, MICROWAVES!

but you drag this into a qualification match lowsix? I suppose living in an apartment with your "stringer seasonal part-time journalist" career and putting your finger on a shutter control makes you more qualified than anyone here for an opinion? nice straw man argument.

ok have fun with this one guys....

my qualifications are of no interest or no concern to any of you, if you can't see a piece of debris falling compared to what she thinks happened of "microwave evaporation"

then LOL on you....

have fun with this thread, this is exactly the spamming type I am talking about but once again Spock doesn't and won't see it until it gets out of hand, or he is drunk and threatens to ban you on his retard logic... nice name for you Spock.

another BS September Clues rip off...nothing more and nothing less.

Even Wikipedia is blacklisting the links:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

1. Seismic reading too low? it was a 2.3 for a building demolition... seems about right.

2. Concrete turning to dust, which is seen in volcanoes (which she also uses as evidence for a massive energy release, but fails to mention pyroclastic clouds of extreme heat) (last I checked microwaves are not present in Volcanos)

3. LOL and here we go, the STEEL SPIRE THAT TURNED TO DUST!!! LMAO!, Yes this piece of the tower simply fell and anyone can see that is the case, it did not Disintegrate:

Here, here is Spammer Pootzka (whom works and spams for this lady) here is his cut off and grainy video:


Upload to Disclose.tv



here is another posted by him (wow certainly not a spammer) of a close up where you can see it fall and leave debris dust (already on it from the collapse) falling off from it while the remaining falls)


Upload to Disclose.tv



Yep certainly a microwave, you know nevermind the molten steel at the bottom of the towers either, and the people who weren't cooked on the streets for a total of 52 and 102 minutes(both towers time of falling after planes hit) of exposed microwave time :bang;

4. Concrete and steel lacking on the towers...: WOW really? no not because of collapsing and imploding fusion techniques of metals and pulverization of concrete huh? most certainly there was not a 3 story tall debris field in the 2 floors of the basement of little chunks of concrete and steel...

Did she not see the dust of the concrete spread all through New York? does she not know that controlled demolitions usually result in most materials landing in the foot or basement of the controlled demolition site? I guess not, she must have missed where they just shipped the wreckage off and made a WHOLE FUCKING SHIP from the wreckage..... but yeah all that material disappeared and disintegrated from a microwave and the ship was imaginary...

how dense are you?

also never mind the ejected steel beams from the outside that struck other buildings from explosives on the near outer walls (for breaking up concrete for footprint demolition).... nope it was a microwave.

5. Toasted cars over half a mile from Ground Zero.: YEP this whacko says the pyroclastic clouds were cool (despite an extreme microwave heat) and claims that instead of heating temperatures and falling thermate, it was once again a microwave that heated the cars:

despite the fact that most of these cars were moved from right in front of the complex's into an areas out of the way for responders to get access to the buildings and within the area, thus giving any heat from the clouds and falling still ignited and warm demolition thermate (several weeks after) causing the damage...

yep once again microwave wins this one :bang;

6. Large sections of buildings "vanish": LMAO!!!! Do I even have to answer this one? Falling Debris took out these parts of the building which you can see here:

look at that debris on the building and IN the building: (building 6)
Image

Image


how can that piece be in there when it was disintegrated and the other buildings were hit with a microwave causing that damage? huh interesting!!!!

7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. LMFAO!!!! you are the one buying this stuff lowsix and Spock, so you tell me is it normal for a controlled demolition to flood Manhattan? HAHAHAHAHA

I will not even dignify that question with a response because it is just ridiculous and I don't need "credentials" to asses that.

8. All airplanes ordered to land And this proves a Microwave how? this was a domestic terror attack since pearl harbor, so yes planes are going to be ordered down in a national emergency (but she fails to mention the secret planes that were still left flying hmmmm?)

9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. Interesting and her proof for this claim is this : "the government has technology 20 years advanced from us"

well we have had microwaves for decades lady and directional ones at that.



OK LOWSIX, I was wondering why you didn't post the link of her "credentials" and I now see why... because you got it from where I got this list from which was on a wikipedia page that is sourced to NOWHERE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mujin ... page_entry

Judy has some experience in that field, but it's not her specialty. From her bio (on her tripod page): B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S (Engineering Mechanics, 1983), and, Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) Virginia Polytechnic. "Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing. From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11. One of Dr. Wood’s research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports. Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told. " Kings 32 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


The same wikipedia page that blacklisted information because of Spamming, and the information from her OWN webpage HAHAHA!

nice link to a university that doesn't even have her information present and who knows if it is the same DR.:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 06-124140/

no information available..

what was your quote to me one other time lowsix? you know the one where you also bought into ALISON KRUSE'S videos and said this to me:

"showing a link to a video that is dead as proof that it was there is not proof"
(even though I was redeemed later when another user uploaded the video I was talking about)

well there you go, why did you even post it? Oh I know, because you are LOWSIX and you can do whatever you want without moral conscious and be protected and avenged by your bible buddy Spock as proven again in this thread.


This Link also, SHOWS NO DR JUDY WOOD! and is also a broken link unless you "subscribe" to the journal, but there is no point because HER NAME isn't even present in any of the listings, so once again why did you post this link?

http://select.ingentaconnect.com/titles ... ntp1-1.htm



well I think that about covers it, my credentials at the door, I have thoroughly went through and shown the retard in both you and Spocks logic, by simple explanations...

but who am I kidding you both believe in peoples words for things, which is why you believe in the bible....

silly religious people...
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:04 pm » by Epicfailure


truthseekerx wrote:
epicfailure wrote:Can we ban this guy?

he is everywhere on the internet, literally everywhere setting up false accounts and spamming the shit out of this looney of a woman who woke up from a coma and thinks she is a doctor...

there is no information on this woman, there is no logical reasoning behind any of these theories.

This person is a spammer, I vote for removal.



Wow, this really makes you suspect. Ridicule without an intelligent rebuttal... makes you sound like you'd like the truth of 911 to remain hidden.

Truth floats. It can't stay hidden for long.


Interesting argument for someone who added nothing themselves....

interesting indeed.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:22 pm » by Epicfailure


Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

Some have suggested that much of the structural steel of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was turned to dust, or “dustified” – a term used by Judy Wood, the primary proponent of this hypothesis – with some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). Some of the observations cited by Wood include the voluminous dust created during the Twin Towers’ destruction, the “craters” in WTC 5 and 6, “toasted” cars, and small holes in glass windows.

While Wood and AE911truth agree that the official story of an “inevitable” collapse by gravity alone is impossible because it conflicts with laws of physics, we completely differ on the mechanism of the destruction. Crucially, once there is proof and consensus that the official story violates elementary laws of physics, our major scientific task has been accomplished. The remaining task is the political challenge of mobilizing support for a legitimate investigation.

Of course the science of the collapse of the Towers and Building 7 can be advanced beyond the mere conclusion that the official story must be false. But it is imperative that anyone serious advancing understanding of the mechanisms of collapse hew closely to scientific methodology. This is crucial to earn the 9/11 movement the public respect it deserves, rather than to cast it into the role of perpetrating "junk science."

The scientific method requires us to look at all the available evidence and then assess various explanations for their ability to account for the evidence. At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding.

A Hypothesis in Search of Facts

One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens.

Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spuriously interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.

Damage to Core Box Columns

Image
Many of the core box columns found in the WTC rubble had concave sides. Most were broken straight across at the weld points. Often, one side of the column’s welds were deeply oxidized and even torn away. Explosions ripping across the weld points, as explained by Gordon Ross, offer an explosive hypothesis that demonstrates a mechanism with results resembling observations in the WTC rubble.

In order for the core column breaks to be so straight and horizontal, DEW technology would have to have the following features:

• Be capable of a sufficiently sharp focus for it to attack all or most of the columns at a given level at the same time, but only the ends of those columns;

• Be capable of having its target level move down the building without changing the angle at which it cuts the columns;

• Be capable of having its target level move down at two-thirds of freefall acceleration (as measured by David Chandler), and perhaps other acceleration rates;

• Be capable of having multiple target levels, so that it could destroy the falling upper section of each tower while also destroying the lower section, to create the illusion that the upper section is crushing the lower section, even though that upper section is in itself being destroyed; and

• Be capable of destroying only those connections between steel columns that still form part of the buildings’ structures, leaving untouched the hundreds or thousands of steel assemblies and steel pieces that can be seen flying out of each tower in huge clouds.


In addition to all these features, Wood's alleged secret DEW technology would have to be able to pulverize most of the concrete in both Towers and Building 7, and in the case of the Twin Towers, fling 90% of the buildings' mass outside their footprints. such technology would also have to be able to account for the evidence relating to molten iron, nano-engineered energetic material, and the sights and sounds of explosions described below. Why posit sophisticated secret technology to explain these observations, when some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives placed throughout the buildings can explain them much more simply, without making wild assumptions? This is a clear violation of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts should be given the greatest credibility.

In fact, the destruction of the Twin Towers matches fully the characteristics of “high-order damage” as they are listed in the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations: all three WTC skyscrapers were completely destroyed, the structural units (perimeter walls, etc.) were shattered; heavy pieces from the Twin Towers were thrown horizontally at 70 mph over large distances, and most of the concrete floors were finely pulverized. That the common concept of high-order damage is met by the evidence at the WTC means that explosions with a high rate of pressure rise occurred. The use of high explosives can also explain all the evidence that matches the characteristics of high order damage.

The case for explosives is also supported by over one hundred orally recorded accounts by FDNY first responders, many of whom reported sounds of explosions and patterned flashes of light, and with many interpreting the skyscraper destruction as being caused by “secondary devices.”

The Fall of the “Spire”

Image

Wood asserts that the steel “turned to dust.” One of the key observations that she uses to support this conclusion is the dust that appeared when a portion of the North Tower's core finally came down about 12 seconds into the destruction of the North Tower, several seconds after the floors that used to surround that core structure had been pulverized or had fallen to the ground.

However, upon studying the video of the “spire,” we find that the steel did not “turn to dust”


Upload to Disclose.tv


. The spire clearly simply fell after being attacked by explosive charges, leaving behind, in mid-air, the pulverized concrete that had been resting on, or statically stuck to, the steel. As is well known, air resistance causes dust to fall slower than macroscopic pieces of structural steel (note the final remaining column falling faster than the dust in the third photograph of the sequence).

If the structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel members in the debris. Yet nothing of the sort is shown in Wood’s book or website. One would also expect a much higher fraction of the dust to be found to consist of iron than the 5.87% maximum detected by RJLee Group (see below). the massive structural steel was roughly equal to the mass of concrete in the towers, and there was not enough gypsum wallboard to dilute the iron below a 6% proportion, if any significant fraction of it had been “dustified.”

The “toasted” tops of vehicles

Image

Wood suggests that the tops and other portions of damaged vehicles near Ground Zero may also be attributed to DEW yet doesn’t provide a possible scenario as to how DEW might account for this phenomenon, particularly in view of the fact that the towers reached high above ground while the cars were on the ground.

Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nanothermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000° F.) A reporter and a firefighter (see the last two links at the end of this article), and perhaps others, described the dust cloud as feeling hot – whereas Wood claims that the dust clouds were cool.

Previously molten iron microspheres found in the dust

Substantial quantities of previously molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group (RJ Lee). RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10-100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a “signature component” of the WTC Dust and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event,” that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The previously molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.

Image

The chemical signature of the examined spheres matched the chemical signature of spheroids produced by common thermite and by red/gray nanothermite composite chips found in the WTC dust, indicating that thermitic reactions took place as part of the towers’ demise. The DEW hypothesis does not address this and cannot account for it – because it is inconsistent with the extreme heat required to produce it.

A video, photos, and dozens of witnesses document molten metal

Image

Molten metal is observed pouring from WTC 2 several minutes before its final destruction. Its bright white/yellow color demonstrates that it is not aluminum, but steel or iron, and that its temperature far exceeds that which can be produced by jet fuel or office fires. FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team report, May 2002, Appendix “C” documents molten iron invading the grain boundaries of the WTC structural steel. A revealing NY Times article called this “the deepest mystery” of the investigation.

Image

Thermitic materials (thermite, thermate or nanothermite) produce molten iron at 4,500° F temperatures. They can easily cut through steel and create the ubiquitous iron spheroids.
The DEW hypothesis does not explain this phenomenon. In fact Wood denies that these temperatures were ever reached, without even addressing this evidence, which is documented by official and unofficial sources.

One key advantage of such substances for the purposes of a surreptitious controlled demolition would be that it would not be detected by conventional chemical tests nor by trained bomb-sniffing dogs. Another advantage is that these substances can be chemically tuned to adjust their shockwave characteristics, which presumably includes the amount and nature of the sound generated when they go off.

The red/gray nanothermite chips constitute direct evidence that supports the explosive/incendiary hypothesis. The DEW hypothesis does not explain how or why this engineered energetic material was found throughout the dust. DEW proponents merely wave away the evidence, which was carefully documented in a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, without addressing any of the specific points made in the paper. Particles of aluminum and iron oxide 1,000 times smaller in diameter than a human hair, intimately intermixed and set in a bed of organic material capable of generating gas pressure when heated, were photographed, analyzed by x-rays, and he did in a calorimeter to the point where they reacted to produce iron-rich microspheres precisely resembling those found in the World Trade Center dust by researchers independent of this team. These findings conclusively account for the observed high-temperature phenomena described in the next section.

Image

Image

Craters observed in WTC 5 and 6

Image

Wood makes a great deal of the holes that are visible in pictures of WTC 5 and 6, purporting to find no other explanation than exotic weaponry. These holes are easily explained by the thousands of tons of falling steel, smashing through the tops of the adjacent structures. Steel perimeter column sections from the towers can be clearly seen inside these holes.

Hundreds of eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions

The many qualified witnesses to the sights and sounds of explosions are easily explained with the controlled demolition by explosive hypothesis – but not with the DEW hypothesis.

Conclusion

We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. In addition, we believe the DEW theory raises far more questions than it answers, such as the energy requirements and other issues outlined in the suggested references listed below.

Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures.



footnote

To all those out there who buy into Judy Wood's theory: Yes, Judy Wood may have fairly impressive credentials, but as we already know, that does not make someone immune to spreading disinformation.

The interviews the Infowars and Prisonplanet crew have done with Steve Pieczenik over the last few days are certainly interesting and I'm not saying they should be discounted, but the fact that he is a high level insider should also raise alarms. Over the last decade many government, intelligence and military insiders have come forward apparently supporting our cause while promoting disinfo, such as David Shayler, Morgan Reynolds and Albert Stubblebine. Government insiders are attractive to us due to their apparent credibility, but the history of our movement has shown that generally they are in fact the least credible.
Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:26 pm » by Lowsix


Hahahahah

A GIANT WALL of evidence supporting her credentials,
and your ONLY response is that Im a Stringer and Religious nut?
Oh and they didnt list her advisors in her online thesis.
If it was fake why would the school host it much less
require you to be faculty at VTech to view it?

I didn't see you refute anything in that HUGE list of published work,
or her formal education....Why is that exactly?

This is where I got her credentials:
(yes its her site, posting your own credentials is common practice)
Debunk it then.. prove to me, its all fake.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

You can find her Doctoral Dissertation here:
(why would Virginia Tech host her dissertation if she didn't attend?)
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 06-124140/

Additional articles on Moire interference here:
(which truthfully, i dont know that is, other than shes published,
has a bachelors, masters and doctorate in materials engineering and you don't.)

http://select.ingentaconnect.com/titles ... ntp1-1.htm

Again, im not interested in her conclusions, i'm interested in your assertion that she woke up one day declaring herself a doctor. No, she went a highly rated school, took the course work and completed three degrees. Now if you can prove that these credentials are fake, id have to grant you some points. But that published list of articles is rather hard to debunk, since many are peer reviewed.

Debunk the evidence of her education in front of you, (if you can)
Grow up and Dont flip your shit because you've been challenged.

And remember, the issue is not whether shes been debunked on her theories,
the issue is that you claimed she was a fake doctor. Even Doctors can be wrong about their conclusions...I dont care about that..at all. Even doctors can advocate "junk science"..but it doesnt make them not doctors as you have claimed repeatedly.

Focus. Breathe. Address the issue at hand. Her Credentials.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Writer
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:19 am

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:35 pm » by Ftt0024


Case closed.
Follow the Truth -- Open your eyes, do your research, and start to prepare

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:37 pm » by Epicfailure


Yes once again links to site that show nothing, and a link to her site that shows her credentials on her own site....

the university one shows nothing when you click on the link, just her name and assertions then you click on the following link and NOTHING.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said she wasn't qualified for an opinion as everyone is, you just assumed (once again in your typical fashion) that I said as such...

she is a qualified doctor of Black operation Microwave technology?

she claims to have never seen one but is a qualified doctor to speak on such a technology?

interesting again.

yes saying she woke up from a coma and giving some BS is knocking her down, as you can clearly see that she is a whackjob, but for some reason you came in with the shining armor defending her position...

like you did with Alison Kruse until you back tracked and declared that you weren't defending her, but you were then scapegoated our with a broken link defense...

Another one for the books lowsix..

keep this up, it's nice knowing that you throw out straw men arguments in favor of making yourself look like a damn fool to be celebrated by your other insignificant half "Spock" the Illogical one...

anyways, I have done enough disproving of this woman, and you, so I am finished...

have a nice day religious stringer

(and yeah believing in the bible is not a good way to say you are qualified for scientific anything as you believe in winged fairies and Jesus exist, then he doesn't exist according to you)

You can find her Doctoral Dissertation here:
(why would Virginia Tech host her dissertation if she didn't attend?)
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 06-124140/


yep a broken link showing what? that she had no advisor approve the doctoral?

click the link that is provided below Lowsix

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 2.W662.pdf

oh poor lowsix it appears you are wrong in your assumption it was a doctorate, or maybe I was, but either way I will say what you said to me once:

"A link showing nothing as proof of something is not valid"

oops look like that doesn't count as evidence anymore as it isn't directly sourced material.

Additional articles on Moire interference here:
(which truthfully, i dont know that is, other than shes published,
has a bachelors, masters and doctorate in materials engineering and you don't.)

http://select.ingentaconnect.com/titles ... ntp1-1.htm


yeah you don't know what it means and you didn't even bother to look because Judy's name is NOWHERE on that list.... click it find out for yourself, once again no proof on your part.

click the given link from that link you posted and you will see this, another stopped and broken link imagine that, this coming from lowsix? no way he would post some broken links to prove a invalid point against someone who makes him look like a fool by his own statements..

here you go lowsix this is your link you posted and those links within:

http://caliban.ingentaconnect.com/vl=71 ... 9/s4/p1021

looks like not only is her name not on those links, but also you can't even see them unless you pay money....

what a valid argument you have low, very valid and sourced extremely well..

:bang;
Last edited by Epicfailure on Thu May 12, 2011 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostThu May 12, 2011 10:54 pm » by Lowsix


epicfailure wrote: a woman who woke up from a coma and thinks she is a doctor...

there is no information on this woman,


We have to keep focusing you like a child learning his ABC's.

Im simply refuting your statements above.

1. she woke up thinking she was a doctor
2. There is no information on this woman.

1. She went to school, has three advanced degrees, IS a Doctor.
2. There is information on this woman.

Simple.
Stay Focused.

If you can proves she doesn't possess those three advanced degrees
isnt published in 70 peer reviewed journals
and didnt teach those courses at Clemson..

I'll retract my statement.

Till then, you're just blustering and posturing.

"Dr. Wood received her

*B.S. Civil Engineering, 1981 (Structural Engineering), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
*M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
*Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science, 1992, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Former Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Taught courses including:
- Experimental Stress Analysis,
- Engineering Mechanics,
- Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
- Strength of Materials Testing

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

Experimental Stress Analysis,
Engineering Mechanics,
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing"
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostThu May 12, 2011 11:02 pm » by Epicfailure


lowsix wrote:
epicfailure wrote: a woman who woke up from a coma and thinks she is a doctor...

there is no information on this woman,


We have to keep focusing you like a child learning his ABC's.

Im simply refuting your statements above.

1. she woke up thinking she was a doctor
2. There is no information on this woman.

1. She went to school, has three advanced degrees, IS a Doctor.
2. There is information on this woman.

Simple.
Stay Focused.

If you can proves she doesn't possess those three advanced degrees
isnt published in 70 peer reviewed journals
and didnt teach those courses at Clemson..

I'll retract my statement.

Till then, you're just blustering and posturing.

"Dr. Wood received her

*B.S. Civil Engineering, 1981 (Structural Engineering), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
*M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
*Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science, 1992, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Former Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Taught courses including:
- Experimental Stress Analysis,
- Engineering Mechanics,
- Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
- Strength of Materials Testing

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

Experimental Stress Analysis,
Engineering Mechanics,
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing"



yes thank you for providing broken links that prove nothing, and sourcing her own website where she can claim anything, you have provided nothing as proof, even the last segment was taken from her own site:

Quote:
You can find her Doctoral Dissertation here:
(why would Virginia Tech host her dissertation if she didn't attend?)
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 06-124140/



yep a broken link showing what? that she had no advisor approve the doctoral?

click the link that is provided below Lowsix

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/availa ... 2.W662.pdf

oh poor lowsix it appears you are wrong in your assumption it was a doctorate, or maybe I was, but either way I will say what you said to me once:

"A link showing nothing as proof of something is not valid"

oops look like that doesn't count as evidence anymore as it isn't directly sourced material.

Quote:
Additional articles on Moire interference here:
(which truthfully, i dont know that is, other than shes published,
has a bachelors, masters and doctorate in materials engineering and you don't.)

http://select.ingentaconnect.com/titles ... ntp1-1.htm



yeah you don't know what it means and you didn't even bother to look because Judy's name is NOWHERE on that list.... click it find out for yourself, once again no proof on your part.

click the given link from that link you posted and you will see this, another stopped and broken link imagine that, this coming from lowsix? no way he would post some broken links to prove a invalid point against someone who makes him look like a fool by his own statements..

here you go lowsix this is your link you posted and those links within:

http://caliban.ingentaconnect.com/vl=71 ... 9/s4/p1021

looks like not only is her name not on those links, but also you can't even see them unless you pay money....

what a valid argument you have low, very valid and sourced extremely well..

:bang;


maybe she is a doctor, maybe she isn't, she hasn't provided any concrete proof of her theories let alone her qualification, but regardless she is still nutty and you tried prying a response based on broken links and assumptions based on HER OWN WEBPAGE as truth....

again taken broken words and illegitimate information as proof (bible)

epicfailure will stand by this comment:
She is not qualified in black operation microwave technology only allegedly structural and strength of materials, not energy physics of a microwave

but somehow she is qualified to talk about a microwave? you are fucking weird man.

Lowsix and Spock:
Image
Image


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook