The 9/11 Forum

dadeets wrote:My mistake. It wasn't the top level. What I did is do a search on "Judy Wood," and this was the only item that came up.

The search functions for this forum are quite abysmal.

I just figured, if someone was to post something on her stuff, this is where it is to be done.

No. Based on the subject, there are many possible categories. For example, billiard balls would go into Collapse Progression. There, it could be objectively demonstrated to run afoul of the laws of physics top to bottom, front to back, using little effort (but good effort thrown after bad cause).

From the responses to my post, I see a strong bias towards trashing.

Definitely from me, but I'm the only one who's responded. I'd like to say you can't judge the entire forum on the opinion of one member, but it may actually be the case here. I don't know for sure. I certainly haven't run across any proponents here in the past.

I'm interested an objective conversation, but I guess I will look elsewhere.

It's probably wise to look elsewhere for the willingness to discuss Judy Wood theories, but I'm not going to just walk away from the 'objective' adjective. I've determined to my satisfaction that the claims I've examined are pure bunk. Not by a slim margin, either. Please don't confuse or conflate unwillingness to waste time with a lack of objectivity. No one here has an obligation to deconstruct her arguments in detail but that says nothing about lack of objectivity and to insinuate such is incorrect.

The presumption is that the sentiment expressed in the thread title and the posts contained herein lack objectivity. I don't see it. I see instead history, and part of that history includes the dismissal of claims having no merit.

This forum did not arise in a vacuum. Neither was it founded on Sept 12, 2001, which incidentally was not yesterday, it was nearly a decade ago. It was initially formed around a small group of people invited to conduct research free from biased moderation and administration. The people who got it going already had considerable time under their belts investigating one or more aspects of the event, and this includes in most cases having already spent considerable time checking out the many, many theories out there. Which, as many here have discovered, are fantastically poor and in some instances verge on insane.

There's no reason to start from square one or, as I said, give equal consideration to all ideas. Some ideas are BS. Some may even be deliberate disinfo, though that's probably exceedingly rare. Anyone who has invested (i.e. squandered) time in ferreting out the BS years before this forum originated is understandably biased against regression and devolving towards a lesser state of research.

Sure, others coming along later may not have followed a similar path to similar conclusions. The issue in that case lies with them. If there are arguments to challenge the notion that Judy Wood is at best an incompetent researcher, by all means bring them out. Retreating to accusations of lack of objectivity because someone has the fortitude (and integrity) to call BS when they see it does not advance any argument.

The Billiard Ball example. After all these years, it's still there. You want objectivity? I can objectively tear this apart. Up, down, and back up again. It could take several hours to prepare a demolition of the pseudoscientific claptrap present on this one page. And, even then, a modest knowledge of physics will be required to follow the arguments.

Objectively, that is a complete waste of time.* If challenged to do so, I might consider it out of a neurotic need to bear witness to the truth, but that's becoming a mighty slim justification these days. As the thread title says, Truth movement groups uninterested in truth. Anyone supporting the nonsense on the referenced page is either unable to evaluate truth of the claims, or uninterested in the truth itself. There's been enough time since this 'analysis' emerged for any interested party to obtain a graduate degree in physics - in their spare time - and see it for what it is.

So, yes, I agree - Truth movement groups uninterested in truth! Judy Wood and supporters - uninterested in truth.

* a much better use of time for all is for those supporting such pseudoscience to read the threads in this forum and learn how the real mechanics of progression is done. This is not a remedial school, but remedial material is available all the same to anyone interested in the truth.

dadeets wrote:"Truth movement groups uninterested in truth."

My mistake. It wasn't the top level. What I did is do a search on "Judy Wood," and this was the only item that came up. I just figured, if someone was to post something on her stuff, this is where it is to be done.

From the responses to my post, I see a strong bias towards trashing.

I'm interested an objective conversation, but I guess I will look elsewhere.

Thanks

You won't find a better forum for objective conversation, but there is a price.

Low noise + objective conversation + generally in-depth individual knowledge of the event mechanics + seasoned battlefield experience

=

Little tolerance of incorrect assertions, handwaving, illogical inference, ...


I wouldn't want to invite discussion of JW theories to this forum, but if (after reading through this forum in some detail and understanding as much of it as possible, which can take quite some time) you think there is a specific singular and focussed point you think is relevant, I don't think it is wrong to pose it, in it's own thread, with specific evidence and support.

If it's nonsense, don't be surprised if you only get one succinct response before it's left to fallow or moved to one side though.

(Now I'm running before OWE batters me )

PS Suggestion of space beam rays is utter nonsense. As is no-pl...

femr2 wrote:(Now I'm running before OWE batters me )

On the contrary, I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

Are you referring to rays beamed from space like GPS signals? hahahhaha Or maybe sun rays... which turned me lobsta red this weekend? I was even wearing Raybans!

J. Wood: If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both.

That's..enlightening.

Aye, that one jumped out at me, too.

One down, how many to go?

This is what I was talking about earlier in this thread. SanderO put it well in the other thread:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/temperatures-at-ground-zero-t574.html#p16685

SanderO wrote:Wood is so sloppy with her photos you can't trust her.

A so-called anomaly objectively dismissed. What obligation is there to keep investing time examining claims by a source known to be (highly) unreliable? None, of course. I think the challenge was accepted more as a grudge match than anything else. The insinuation of lack of objectivity didn't sit well with me personally - apparently made because the claims of a wackjob aren't taken seriously. As if the status of 'wackjob' wasn't objectively determined long ago...

Not all arguments are created equally.

dadeets wrote:It also encourages trashing her evidence, rather than discussing the technical merits or lack thereof.

dadeets, I think the issue you fail to understand is the discussion of technical merits happened long ago and far, far away. The point of trashing the so-called evidence has been reached already without your presence. You appear to be a late-comer to this scene, at least I hope so.

I'm making a point of this because it should be apparent by now that you could have put in due diligence to investigate the claims. Questions are fine. Analysis is better. Thinking there's a lack of objectivity because Judy Wood is not taken seriously here... come on!

This is precisely what this thread is about. It turns out it was most fortuitous that you did post about Judy Wood here. Interest in truth implies some level of effort to pursue it. A few dozen characters typed into Google will put everything you need to know about Judy Wood right in front of you as you sit there. Most CTers consider her toxic and rightfully so. Debunker tourette's syndrome includes SPACE BEAMS as an automatic kneejerk, no matter how serious or legitimate a dissent with the official story may be. Judy Wood is a TOOL for supression of inquiry!

Jeez, it's been a decade, some things have been sorted out long ago - some stillborn or DOA.