New Journal Of 9/11 Studies Letter Debunks Space Beam Hypothesis
A new letter published on the Journal of 9/11 Studies site in the new "Letters" section debunks Judy Wood's space beam hypothesis.
A. Introduction
This paper critiques the work and thesis of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds suggesting that a "Star Wars" beam weapon was used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers (referred to herein as the “WR thesis” or “WR paper”). The WR thesis is presented in a web-based paper entitled “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”, which can be found here. The central claim of the WR thesis is that the phenomena observed during the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 are only consistent with the use of some type of directed energy weapon, either originating from outer space or reflected from outer space (thus, it is referred to herein as a “space beam weapon”). The main arguments in the WR thesis are examined in this paper and a case is made that the WR thesis and its supporting paper contain several scientific flaws, including, the use of corrupted data, ignoring data that contradicts its claims, not considering more reasonable explanations for observed effects, and, in the case of the Kingdome demolition, incorrectly comparing data.
More available here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Gourley5JAN07.pdf
- User Zero's blog
- Login to post comments
It's a shame...
He even had to waste his time.
Ok... "TV Fakery", "Space Beams", "Mini-Nukes", etc... have all been debunked.
Can we start focusing on ending this fight already, as opposed to focusing on ridiculous nonsense, and those who promote it?
"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."
— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002
Did you know that Steven Jones likes Elvis?
Did you know that Steven Jones likes Elvis?
Did you know that Steven Jones washes his dishes?
Did you know that Steven Jones is completely different than Alex Jones?
Did you know that Steven Jones likes science fiction movies?
Did you know that Steven Jones was born in 1831?
Did you know that Steven Jones works for a laser beam company?
Did you know that Steven Jones wears star wars pajamas with the death star on them?
Who gives a crap?
Examine his argument and his evidence. Everything else is irrelevant.
The theories of Einstein transcend Einstein the man.
The music of Mozart transcends Mozart the man.
Ideas are Ideas. People are People. Don't confuse the two. And stop telling us what to think about Steven Jones, the man. We should only be concerned with his ideas.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Ronald Ray-Gun Linked to 9/11
The ray guns from outerspace have Ronald Ray-Guns fingerprints all over them!
Well done.
Well done.
My cousin Ned has an
My cousin Ned has an interesting theory about the attacks which I think deserves to be included in this debate.
He claims that an oppressed-but-hyper-intelligent-and-semi-telepathic race of baboon-like creatures orchestrated the attacks from the year 3000; they travelled back in time and launched 911 via new, baboonic technologies (baboonokinesis, in their vernacular) in order to destroy the human race and, therefore, their future oppressors. It sounds outlandish at first glance but after further study I'm quite sure there's something to this "neo-baboon" theory, and I'm disgusted by the shills that are trying to excise this evidence from the debate.
P.S. Steven Jones is a fraud.
:(
reflected from outer
reflected from outer space
This is exactly the suggestion as painted by Jim Fetzer on his radio show. He suggested an energy source from WTC7 went to space and was reflected by a mirror.
You may want to change your name to Functionally illiterate since you obviously missed the "from" in "reflected from".
No conspiracy here, just a solid rebuttal to total garbage.
SlowDraw
1) Fetzer did not author the website.
2) The suggestion is that the energy could have been directed by aircraft, not necessarily by space craft.
Is the name of the paper by
Is the name of the paper by Judy Woods entitled 'Star Wars Beam Weapons'? Has Judy predominantly suggested the beams were from satellites? Is this one sentence (which actually fits the general suggestion of the paper) enough to suggest it is intentionally disingenuous?
Yes, Yes, NO.
You are the disingenuous one by suggesting that the paper features intentional mistakes. If you are going to make that argument then don't complain when others suggest that Wood's paper is full of intentional mistakes as well (of which there are many as pointed out by this great paper).
we need a knock-out punch
we need some way to once and for all neutralize these disinformation campaigns.
one of the strengths of this movement has been that it is not centralized. centralized movements are easily attacked and co-opted.
but - the weakness of a non-centralized movement is that there is no way to take coordinated actions against known disruptors. Clowns like Fetzer can simply inject themselves into the movement - declare themselves leaders - usurp TV appearances - while the rest of us watch in horror.
there is no 'board of directors' to make public statements - to vote on issues - to release unified statements to the press - to take positions.
on teh other hand - i think the only reason this movement has gotten this far is BECAUSE it is a non-centralized movement. it is grass-roots in the truest sense of the word. there is no centralized leadership to attack - so the best the opposition can do is wade into our midst and disrupt.
ultimately, we need a strategy for dealing with this issue. we have powerful tools at our command. while many in this movement claim that we shoudl stop pointing fingers and accusing each other of being agents - i disagree. i think we need to stand the obvious disinformation on its head and make it work for US. we need to prove that this movement is intentionally being disrupted.
There is absolutely no
There is absolutely no "attack" in this paper although it is apparent that is what you would like to paint it as. Attack the messenger, not the solid rebuttle. Perpetuate the "feud" illusion. There is no feud, just a few provocateurs (like yourself) intent on making this some sort of fake division or point of contention.
No "attack", just solid debunking of bogus "research".
As for the assassination comment, that is just another figment of Judy Wood's overactive imagination.
Thanks for the reminder
Despite your sickening provocateur spin - a spin that I noticed was developed and began being spammed here right after I started questioning the possible connection between an obvious cointelpro-style disinformation campaign and Zebuhr's death. For those who don't know: Michael Zebuhr was a young truth activist who was murdered in a bizarre, unsolved execution-style slaying shortly after getting mixed up with the Wood-Reynolds-Fetzer disinfo nexus.
Molten Aluminum: Debunked yet again
Wood/Reynolds:
“He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538°C).”
From my essay:
Wood and Reynolds neglect to mention that the necessary temperatures needed are impossible to reach with jet fuel fires as seen in the World Trade Center! The maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire is 1000 °C, far below the temperature that Wood and Reynolds say is required to get aluminum to turn orange. Therefore, their deceitful argument is completely irrelevant. This is a shameful and blatant distortion.
Wood and Reynolds fail to mention that molten metal was seen falling out of the towers and was recorded in video and photographs. Some have argued that this metal was aluminum from a plane. Jet fuel can’t cause aluminum to reach the necessary temperatures to “turn orange.” A thermite reaction can reach the necessary temperatures, melt steel and account for this stunning visual evidence. Not only has Steven Jones found traces of thermite in molten samples, there is visual evidence confirming his argument even further.
I don't see anything wrong
I don't see anything wrong with critiquing preliminary conlcusions. In fact, it is better to catch these glaring holes in their theory and reasoning early, so they can either revise their thinking or go down another path.
I think it is quite funny that the only two criticisms so far have been that the type of weapon was unfairly characterized as a space beam, and that the paper Wood Reynolds paper isn't finished yet. Is that the best you space beam defenders have?
Come on space beam people, think. Poke some real holes in the critique (without using space beams, of course!).
good point but several problems with "letter"
You have a point that some of these criticisms could be valuable. We'll have to see how much of the (little) legitimate criticism (the car question) Wood/Reynolds take to heart vs. how stubborn they might be.
But this "letter" has several problems of its own. It engages in its own elaborate string of theorizing -- about Controlled Demolition Inc. and "ground based explosives" -- while categorically dismissing questions of directed-energy weapons as far more speculative. This suggests someone unfamiliar with the nature of classified weapons systems or perhaps someone quite familiar looking to cover something up.
The "letter" conflates the bathtub itself with the contents of the bathtub (the basement) -- two totally different things. He also fails to provide any visual evidence of significant damage to the bathtub, relying solely on media reports from the Judy Miller Times.
He also fails to take on the damage to WTC6 and WTC3, focusing only on WTC5 in order to promote his weak "falling steel" theory.
No reply?
Three people found these points objectionable, yet lacked the intellectual ammunition to critique them:
this "letter" has several problems of its own. It engages in its own elaborate string of theorizing -- about Controlled Demolition Inc. and "ground based explosives" -- while categorically dismissing questions of directed-energy weapons as far more speculative. This suggests someone unfamiliar with the nature of classified weapons systems or perhaps someone quite familiar looking to cover something up.
The "letter" conflates the bathtub itself with the contents of the bathtub (the basement) -- two totally different things. He also fails to provide any visual evidence of significant damage to the bathtub, relying solely on media reports from the Judy Miller Times.
He also fails to take on the damage to WTC6 and WTC3, focusing only on WTC5 in order to promote his weak "falling steel" theory.
At the risk of being drawn
At the risk of being drawn into another pointless debate with the crazies, here goes:
It has nothing to do with lack of intellectual ammunition, it has everything to do with lack of wanting to engage in debate with people with obvious low-grade intelligence.
1. "It engages in its own elaborate string of theorizing" - So, it's ok for Wood and Reynolds to engage in elaborate strings of theorizing, but not ok for the critique to do the same? Your post suggests someone unfamiliar with logical thought.
2. "The 'letter' conflates the bathtub itself with the contents of the bathtub (the basement)" - Wrong. The Wood paper conflates the bathtub with the basement (see the discussion in the Wood paper about the cartoon characters being undamaged).
3. "He also fails to provide visual evidence of significant damage to the bathtub" - Irrelevant. The critique wasn't trying to prove that the bathtub was damaged. The critique did point out how the Wood paper provided no visual evidence of damage to the bathtub.
4. "relying solely on media reports from the Judy Miller Times" - Wrong. Wood relied on two NY Times reports and one Spike TV documentary quote. The letter critique relied on quite a number of different news sources. You might want to go back through the letter once more.
5. "fails to take on the damage to WTC6 and WTC3" - Wrong. The analysis of the damage to WTC5 is equally applicable to the other buildings that have holes in the tops of them. The WTC5 photo was just given by way of example.
1. "The theorizing in the
1. "The theorizing in the Wood paper is much less elaborate"... Please don't try and make any more jokes. This just isn't funny.
2. What about all of the other reports specifically directed to the bathtub?
3. You are either mentally challenged or intentionally not wanting to understand the letter. Section E is ANALYZING Wood's proof of damage to the bathtub. Perhaps a better subject header would be "Lack of Proof of Damage to the Bathtub" or "Analysis of proof of damage to the bathtub". In either case, it's the substance of the section, and not the title, that's important. RE: no named sources. Again you are simply wrong. Click on the articles referenced and you will see that the names of those people were used.
4. Thanks.
5. The letter admits that the falling steel theory can't be proven, but that it is offered as an alternative reasonable explanation that doesn't involve space beams.
Regardless, the most damaging arguments in the letter are still yet to be challenged, namely, the use of corrupted data, the potential energy comparison, and the toasted cars being towed under FDR Drive.
One more thing...
1. a) You are the one being hypocritical. On the one hand you praise the Wood paper, then on the other you cricize the critique for engaging in an elaborate string of theorizing. The critique doesn't criticize the Wood paper for engaging in an elaborate string of theorizing, it simply rips apart several of the main ideas that support its elaborate string of theorizing. You might want to think before you call someone stupid.
Why Promote an unfinished paper?
Why Publish and Promote an unfinished paper?
It's fair game once it is published on the internet.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Please read both articles
and do some independent research, before commenting negatively or positively on the substance of either article.
I