Source: https://www.doctorjudywood.com/articles/cc/scientific.html
How props work.
Why is Colin Powell holding up this test tube in front of the United Nations? What if he dropped it?
How props work.
Why is Steven Jones wearing a plastic bag/glove to show something to an audience at a conference?
If you need Dr. Wood to pose for a picture, wearing a white lab coat and holding out a test tube (or dust baggie), in order to respect her valuable work as scientific, perhaps you should send her these props, along with a camera. To complete the scene, you could throw in a wad of bubble gum found under a park bench, but don't forget to include the plastic glove to hold it up with. Perhaps then you might consider her to be doing "scientific work"? But, you'd be wrong. This is why you are wrong about Jones having conducted a "scientific study." You seem to have confused psyops with true science. You demonstrate just how effective this psyops is if you truly believe Jones has conducted "a scientific study." After all, Jones may be using a dust baggie because he broke the glass test tube that Colin Powell sent him.
Was Colin Powell putting everyone at the UN at risk or was he conducting a psyops to convince the UN that he had "evidence" of biological weapons? Props can be very effective in psyops, but they should not be confused with scientific evidence or a scientific study.
Let us evaluate the true method of Jones' madness. He is using the method called Projection. He accuses others of the very sin that he is committing. He points the finger at others and his followers immediately grab the pitchforks and torches and they chase down the witch (Salem) and kill it before they realize what they have done. By then it is too late. Again, that is Projection. That is a typical method used by the current political apparatus in power and is mirrored by Jones. Quite Rovian if I do say so myself.
The scientific method involves evaluating data or evidence. This is true, whether it is produced in a controlled environment or whether it has already been produced in an actual event.
Dr. Wood gathered the best evidence there is from what happened on 9/11/01. She looked at thousands of photographs and then listed various phenomena she identified.http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html#Introduction
Then she "tested" this when she discovered the method of producing these very same phenomena:http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
This is why the Hutchison Effect is under such strong attack right now. This is what a particular group is trying to cover up. Why? It exposes a technology that would allow free energy to all people. Recall that Jones and Fetzer were initially trying to sell the public with the idea that it would only take something like 10 people 10 trips to put enough explosives in the buildings to do what was done. Later, Jones said (in agreement with Greg Jenkins) that it would take five times the world's energy output to do the same thing. Is this what you consider to be "scientific"? Ummm... to do what?
Note: Neither Steven Jones nor Greg Jenkins have discussed what Dr. Wood has presented. But instead, they have misled their audience into assuming Dr. Wood said something she did not. Why don't they encourage folks to look at her website and make up their own mind?
Dr. Wood is the one scientist who has actually defined what was done and publicized it. This is likely why Jones so quickly accused Dr. Wood of being "unscientific" and not using "the scientific method." He didn't want folks to look at the evidence she presents or to take it seriously. Meanwhile, Jones promoted a distorted version of "the scientific method" that he has used "as a club to beat on the work of other 9/11 researchers, yet his own work concerning causation in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 has not been subjected to the same standard." [http://drjudywood.com/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html]
Dates are approximate
December 2005
"It was thermite."
March 2006
"Liquid aluminum has the property that it's silvery, rather like aluminum foil, you know, at all temperatures in daylight conditions." (mp3)
June 2006
"It is thermite and can be purchased on ebay. It was smart for them to use thermite because it leaves no tags [markers] that can be traced, unlike explosives and it is quiet, unlike explosives."
July 2006
"It was super-thermite."
August 2006
"It was thermate -- the formula specifically patented for controlled demolition."
[Thermate is not used to bring down buildings in controlled demolition; it cannot be controlled.]
January 2007
"Thermite/thermate plus something else."
June 2007
"It was spray-on thermite."
July 2007
"It wasn't thermite and couldn't be because some missing ingredients. So it was a thermite analog."
2008
"It was nano-enhanced thermite."
2009
"It was nanothermite."
April 2009
"We can't agree on what the nanothermite was used for or how much would be needed." "But it would be tons!"
(Neils Harrit)
April 2009
"It wasn't nanothermite and because we only found some of the ingredients used in nanothermite. So we will say what we found was nanothermitic material and get people to foculs on the dust baggie so they might not notice the main issue we need to cover up ...that the buildings turned to dust."
Why did Steven Jones state that aluminum is silvery at all temperatures?
According to Steven Jones, "Liquid aluminum has the property that it's silvery, rather like aluminum foil, you know, at all temperatures in daylight conditions." (mp3)
Steven Jones made this statement on the Alex Jones show. (mp3)
It is not possible to identify the type of material that is flowing simply by looking at a photo, as demonstrated by Steven Jones in analyzing the photos on this page, 8/10/06. (mp3)
We encouraged Steven Jones to consult a high school physics book and read up on black-body radiation. After that was unsuccessful, we photographed this simple demonstration below and privately emailed this to Steven Jones.
We can only wonder why an educated nuclear physicist would make a statement such as this. (mp3)
Note: hot aluminum glows at the same temperature hot iron glows. However, aluminum would be a puddle at that temperature. If we see a photo of glowing aluminum that isn't melted, we know that it is not glowing because of heat.
"Hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot."
These workers are pouring aluminum that is glowing so brightly they must wear light-attenuating masks.
The team casts a crankcase from aluminum.
PHOTO BY JUDY HAY
source: Popular Mechanics
http://drjudywood.com/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html
"This article originated as a list of questions Steven Jones had been asking us to answer about our research. We reworded his questions to apply to his own research work. Having asked us these questions, Dr. Jones should be able to answer these about his own hypothesis."
Let us review this article, now over four years old.
(By the way, what has changed in Jones' "research" in four years?) Why do folks "believe" that Jones uses "the Scientific Method"?
Because that is what he tells them?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html#Scientific
IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence
Jones goes to great pains to praise the scientific method. We could be unkind and term this refrain sanctimonious but it serves the useful purpose of hoisting Jones on his own petard. We need only cite data for high-energy releases at WTC and no evidence for Boeing crashes to see that Jones fails by his own standard. Jones fails to look carefully at the "what," that is, the data and then apply physical principles to analyze "how." Instead, he dismisses serious hypotheses with prima facie evidence on their behalf.
Perhaps Professor Jonesâ most disturbing offense is failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commissionâs methods, much of Jonesâ so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is a closed loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by outsiders. It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline.
Again, if you need Dr. Wood to pose for a picture, wearing a white lab coat and holding out a test tube (or dust baggie), in order to respect her valuable work as scientific, perhaps you should send her those props, along with a camera.
Jones has conducted NO scientific studies and this is what was being pointed out in the above article. In contrast, Dr. Wood presented her research at an international engineering conference in June 2006. It's odd how this information has been shut out of the "official-truth movement." Speakers at this conference were accepted through peer review. Steven Jones was encouraged to apply for this, but Jones wasn't accepted. (There was an article about this on the Scholars website, written by another member, Ginny Howard. I don't know if it is still there.) Note that phenomenological studies (such as those done by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)) do not involve mountains of data with statistical curve fits. Phenomenological studies are about determining the actual phenomenon (or phenomena) that occurred.
The scientific method involves evaluating data or evidence. This is true whether the data/evidence is produced in a controlled environment or whether it has already been produced in an actual event.
Dr. Wood gathered the best evidence still remaining from what happened on 9/11/01; photographic evidence. She looked at thousands of photographs and then listed various phenomena she identified.http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html#Introduction
Then she "tested" this when she discovered the method of producing these very same phenomena:http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
This is why the Hutchison Effect is under such strong attack right now. This indeed exposes what happened on 9/11/01. There are other folks who also know what happened on 9/11/01 -- but they are either silent or are orchestrating attacks on Dr. Wood.
Now, let us return to the topic of Steven Jones. If Jones had conducted a "Scientific Study" about his thermite* speculation, he would have discovered that thermite cannot produce any of the phenomena seen in this article:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
Can thermite cause cars to turn upside down?
Can thermite appear to "burn" steel, while leaving paper next to it unburned?
Can thermite produce "cold fires"?
Can thermite bend a large steel beam in the shape of a smoothly bent horseshoe?
Can thermite cause steel to become pure iron on the surface of it?
Can thermite cause people to be lifted up and gently set down?
Can thermite cause rapid aging of metals?
Can thermite cause cylindrical holes in buildings, 25-feet in diameter?
Can thermite disintegrate metal while not melting the plastic adjacent to it?
Can thermite cause circular holes in window glass?
Can thermite shatter marble into dust?
Can thermite turn metal into the consistency of jello that later re-solidifies?
Can thermite turn a building to dust?
(The list is too lengthy to include all of the items here.)
(* thermite, super thermite, thermate, nanothermite, new-and-improved \super-duper thermite...)
Dr. Wood has tested her hypothesis by observing the Hutchison Effect.
Some may say that Steven Jones has a cute giggle and a cuter smile than Dr. Wood. That is irrelevant when it comes to REAL SCIENCE. Science isn't about who you believe; true science isn't a faith-based religion. Science is about FACTUAL EVIDENCE. This includes evidence of a phenomenon or evidence there is a correlation with a reproduced sample.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html#VoteJones
X. Vote for Jones
Given Professor Jonesâ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, Iâm a NICE guy." The clutter in Jonesâ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (Iâm a victim, Iâm courageous), crowdâpleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.
Top
Being social animals, humans tend to play "follow the leader," often without realizing it. They allow their "leader" to give them "their opinions" and "the story." Hero worship is dangerous.
I. From you, I get opinions. From you, I get the story.
See Me Feel Me
Artist: The Who
Album: Tommy (1969)
Followers:
Listening to you,
I get the music.
Gazing at you,
I get the heat.
Following you,
I climb the mountains.
I get excitement at your feet.
Right behind you,
I see the millions.
On you,
I see the glory.From you,
I get opinions.
From you,
I get the story.
The Who See Me Feel Me
(3:25) URL, From: Autosuggestion09
About Leading a "Movement"
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Theodor Herzl: "We Will Lead Every Revolution Against Us."
Thus, honest individuals are neutralized before they can become effective leaders. So, it can be easily expected that anyone able to truly lead an organized "movement" is doing so with the support of the Powers That Be (PTB).
Top
Yet, we do get fooled again. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
II. Wonât Get Fooled Again
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the songI'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'cause the banners, they are flown in the next warI'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnightI'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
The Who - We won't get fooled again Live
(8:58) URL, poor video, but better audio than below
Won't Get Fooled Again
(9:12) URL, poor audio, but better video than above
The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again
(3:24) URL
Archived URL: https://www.doctorjudywood.com/articles/cc/scientific.html
ïżœïżœ CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: 9178f949f5f4b0e99f81a9d09d7a18535c0b523ff0b167422edc9dba22fe801c
BLAKE2b: d646c32cbc9671059b43cb7ed7f8ab438d0ffda7f7d4c9a43fe56435888c13ce
MD5: 1aec73566319584e5df258b265f3c21f
ïżœïżœ TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: f70c597eea8a4fd27430b613cccf886a61732183477f8a5bb56520494654b506
BLAKE2b: 296855c1e6caaca17ba194ed723fd229dfda90d803ca9f6c2da2089d5e6622a4
MD5: 05ea30c94d2639c6806ecffbb3b74f28
ïżœïżœ INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: cdda1fcf3a9ce4cee828ba8972366e95f61659e0024a352d9e3f2993ef409493
BLAKE2b: 39b0853c3b514392c7057cd4ffa5598d747c832d00d0d050ecb812f86cb0cce0
MD5: e739260300a429adc4cf971dce240a8b
Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system