Jack White Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 There has been a lot of disinformation spread about the credentials of Dr. Judy Wood. Here is her biographical sketch: Brief Biographical Sketch for Judy D. Wood, Ph.D. Website: http://drjudywood.com/ email: lisajudy [at] nctv.com Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her * B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), * M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and * Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. 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. Woodís 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees... And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure. Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"? You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Re-examining the 3 WTC high-rise “Collapses” Richard Gage February 20th, 2007 Dear fellow colleagues in truth, I gave my first 1-hour multimedia presentation on 9/11: Re-examining the 3 WTC high-rise “Collapses” to the employees at the architecture firm which I work for. We had 6 licensed and 9 intern architects in attendance -- most all of whom had been highly suspicious of my previous claims regarding the nature of the collapses. While I knew that I stood on solid ground with the evidence for explosives, molten metal, thermite, etc., the response from the attendees was nevertheless overwhelmingly supportive -- including from my principles who were the most skeptical. I would have to say that they were blown away - and most have signed the AE911Truth.org petition to the US Congress to open a new 9/11 investigation. The only remaining suspicions from a few were that it had to be someone else beside our government. Fortunately it is easy to show clearly that Al Qaeda did not have access to the buildings, but I can't accomplish everything in one hour! I will therefore be giving a series of talks which will guide the insight deeper as to motive, benefit, and responsibility. I realize that I have to create both a simple 1-hour (really 45 minutes within the lunch hour) and a more detailed 1-1/2-hour program. Its so difficult to march through the necessary info in 45 mins. Interestingly, one of the most popular pieces of evidence was the clip from 911 Mysteries which documents the 74 (now 300!) centimeter sized bone fragments found up on top of the Deutch Bank building! Think about it! “How did they get up there?...And why were they so small”! I highly recommend this evidence for your use in speaking to others. I had previously given only one other 9/11 presentation to the St Mary's College class of 26 students on "9/11 Events" via Prof. Dragstedt - which was very well accepted. I am ready to begin reaching the rest of the architects and engineers in the Bay Area. I am also scheduled to speak at a 9/11 Conference at Chico State College in Northern CA on 4/27/07. And Peter Phillips of Project Censored has asked me to give a talk at Sonoma State College this April as well. We will get the DVD's out to the field from these events. It is beginning to snowball. I have given a quicker slide show to 2 other architect friends of mine separately at lunch who can no longer resist the compelling evidence. I’ve found that If they are willing to sit with me for a minimum of 30 minutes with the graphic evidence then they really have no choice but to see the truth. The truth is inevitable. Yet it is quite interesting to see how the mind fights against the uncomfortable reality -- and unthinkable conclusion of controlled demolition. I know I fought against what I heard on KPFA's Guns & Butter radio program from David Ray Griffin 7 months ago. People may very well respect my opinion as an architect as I "tell" them about evidence, but they never really grasp the truth of it until they sit down with me (or the 9/11 Mysteries DVD) for at least 30 minutes and look at the hard evidence with their own eyes. And I've found that most won't watch the DVD unless I'm very persistent. So my focus is getting professionals to my PowerPoint presentations. My big push right now is the ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) website which will have the whole narrated slideshow on it. Wish I didn’t have to work for a living! It only gives me about 15-20 hours / week to get an extraordinary amount of work completed. Thanks for all of your support! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees... And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure. Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"? You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were. No sir, a-h. I pay NO attention to ANYTHING you say. After questions were raised about the Dr. King article, I contacted Dr. Fetzer, who provided me with information and websites. I did not continue using the information I had received from a 911 activist, which I posted. I spent several hours studying the Plague Puppy website and the associated Judy Wood website before posting information found there. Your chastisement is unfounded, a-h. With all due respect, Jack Edited July 13, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees... And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure. Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"? You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were. No sir, a-h. I pay NO attention to ANYTHING you say. Even when I am right. A telling statement. Still, as is your want.... After questions were raised about the Dr. King article, I contacted Dr. Fetzer, who providedme with information and websites. I did not continue using the information I had received from a 911 activist, which I posted. I spent several hours studying the Plague Puppy website and the associated Judy Wood website before posting information found there. Your chastisement is unfounded, a-h. With all due respect, Jack As long as the correction is made, I am happy. You will have no objection if I correct the thread title? And would you correct your opening post? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees... And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure. Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"? You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were. No sir, a-h. I pay NO attention to ANYTHING you say. Even when I am right. A telling statement. Still, as is your want.... After questions were raised about the Dr. King article, I contacted Dr. Fetzer, who providedme with information and websites. I did not continue using the information I had received from a 911 activist, which I posted. I spent several hours studying the Plague Puppy website and the associated Judy Wood website before posting information found there. Your chastisement is unfounded, a-h. With all due respect, Jack As long as the correction is made, I am happy. You will have no objection if I correct the thread title? And would you correct your opening post? Thanks! NO. I refuse to be intimidated by threat of censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 It's not censorship - it's accuracy. Correction made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 A refutation of Jeff Kings calculations would seem to come from Frank Greening, a person (though a chemist by trade) that at least provides calculations that can be checked by others. Dr Greening is also no friend of the "Official" camp, having expressed doubts about the official story. Likewise, he has invoked the ire of the "truther" camp. I think it could be best said that Dr Greening sits on no-ones side, and lets his opinions stand on their own evidence - right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 A refutation of Jeff Kings calculations would seem to come from Frank Greening, a person (though a chemist by trade) that at least provides calculations that can be checked by others. Dr Greening is also no friend of the "Official" camp, having expressed doubts about the official story. Likewise, he has invoked the ire of the "truther" camp. I think it could be best said that Dr Greening sits on no-ones side, and lets his opinions stand on their own evidence - right or wrong. The absence of any calculations by King make his opinion that there was an energy deficit worthless. Greening used to be a member of SPINE (Scientific Panel for Investigating Nine Eleven) whose webmaster was a certain Sid Walker. Though a chemist he worked in the nuclear energy industry till he became a "whistle blower" thus he is qualified in making energy conversion calculations and shows signs of being independent. He has criticized and been criticized by both the "truther" and "debunker camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 and shows signs of being independent. He has criticized and been criticized by both the "truther" and "debunker camps. I'd like to buy that man a drink, never be the holder of others opinions, and also, in light of new evidence, be prepaired to alter said opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Jeff King, PhD (Electrical Engineer, Graduate of MIT) The post is still inaccurate (King has BS and MD degrees but isn’t a PhD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 [Quoting Jeff King:]Even in much smaller catastrophes we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible. For example with TWA Flight 800 pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea. A complete reconstruction was done to allow a detailed analysis. In this case, just the opposite was done. So does PlaguePuppy think they should have tried to "reconstruct" the WTC towers "as completely as possible"? I wonder if he knows of a space big enough to attempt such a mammoth project? Or has any idea how long it would have taken or cost? I also wonder how he’d feel if a structural engineer with no background in medicine based on minimal research others with no medical training questioned a highly technical aspect of how he treated one of his paitients? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Jeff King, PhD (Electrical Engineer, Graduate of MIT) The post is still inaccurate (King has BS and MD degrees but isn’t a PhD) And what credentuals do you have , besides your closed minded , blind allegiance to the official version of every false flag operation , conspiracy and hoax ever perpetrated by the powers that be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Jeff King, PhD (Electrical Engineer, Graduate of MIT) The post is still inaccurate (King has BS and MD degrees but isn’t a PhD) And what credentuals do you have , besides your closed minded , blind allegiance to the official version of every false flag operation , conspiracy and hoax ever perpetrated by the powers that be ? More unprovoked insults or will claim that your comments above were "defensive blows"? I never claimed to be especially qualified that doesn't change the fact that King doesn't have any either or thay Jack falsely claimed that he did and refused to make a correction when his error had been pointed out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now