FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Energy Weapon
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:02 am    Post subject: Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Energy Weapon Reply with quote

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
Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?


Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.


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.
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, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. 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.


What destroyed World Trade Center buildings #1 & #2?


See a video of the spire vaporizing into dust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY

Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - 'The New Hiroshima' Presentation (Part 1):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1JFCpFd6CA

Dr. Judy Wood, The Hutchinson Effect, & Focused Electromagnetic Energy (Who Will You Tell?): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0EsJhEFz9A

There is a wealth of information here: http://www.drjudywood.com


Lastly, Dr. Judy Wood has had an ongoing law suit with several companies over 9/11. She is suing them for covering up the truth and being involved in 9/11. Her court case has reached the Supreme Court but no one knows about it because the many corrupt insiders within the 9/11 Truth Movement have been trying to suppress it from getting out to the public and have been trying to discredit Dr. Wood. Look:


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Could Dr. Steven Jones be misleading the 9/11 Truth Movement with his nano-thermite hypothesis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI

-More info on Dr. Jones and his possible role as a disinformation operative:

1. http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/CB.html

3. http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=91&Itemid=60

4. http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html#Thermite

5. http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ7.html


Please check it out,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6259

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest flaw in the Moonbeam Wink idea imo is that if anybody owned such a powerful and accurate weapon it would already have been put to good use subduing the world!!
We would already be in a distopian nightmare with the only way out frazzled to a crisp Razz

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disco_Destroyer wrote:
The biggest flaw in the Moonbeam Wink idea imo is that if anybody owned such a powerful and accurate weapon it would already have been put to good use subduing the world!!
We would already be in a distopian nightmare with the only way out frazzled to a crisp Razz


Funny how you've been posting on here since I was a moderator and you know that this research has been posted for over 3 years, yet you still follow the pattern of misquoting it (i.e. "Moonbeam" Wink ) and ridiculing it - without even commenting what action you have taken.

Still, the script gets predictable enough, as documented, over and over and over again here:

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

and here

http://tinyurl.com/911ftt

Thanks for making it even clearer for people who are able to see this pattern.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS I think PookztA was carrying out a test. As I sort of alluded to, I think you provided him with the result he was predicting.

I predict this thread will probably be moved within a few hours.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Daniel Elliott
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It wouldn't surprise me either. Only popular truth on here please!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurricane Erin, just one of a handful of hurricane's that didn't make landfall in 2001. Not to mention the three in and around 9/11 itself.

See link below.

No debris at Ground Zero? WTC 1 & 2 dustified?

See link below.

Steven Jones RFC Thermite free? Nope!

See link below.

WTC spire being totally dustified?

Nope


Link


It falls over...

Toasted cars proof of spacebeams at WTC?



Here's some at the pentagon. No DEW used there?

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a


Last edited by GodSaveTheTeam on Sun May 09, 2010 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Disco_Destroyer wrote:
The biggest flaw in the Moonbeam Wink idea imo is that if anybody owned such a powerful and accurate weapon it would already have been put to good use subduing the world!!
We would already be in a distopian nightmare with the only way out frazzled to a crisp Razz


Funny how you've been posting on here since I was a moderator and you know that this research has been posted for over 3 years, yet you still follow the pattern of misquoting it (i.e. "Moonbeam" Wink ) and ridiculing it - without even commenting what action you have taken.

Still, the script gets predictable enough, as documented, over and over and over again here:

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

and here

http://tinyurl.com/911ftt

Thanks for making it even clearer for people who are able to see this pattern.

judy wood believes that whatever fired the unspecified beam of whatever that she imagines has destroyed the WTC was orbiting the earth at the time - so I think it's fair game to refer to it as a moonbeam....

what's predictable is that the OP is just the same old tosh which has already been posted over and over again. and as every aspect of it has already been shown to be garbage over and over again (on multiple threads in the "controversies" section), it's basically just an example of trolling.

what exactly is the point of starting not one but two threads about a topic that's already been covered ad nauseam - neither of which contain anything new?

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gruts wrote:


what exactly is the point of starting not one but two threads about a topic that's already been covered ad nauseam - neither of which contain anything new?


Umm - as a test? Look what the result was.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as I said above - this stuff has already been discussed to death and completely discredited - so starting two new threads about the same thing looks like rather pointless trolling.

I'm sure you are as aware as I am that there are already several threads in the "controversies" section that examine judy wood's claims in great detail and completely demolish them - with no adequate response from you so far.

for example - when are you finally going to address the debunking of your "Hurricane Erin" garbage in this thread, which was started in October?

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18218

5 months have gone by and you still can't think of anything to say in response?

maybe you should think of that thread as a test as well - a test of your credibility.

and look what the result was....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6259

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you explain the mechanism for targetting a specific building from an orbiting or moving object?
Maybe they used a Joystick while patching in overlayed maps?
Then just maybe the speed the craft moved through orbit they'd be to late and destroy Vancouver?


My latest thoughts on Satalite mapping of the earth especially the claim you can pinpoint a specific human is also likely bull!
Once in orbit they cannot deviate course doing so would undoubtedly result in loss of speed/momentum and thus altitude!
Then who/how the hell does one focus a camera on a given object whilr traversing @ thousands of mph?
Lookout here comes Mr Joystick again oops lol he missed it Very Happy
Lets face it the only way good arial photoes are taken is by Chopper I'd even expect the spyplanes to be hit and miss imo or taking wide angle pics that can be enhanced greatly Wink

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Umm - as a test? Look what the result was.


Was your test to post the same old debunked so called evidence yet again, not even acknowledge the MASSES of evidence to the contrary to your patchy theory, then when myself and others point out yet again the fact that that's all you EVER do, smugly hammer out a smug "see"...?

Why dont you acknowledge the masses of evidence to the contrary Johnson?

You wont because your "theory" would just fall apart and you'd be out of the spotlight.

Pathetic.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This controversy could only be settled if both sides would explain why they believe the hypotheses of the other don't stand up, without distorting what the other side says. This needs to be done in an atmosphere of seriousness rather than anger, which means there must be no distortion of what the other side says (straw man arguments), no personal attacks or insults, no false evidence. Mutual anger anger and suspicion need to be replaced by cool headed analysis.

Sadly there seems currently to be so much mutual anger and suspicion that each other is trying to distort the truth in order to make the 9/11 truth movement ineffective, that I doubt this will happen but we have to hope that sanity will prevail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

xmasdale wrote:
This controversy could only be settled if both sides would explain why they believe the hypotheses of the other don't stand up, without distorting what the other side says.


Do you believe the links in my sig are impartial or biased?

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2400
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Listen folks 911 was an inisde job if you go for controlled demolition or 911 was an outside job if you go for DEW Wink
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disco_Destroyer wrote:
The biggest flaw in the Moonbeam Wink idea imo is that if anybody owned such a powerful and accurate weapon it would already have been put to good use subduing the world!!
We would already be in a distopian nightmare with the only way out frazzled to a crisp Razz


Dr. Wood has never used the term "moon beam" or "space beam" or "space ray" or anything of the sort.

She claims that Energy was Directed and used as a Weapon, to destroy the WTC buildings, which is why she calls such a device a "Directed Energy Weapon". It is very important to keep an open-mind when discussing her conclusions, because discussing this, sharing information, and learning from each other, is vital to the success of this movement.

In my honest and professional opinion, I think it is very possible, and likely, that the powers that be have employed Dr. Jones and Richard Gage to scoop up the 9/11 Truth Movement and send us chasing a nano-thermite ghost. Just my opinion, but an opinion that is evidence-based nonetheless.

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
PS I think PookztA was carrying out a test. As I sort of alluded to, I think you provided him with the result he was predicting.

I predict this thread will probably be moved within a few hours.


Hey Andrew, good to see you in here. Small world I guess Smile

Yes, I was partially posting this as a test, but also I was posting it to get the information out there.

Dr. Wood's conclusion is the only conclusion I have ever studied that actually explains ALL the evidence and ALL the anomalies near ground zero, including the 1400+ toasted cars, the countless flipped cars, the electrical-like burns, the oddly bent and twisted metal, the selective dustification of steel and concrete, and much more. In fact, many of the anomalies observed at Ground Zero I was not even aware of until I started looking more into Dr. Wood's research.

I admit that it is possible that nano-thermite could have been used in combination with a DEW, but this is very unlikely, because it seems unnecessary and seemed that it would have generated too much molten steel to keep hidden and censored. I also will admit that it is very possible that the Dr. Jones, Harris, et. al paper could be a fabricated study meant to purposely mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the truth about DEWs and Free Energy, to send us chasing a nano-thermite ghost. This would severely delay and inhibit the 9/11 Truth Movement, so we must consider Dr. Wood's theory very seriously.

My 2 cents,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gruts wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Disco_Destroyer wrote:
The biggest flaw in the Moonbeam Wink idea imo is that if anybody owned such a powerful and accurate weapon it would already have been put to good use subduing the world!!
We would already be in a distopian nightmare with the only way out frazzled to a crisp Razz


Funny how you've been posting on here since I was a moderator and you know that this research has been posted for over 3 years, yet you still follow the pattern of misquoting it (i.e. "Moonbeam" Wink ) and ridiculing it - without even commenting what action you have taken.

Still, the script gets predictable enough, as documented, over and over and over again here:

http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

and here

http://tinyurl.com/911ftt

Thanks for making it even clearer for people who are able to see this pattern.

judy wood believes that whatever fired the unspecified beam of whatever that she imagines has destroyed the WTC was orbiting the earth at the time - so I think it's fair game to refer to it as a moonbeam....

what's predictable is that the OP is just the same old tosh which has already been posted over and over again. and as every aspect of it has already been shown to be garbage over and over again (on multiple threads in the "controversies" section), it's basically just an example of trolling.

what exactly is the point of starting not one but two threads about a topic that's already been covered ad nauseam - neither of which contain anything new?



In this forum I saw no mentioning of Dr. Wood, so that is why I posted. Had I seen a Dr. Wood thread, I would have simply commented or contributed to that thread. I did not see the information posted, so I felt like I needed to share it with the readers here.

I am not a troll, so please try to be more respectful towards me. We are all on the same team.

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disco_Destroyer wrote:
Can you explain the mechanism for targetting a specific building from an orbiting or moving object?
Maybe they used a Joystick while patching in overlayed maps?
Then just maybe the speed the craft moved through orbit they'd be to late and destroy Vancouver?


My latest thoughts on Satalite mapping of the earth especially the claim you can pinpoint a specific human is also likely bull!
Once in orbit they cannot deviate course doing so would undoubtedly result in loss of speed/momentum and thus altitude!
Then who/how the hell does one focus a camera on a given object whilr traversing @ thousands of mph?
Lookout here comes Mr Joystick again oops lol he missed it Very Happy
Lets face it the only way good arial photoes are taken is by Chopper I'd even expect the spyplanes to be hit and miss imo or taking wide angle pics that can be enhanced greatly Wink


Dr. Wood has never said that the DEW had to be in space. It is very possible that some type of electromagnetic energy device could be used to create an energy Field of specific wave length and frequency in the ground zero area, and then use that Field to generate an effect to cause the molecular dissociation of the steel and concrete components.

Although I admit it is possible that a DEW could have done this from space, it is important to point out that Dr. Wood does not theorize about where this weapon is or what it is exactly, she simply uses evidence, observes anomalies, and arrives at the inescapable conclusion that explains all of this evidence and anomalies. Nothing but a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind could explain all of the anomalies observed, especially the 1400+ cars that were toasted during the attacks despite no flaming debris ever falling on them.

Just my 2 cents,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xmasdale wrote:
This controversy could only be settled if both sides would explain why they believe the hypotheses of the other don't stand up, without distorting what the other side says. This needs to be done in an atmosphere of seriousness rather than anger, which means there must be no distortion of what the other side says (straw man arguments), no personal attacks or insults, no false evidence. Mutual anger anger and suspicion need to be replaced by cool headed analysis.

Sadly there seems currently to be so much mutual anger and suspicion that each other is trying to distort the truth in order to make the 9/11 truth movement ineffective, that I doubt this will happen but we have to hope that sanity will prevail.



Well said XmasDale, I agree 100%.

The topic of Dr. Wood and her thorough research should be something that is enthusiastically discussed and considered by our community, not dismissed as irrelevant or crazy talk. Her claims are evidence-based and she provides all the evidence you need on her website, with sources and references to back it all up.

This makes her conclusion just as viable and scientific as Dr. Jones's theory, but the difference in their conclusions is that only Dr. Wood's conclusion can account for ALL of the evidence and ALL of the anomalies observed at ground zero. We should be discussing these things, not fighting about them.... we should be considering Dr. Wood's theory, not calling it crazy or impossible...

Let's work together folks,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just highlighting a point from this post, though the intent behind it is laudable.

PookztA wrote:
we should be considering Dr. Wood's theory


It is not a theory - it is a conclusion based on evidence.

To others on this thread, submitted to court. As repeated multiple times, Dr Wood has taken ACTION not simply "debtated a theory".

Correcting an earlier point, photo evidence shows that aluminium WAS affected by the weapon, but somewhat differently to other materials.

NO ONE ELSE has submitted legal action based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which they claim is valid.

What is there to debate? Let those who wish to debate TAKE SOME ACTION of some meaning. Want to debate whether night follows day? Go right ahead!

1000 architects and engineers ASK SOMEONE ELSE to do an enquiry? CAN'T THEY DO IT THEMSELVES? Amazing!!

ALL explanations have been provided to the level we are able to make them. The responses are seen above - largely by nameless posters who don't actually do much except debate.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
Dr. Wood has never used the term "moon beam" or "space beam" or "space ray" or anything of the sort.

so what?

judy wood doesn't have any clear ideas herself about the nature of this alleged "directed energy weapon" - but she does think it was fired from outer space - so referring to it as a space beam or moon beam or whatever is perfectly legitimate....

PookztA wrote:
Dr. Wood has never said that the DEW had to be in space.

yes she did - for example, in her interview with Jim Fetzer on RBN Live, November 11, 2006.

Quote:
Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by
your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make
a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building
7?”
Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”
Fetzer: “Planes?”
Judy Wood:” No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.
Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge… this is huge
Judy.”


PookztA wrote:
In this forum I saw no mentioning of Dr. Wood, so that is why I posted. Had I seen a Dr. Wood thread, I would have simply commented or contributed to that thread. I did not see the information posted, so I felt like I needed to share it with the readers here.

dr wood has been discussed to death on this forum on a huge number of threads. I guess you didn't think to use the SEARCH function at the top of the main page.... Rolling Eyes

and as it's already been mentioned above, how about starting with this thread:

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18218

I await your comments with interest....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
It is not a theory - it is a conclusion based on evidence.

No - it is a belief based on sloppy research, selective interpretation of cherry picked evidence and wishful thinking - as well as the deliberate avoidance of all the evidence to the contrary.

like I said above - GSTT posted a very thorough debunking of your "Hurricane Erin" garbage FIVE MONTHS ago and you still haven't responded - although you turned up on this thread almost instantly....

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18218

if your ideas have any substance then why are you so scared to discuss them?

this is a discussion forum after all.

so how about finally responding to the Hurricane Erin thread (preferably with something more substantial than the petty remarks above)?

of course there are several other threads that are also waiting for your response, but I doubt if anybody's holding their breath.....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xmasdale
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
xmasdale wrote:
This controversy could only be settled if both sides would explain why they believe the hypotheses of the other don't stand up, without distorting what the other side says.


Do you believe the links in my sig are impartial or biased?


I haven't looked at your links. I don't feel capable of making the scientific arguments. I was not singling any individual out for criticism, merely trying to outline some principles of discussion which I believe need to be followed if people are ever to get to the bottom of this controversy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pookzta wrote:
It is very important to keep an open-mind when discussing her conclusions, because discussing this, sharing information, and learning from each other


Agreed. But that's exactly what advocates of the Wood theory do not do. Check the evidence for yourself particularly in the controversies section. As gruts has pointed out. The Wood hypothesis and her conclusions have been discussed over and over again and, in my opinion, discredited.

Advocates of Wood's theory do not engage with the counter evidence, they do not discuss conclusions, they do not want to learn from each other. They do not have open minds.

pookzta wrote:
is vital to the success of this movement.


What do you think a movement should be about?

For me the truth movement is building a credible case to challenge mainstream opinion.

Do you think that ignoring evidence to the contrary constitutes credibility?

pookzta wrote:
In my honest and professional opinion, I think it is very possible, and likely, that the powers that be have employed Dr. Jones and Richard Gage to scoop up the 9/11 Truth Movement and send us chasing a nano-thermite ghost.


That's exactly what many think about Wood. Wood's theory is heavy on just that. Theorizing. She has said herself that all she has done is looked at some pictures, used her imagination and connected the dots.

There is no credible evidence anywhere to back up her claims. She has based her theory on cherry-picked pictorial evidence only. Many believe that she has been employed to discredit Jones and steer everyone down a DEW cul-de-sac because there is no evidence whatsoever that DEW where used on 9/11.

pookzta wrote:
Dr. Wood's conclusion is the only conclusion I have ever studied that actually explains ALL the evidence and ALL the anomalies near ground zero, including the 1400+ toasted cars, the countless flipped cars, the electrical-like burns, the oddly bent and twisted metal, the selective dustification of steel and concrete, and much more. In fact, many of the anomalies observed at Ground Zero I was not even aware of until I started looking more into Dr. Wood's research.


In many people's opinion the evidence you underline is not credible. Toasted cars, Hurricane Erin, flipped cars. Check the controversies section and see just how many threads there are regarding what you believe to be good evidence. It really has been totally discredited.

For example. You mention oddly bent and twisted metal remains from the WTC but you also believe that the WTC was totally dustified. Which one is it?

pookzta wrote:
Dr. Jones, Harris, et. al paper could be a fabricated study meant to purposely mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement away from the truth about DEWs and Free Energy, to send us chasing a nano-thermite ghost. This would severely delay and inhibit the 9/11 Truth Movement, so we must consider Dr. Wood's theory very seriously.


Can I ask how long you have been involved in the truth movement?

I have been involved for little under 4 years in varying degrees of activity.

During 2006 and the early part of 2007 the movement had gained massive worldwide following. So much so that the BBC in Feb of 2007 were forced to do a hit piece on it.

The 9/11 truth movement since then has been severely inhibited by Wood, NPT, TVF and other cult like groups with little in the way of credible evidence.

Again Wood's theory has been considered extensively on this site and found to be seriously lacking.

Andrew Johnson wrote:
It is not a theory - it is a conclusion based on evidence.


Yes it is a theory. It is based on cherry picked evidence.

You say people dont take action and just debate?

So let me get this straight...

Instead of debating research on a forum dedicated to building a credible case for a new investigation into 9/11 you believe that we should all come up with our own theories and submit them as a court case?

Madness.

What if I thought that an especially loud message spoken in the voice of the mysticons had brought down the twin towers?

You think that instead of people debating that theory and showing me that I may not be right I should just submit it as a court case.

Laughable.

If you dont believe in debate then why do you continue to visit this site?

Why does pookzta?

Why do you continue to get airtime on tv shows? Are we all just supposed to believe without question your theory and trot off to the nearest courthouse with whatever theory we fancy?

What a bizarro idea.

Why do you continue to espouse the idea of "the importance of establishing what did not happen" if you dont believe we should debate theories?

Why do you underline the importance of "Checking the evidence" if you believe debate is a waste of time?

Do you believe that one must "check the evidence" unless it's you checking evidence which may undermine your own theory?

Why do I know you will not answer any of these questions?

Why am I even bothering to ask them?

xmasdale wrote:
I haven't looked at your links.


Join the massive queue. It seems everyone that advocates the patchy theories on this site will not do so either. They just pretend evidence to the contrary isn't there.

At least you have acknowledged that the links may actually exist.

xmasdale wrote:
I don't feel capable of making the scientific arguments.


I wouldn't let that worry you. Wood herself has said that all she has done is looked at pictures, used her imagination and connected the dots.

Why not just take a look?

It doesn't take a genius to research Wood's claims and find them seriously lacking.

xmasdale wrote:
merely trying to outline some principles of discussion



Yes. The main principle of discussion is just that. To discuss. But as you have seen from Johnson above and (if you care to look at the links below) his crew will not discuss.

Johnson doesn't believe discussion is worthwhile.

It amazes me how people have lost the ability to think critically on this forum.

Debate is the vehicle of truth. But any debate on here is seen as somehow negative or worse still, suspicious.

Although I am tiring of this site and the movement as a whole I will not stop speaking my mind in what is still an open and free society for the most part.

Although that is changing.

And seemingly being aided by people on this thread.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
So let me get this straight...

Instead of debating research on a forum dedicated to building a credible case for a new investigation into 9/11 you believe that we should all come up with our own theories and submit them as a court case?

Madness. .


Nope. You haven't got it straight at all - very CROOKED in fact.

Not sure what Pootka suggested, but we advocate submitting EVIDENCE to court in some way. Or at least build a case on EVIDENCE.

Sadly, if you can't tell the difference between theory and evidence, or if you want to deliberately muddle the definitions of the two, you might as well carry on doing what you are doing now - which is nothing.

You haven't submitted any evidence to court, have you? Or to NIST? Or to anyone? It seems from a video you made a while ago that you're relying on a group - whose members believe burning powder can trun steel to dust and leave paper unburned - to do this for you - but in 3 years, they have not.

You won't even use your real names!! Now that's REALLY HILARIOUS! You can't submit evidence anonymously anyway! You are therefore IRRELEVANT!

QED!

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6259

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strangely nor did I Wink

Quote:
Dr. Wood has never said that the DEW had to be in space.


Edit* additionally imo the only known vehicle capable of targetting said beam or wave pulse weapon would be a helicopter. Nothing else can hover for the required length of time to target such a weapon.
Beams and waves do not bend, they do not seek targets like computerised missiles!

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Nope. You haven't got it straight at all - very CROOKED in fact.

Not sure what Pootka suggested, but we advocate submitting EVIDENCE to court in some way. Or at least build a case on EVIDENCE.


Evidence?

I suppose for some, burnt-out cars,



(psssst...here's some at the Pentagon)

1 of the 3 hurricanes in and around 9/11 in the hurricane hot spot known as the North Atlantic....



and a couple of cherry picked photos claiming there was no debris at Ground Zero constitute evidence for some. But not for me.



Quote:
Sadly, if you can't tell the difference between theory and evidence, or if you want to deliberately muddle the definitions of the two, you might as well carry on doing what you are doing now - which is nothing.


I know the difference between the two.

And, even if you believe you know the difference between the two, you certainly have not displayed any evidence of knowing the difference between ad hominem attacks and accepting of counter evidence, or good research and conjecture.

You may believe that examining evidence and debating theories is nothing but that says more about you than me.

Quote:
You haven't submitted any evidence to court, have you? Or to NIST? Or to anyone?


Have you? Or are you hanging on to the coattails of someone else who has?

Quote:
It seems from a video you made a while ago that you're relying on a group - whose members believe burning powder can trun steel to dust and leave paper unburned - to do this for you - but in 3 years, they have not.


It seems that you continue to believe in things that did not happen, circumstantial evidence and pseudo-scientific conjecture. Each to their own.

Oh wait, is any of that research actually yours or is it mostly your mentor's?

An example of your own research was dismantled in another video made by myself.

Quote:
You won't even use your real names!! Now that's REALLY HILARIOUS! You can't submit evidence anonymously anyway! You are therefore IRRELEVANT!

QED!


Evidence to the contrary is irrelevant then is it? Ok. Good luck with the court case that you...I mean Wood set up.

I really truly wish her luck cause if an irrelevance such as myself can debunk her theory with a couple of google searches then it shouldn't be too hard for anyone else.

However irrelevant you may consider them to be.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a


Last edited by GodSaveTheTeam on Sun May 09, 2010 2:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Energy We Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
In this forum I saw no mentioning of Dr. Wood, so that is why I posted. Had I seen a Dr. Wood thread, I would have simply commented or contributed to that thread. I did not see the information posted, so I felt like I needed to share it with the readers here.

I am not a troll

really?

well, as you'd somehow failed to spot them yourself, I pointed you to one of the many threads in which judy wood's "evidence" is being discussed in great detail - which is apparently what you want.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18218

but you don't seem to have shown up yet.

what's keeping you?

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing that bothers me about Dr. Jones and Richard Gage is that they have not submitted their nano-thermite evidence to Congress in the form of a legal case. Why would they hesitate to do so if their evidence is so sound?

Another good question is, why is Dr. Judy Wood the ONLY person to file evidence-based Qui-Tam whistleblower cases with Congress and with the Government? She is the only person who has legally submitted her evidence to Congress in a pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and she did so back in 2007. Why wouldn't Dr. Jones and Richard Gage support her efforts? Why wouldn't they want to add their evidence to hers to make it a stronger case? Why do they bad mouth her when she is on the same "team" as they claim to be? Check it out:



Here are some other concerns I have, which I recently asked to Richard Gage and Dr. Jones in an email:

• How come steel and concrete were pulverized, aluminum had electrical burns, but paper was unharmed? Nano-thermite and heat do not selectively damage certain materials, so how come thousands and thousands of paper sheets were completely unharmed?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero during the attacks?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, where is all the molten steel? Thousands of pictures, yet not a single one shows large quantities of molten steel?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come the resulting steel and concrete dust clouds were not hot enough to burn the people it coated nor to set adjacent buildings on fire?
• If thermite alone caused the ‘collapses’, how come there was significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks?
• Why was the Alaskan magnetosphere normal until immediately before and during the 9/11 attacks, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks, even though they were not exposed to thermite?
• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed several legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies and NIST, yet Dr. Jones has not?
• How come Dr. Wood has already been taking legal steps towards demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet Dr. Jones does not support her legal efforts?
• How come Dr. Jones has not officially filed or shared his nano-thermite evidence with Congress, NIST, or any official governmental body? Why the delay?
• Why is Dr. Jones just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which made it to the Supreme Court?
• Why isn’t Dr. Jones and his affiliates supporting Dr. Judy Wood’s legal efforts to pursue 9/11 Truth, regardless of whether or not they agree on a theory?
• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers?
• Shouldn’t we all be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if we do not agree with her conclusions?
• Why was I removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition simply for asking Richard Gage to examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood?
• I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for bringing up Dr. Judy Wood to Richard Gage?


Thoughts anyone?

Thanks,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
One thing that bothers me about Dr. Jones and Richard Gage is that they have not submitted their nano-thermite evidence to Congress in the form of a legal case. Why would they hesitate to do so if their evidence is so sound?


First of all, and forgive me if I've missed the affirmative but....have you asked them?

I would have to ask the question - why has Judy Wood submitted her DEW theory to court when it is so unsound?

Quote:
Why wouldn't Dr. Jones and Richard Gage support her efforts? Why wouldn't they want to add their evidence to hers to make it a stronger case? Why do they bad mouth her when she is on the same "team" as they claim to be?


Why would they when both party's theories are so diametrically opposed?

Wood's theory, which poo poos the idea of explosives, integrally discredits the masses of evidence used to support the Jones theory.

(please note, the following does not mean I support the following "evidence", I am using the following as examples of "evidence" which would be discredited by integrating the two opposing theories)


For example: The assertion "No explosives" discredits -

a) Eyewitness testimony of hundreds of onlookers and firefighters who reported hearing seeing explosions.

b) Squibs all over the buildings

c) The nature of WTC7's "collapse" signature

Do you see what I mean. Integrating the two theories would discredit evidence which supports one of them.

PookztA wrote:

Here are some other concerns I have, which I recently asked to Richard Gage and Dr. Jones in an email:

• How come steel and concrete were pulverized, aluminum had electrical burns, but paper was unharmed? Nano-thermite and heat do not selectively damage certain materials, so how come thousands and thousands of paper sheets were completely unharmed?


Because the "thermite" wasn't necessarily placed in a location that would have effected all of the paper. The thermite could have been placed in the core columns only to weaken them therefore bringing the building down.

I thinks it's outlandish to suggest all of the paper would have been effected. Hundreds of offices filled with paper wouldn't have been totally consumed with "strategically placed thermite"

In the same way, how come the DEW weaponry that you postulate turned the steel to dust didn't turn all the paper to dust as well?

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero during the attacks?


It is a valid question. These power outages etc do not prove the use of DEW though do they?

They could have been part of a larger strategy of attack to create more confusion to maintain a level of disjointed witness testimony.

It also depends where these power outages were.

They could have been as a result of a central power-hub being set on fire by falling flaming debris.

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, where is all the molten steel? Thousands of pictures, yet not a single one shows large quantities of molten steel?


The molten steel was "reported" on by eyewitnesses. Firemen and various other notables. Molten steel is by it's very nature hot. This could have meant a certain level of inaccessibilty in order to obtain photos.

The simple retort to this question is if DEW brought down the twin towers and building 7, where are the photographs of the DEW that were used?

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come the resulting steel and concrete dust clouds were not hot enough to burn the people it coated nor to set adjacent buildings on fire?


Because there didn't necessarily have to be enough of it placed in the buildings to create such effects. There would only have needed to be quite minimal amounts to create core failure. Well placed explosives could have then brought down the weakened structure.

Likewise, if the dust clouds that Wood says toasted the cars caused the damage you have outlined, then how come all the buildings that the dust cloud engulfed were not toasted too?

And the people covered in that dust?

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the ‘collapses’, how come there was significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks?


Changes in the magnetic field of the Earth are not limited to 9/11 alone.

Where is the evidence linking the use of DEW to changes in the Earth's magnetic field?

PookztA wrote:

• Why was the Alaskan magnetosphere normal until immediately before and during the 9/11 attacks, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?


See above.

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks, even though they were not exposed to thermite?


This is speculation based on unspecified photographic evidence.

If DEW caused those cars to "warp, burn and disintegrate" then why do the surrounding buildings, traffic lights, pavements, other cars that are not damaged not show the same characteristics. Where are the photos of disintegrated people?

If those cars, which you assume were located blocks away from GZ during the attacks, were damaged by DEW then were is the damage to the buildings between GZ and those cars?

PookztA wrote:

• If thermite alone caused the destruction of the buildings, how come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side?


Again this is pure speculation based on unspecified photographic evidence. The cars may have been turned over by falling debris (like a landslide)

They may also have been towed and left in those positions to maximise rescue accessibility to the area

Just because they are turned over, does not mean DEW were used.

PookztA wrote:

• How come Dr. Wood has already filed several legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies and NIST, yet Dr. Jones has not?


Again have you asked them?

Why does Wood not have or even sought the support of the victims families?

If Wood is so suspicious of Jones then why hasn't she contacted the victim's families with her research and to warn them of Jones and to inform them that she has filed a legal case?

Surely those family members, who are largely responsible for getting the Kean Commission even started, have a right to know that a court case has been filed regarding the most important day of their lives?

PookztA wrote:

• How come Dr. Wood has already been taking legal steps towards demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet Dr. Jones does not support her legal efforts?


Because he doesn't believe in her research and it might discredit his own.

PookztA wrote:

• How come Dr. Jones has not officially filed or shared his nano-thermite evidence with Congress, NIST, or any official governmental body? Why the delay?


He has submitted his peer-reviewed paper to NIST.

PookztA wrote:

• Why is Dr. Jones just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which made it to the Supreme Court?


Jones has been pursuing a new 9/11 investigation, as have many for a number of years. Before Wood submitted her case.

PookztA wrote:

• Why isn’t Dr. Jones and his affiliates supporting Dr. Judy Wood’s legal efforts to pursue 9/11 Truth, regardless of whether or not they agree on a theory?


Perhaps because he is covering up DEW, or because he feels it might weaken his credibility. These are questions only Jones himself can answer.

Speculative.

PookztA wrote:

• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers?


Because at that point, the truth movement did not need a theory which would distract from its efforts. Also, there was a big split in Scholars anyway between Fetzer and Jones. Which was less than amicable.

Again speculative.

PookztA wrote:

• Shouldn’t we all be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if we do not agree with her conclusions?


Sure, but what do you expect me to do other than raise my concerns over the credibility of her case?

Should the advocates and supporters of Wood continue to relentlessly ignore the many flaws in her theory which are brought up by many here on this site and elsewhere.

Is the fact that an easily debunked case is being submitted to court proof that Wood is not really serious about it at all

PookztA wrote:

• Why was I removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition simply for asking Richard Gage to examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood?


Perhaps because they thought you were trying to discredit them. Which you are doing now?


PookztA wrote:

• I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for bringing up Dr. Judy Wood to Richard Gage?


See last answer.

There, I have engaged with your questions. I have not ignored them. Will you return the courtesy and consider my links below?

It took me quite a while. The least you can do is return the favour.


Here's a question for you, how come Johnson, a man who claims to have a background in Software Engineering, can make a simple schoolboy error when searching a pdf document?

See Thermite Free sig below.?

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group