Come and cringe here, beamers. Judy Wood exposed

[flamesong]

I've saved it and taken a screen pic of it.

Just in case you understand.

Please post it.

[IronSnot]

Ok here it is



Tony?

edit - decreased width of image. It was causing problems reading lower posts. The original is still available at;

http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=goslingpv0.png

[IronSnot]

I see Tony's logged off. So we won't be getting an answer to this anytime soon.

[flamesong]

I have PM'ed him asking for an explanation.

[spiv]

Myself having sat on the fence here Tony, I must confess that you do seem to have some explaining to do.

[Stefan]

Ouch!

Caught red handed!

[John White]

Do we have a "slap head and say "oh good grief" in a charlie brown voice" emoticon?

Please imagine one here:

" "

[flamesong]

At your service:



But I don't see this as a careless mistake - after all the post was barely a one liner. It is hard to imagine that it was misread. It is blatant dishonesty by a moderator.

Furthermore, it has served to distract attention from the toe-curling performance of beam weapon heroine, Judy Woods.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that such an ardent advocate of Judy Woods and her sci-fi hypothses can be expected to present an explanation. Why not! Since well before I was hospitalised at the beginning of December, we have been told that there is secret information, known only to a select few (which included Woods, Fetzer and one of this forum's moderators) which would make everything clear. If only us mere peasants were privy, eh!

Now we have all seen that the leading exponent of this wild conjecture is completely unable to even explain her theory let alone prove it.

That this garbage has been allowed to fester on this forum along with the regularly and unequivocally trashed no planes theories is an indictment on the credibility of any claims to promote the truth.

Treat it like a gangrenous limb.

[John White]

Not a great deal I can say to that Flamesong:

Other than "spot me here, not deleting nuthin": and thanks for the Charlie Brown pic!

(And I can personally assure you: Moderators are human too, with emotions and impulsivness etc)

Coming back to the main point of the thread, if the ONLY proponent of Beam Weapon Theory can't explain it to a reasonably tolerant and patient interviewer: What use is it? God alone knows what's running around that poor woman's head but I'm sure its not something I'd want to give my backing to

[DDD911]

I never took it seriously in the first place!!!



It just reminded me of this:

Exactly the whole notion is just crazy!

Its nuts to even entertain this theory let alone trying to sell-it to someone who knows nothing of 9/11 truth, I don’t think this will serve anyone well and will just end up ridiculing 9/11 truth further.

For many people those attacks happened because of terrorism, some are starting to believe their government could have let it happen, but to get people to believe their own government was involved is really hard in the first place, so why even bother wasting time selling a beam theory, why beam WTC 1&2 and not WTC7? And if those believers think WTC7 was knocked out by a means other than demolitions……you need to look again!

K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Solider)

[fixuplooksharp]

Oh my GOD!!!

This is a joke, this whole topic is a joke.
1. the judy woods idiot is exposed for what she really is. Ok you want to hear my guess. She is a shill. end of, however could be being used through brainwashing. On that rate the professors site it said she had been "in a coma for 6 years" You notice the way she was really jerky and was trying to explain things she looked to have no comprehension of?
2.who actually runs this website? i am intrigued? this whole thing with tony and andrew is very strange. infiltration could have already occured. Theoretically if true, Their purpose was probably to keep npt/beam weapons topics on the front page of the forums with the most comments- only for the fact its a crock of shizzle. and to hence put off people from joining the movement.

i cant actually believe this is the actual 9/11 official website in the UK. Where is the collation of information presented in a effective way? there are actually very few sites like this. look at cooperativeresearch, they have everything at least sort of well laid out. This is hard enough to convince people of, but when there is no definitive place to send people to then were losing people everyday.

The UK Truth movement needs a new site. One which everyone gets a say in. none of this hijacking theories nonsense, it screws it all up. every decision needs to be made through polls, with an explanation for your reasoning.



RANT OVER..

[MadgeB]

Yeah, let's all laugh at Judy, but there are some wierd things at Ground Zero, like the partially melted fire engine. Does anyone have an explanation for that? Also, cars with burnt engine blocks seemed to have turned up at the Pentagon as well, when they were faking the crash aftermath. What's that all about? Apart from so-called 'beamers', does anyone else have anything to offer?

I don't know why people get so hot and bothered about discussion of theories, if you get interested in 9/11 of course you want to know how they pulled off such an audacious attack culminating in the complete destruction of the WTC complex of buildings. If you want to kill the movement then dictating which topics people can or can't discuss seems a good way to go about it. Or: the inner circle are allowed to discuss this privately but we mustn't let the public know about it. How patronising.

[John White]

There's no suppresion of debate here. Equally, if people support theories but cant make a reasonably credible argument for them, what reaction should one expect? When one considers how much flak Judy Wood has generated, including the personal attacks on Jones, shouldnt one expect more? Write her an e-mail about divisivness perhaps?

[John White]

Does anyone have an explanation for that? Also, cars with burnt engine blocks seemed to have turned up at the Pentagon as well, when they were faking the crash aftermath. What's that all about? Apart from so-called 'beamers', does anyone else have anything to offer?

yes: particulants of thermate igniting for one, at least as far as ground zero is concerned. Plus lots of rubble = lots of damaged vehicles = lots of petrol vapour = fire. With regards to the Pentagon site, some vehicles are clearly damaged in the vicinity of the impact zone: what other vehicles are you refering too, since in itself that seems not too mysterious?

[MadgeB]

I didn't want to suggest there was any censorship on this site, was just grumbling about people who want to limit the terms of the debate or 'sanitise' reality.

I know zilch about anything 'scientific', which is why I have an open mind about thermite vs. DEWs vs. mini-nukes etc; am interested in all theories and can only hope the perps are brought to justice in my lifetime so we can find out the answer to exactly how it was done.

But I would imagine that in a fire, a car's petrol tank would explode while the engine block would be the last thing to burn or melt. Re the Pentagon site, I was thinking of stuff like this from Jack White's 911 photostudies:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies26.htm

He also identifies wierd stuff like the 'tin opener' effect on the bonnet. If thermate explains these kind of effects, and the apparent selectivity of the method of destruction (things like the fire engine with unmelted rubber but melted metal, paper not burnt at WTC etc), then great - please elaborate!

[IronSnot]

John, maybe you could take the posts re Tony Gosling's less than perfect moment to another thread. That might make him address the issue and it will leave this thread on topic.

[John White]

Maybe at a later point I will Iron snot: for now, i'd rather not touch them. Could I suggest, in the interests of getting back on topic, expressing your view of why credibly refuting ("pwning") beam weapon theory is important?

[IronSnot]

Beam weapon advocates make us all look like idiots.

[John White]

Ok, fair enough, that was sweet and to the point!

[IronSnot]

Can you move Gosling now then?

[Patrick Brown]

Can you move Gosling now then?

Don't you mean re-move?

[A Sharp Major]

Search author; 'A Sharp Major'. I've been telling you about JW for a while.

Dustification?

[IronSnot]

Yes thanks for that (I'll overlook the fact that you're talking about yourself in the third person).

I found this there;

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 34&start=0

I don't really care if Judy Wood is an undergraduate or has a fake degree either

hmmmm

[blackcat]

Beam weapon advocates make us all look like idiots.

No, they make themselves look like idiots. The shills who put forward this nonsense might ensnare a few fools, but when they rejoice at the "exposure" of one of their own their spooks they are merely playing a sordid game. What else do you expect from a bunch of supporters of the mass-murderers of 9/11?

[Stefan]

"No, they make themselves look like idiots."

They do- but that's not all they do- they damage the whole movement.

The beany-boys and hologram-sams are by far the most active posters of any demographic on this forum. Leaving the rest of us the conflict- do we respond to the posts and refute them- making the forum "all about" this issue, or ignore them and leave the appearance there is no disagreement about it here?

I have had it said to me explicitly by more than one person over the last few days that they were interested in 9/11 truth but after wading through a forest of holograms and dodging death rays they concluded we were just a bunch of nutters.

The more I look at this forum the more I think that it should be shaved, sterilsed and destroyed and burried with some kind of charm to ensure it cannot come back as a zombie. That's how strongly I feel about the damage it is doing our image.

If we have a strict aim, we can't be a democracy with this. We need a message board to organise campaigning, an events callender to publicise events, there is a use for a "news" section to flag up new developments. But I think all of the posts into these areas should be quaranteened, approved by the moderators, and then allowed in.

If we want a chat section let's just call it "Chat- Views do not represent the 9/11 Truth UK & ROI Movement", and a second campaigners forum with real names and details neccesary to enter (as I know has been suggested by others).

All of this can be done on the .net site, and this god forsaken drain on our image and motives should be launched from a rocket into the sun.

[Thermate]

That's how strongly I feel about the damage it is doing our image.

I agree but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water we just need stronger mod policy. The blatant disruptive/harmful posters and shills need to be BANNED pronto. Currently some people are "getting away with it" over and over and over again...

[Patrick Brown]

You might be right Stefan.

I started posting here again after Christmas in the hope that things were going to get better. Unfortunately reading posts here is still akin to strolling around the London sewer system. Some people, such as John White, have tried to suggest that the shills and dis-infomationists will burn themselves out although that doesn't seem to be happening.

I have always been an advocate of a stricter moderation policy which removes nonsense and gives warnings to members that are seen to have ambiguous motives. The only motive any 911 truther should have is towards the truth.

The irony is that perhaps 90% of members here aren't into the truth! I sense that many members on this forum have a hidden agenda which falls into two camps:

1. Lets confuse everyone because at the end of the day we all know that Muslim extremists did it.

2. The westerners are scum so lets sew doubts about their governments and bring chaos to the non-believers.

When I reflect I realise that I haven't really gained much from this forum in the way of understanding.

Might soon be time for another period of abstinence from this place!

[John White]

I started posting here again after Christmas in the hope that things were going to get better. Unfortunately reading posts here is still akin to strolling around the London sewer system. Some people, such as John White, have tried to suggest that the shills and dis-infomationists will burn themselves out although that doesn't seem to be happening

Well its all in the word "seems" isn't it Patrick? With performances like this one from Judy Wood, I'd say it "seems" to me as if my prediction is looking well on course to be correct: and will result in a stronger truth movement as a result to boot, with important lessons learned about distraction. None of us are perfect, and that certainly includes the mods, but ultimately the only truly effective dis-informationalist is ourselves, when facing the challenge of keeping a balanced perspective. Ulitmately, I dont consider the quest to re-establish the dominance of Truth in this world to be about whose heads are right, but whose hearts: and in that, I see the UK Truth movement as standing far more united than falling apart.

Which is Good! Becuase we damn well need to be

[Patrick Brown]

I'll stick around for a while longer John and see how things pan out.

I still think this site should copy my idea of an evidence submission forum where people post some evidence, or a seed of, but nobody can reply until it is moved to the evidence discussion section.

For those that haven't seen my forum why not take a look (link below).

[IronSnot]

There's something very wrong with this Judy Wood. Not one student at Clemson has anything good to say about her. In fact they despise her. Here's a typical exchange from some of her students;

http://www.clemsontalk.com/vb/archive/i ... 21259.html

Booyah
05-24-2006, 05:31 PM
Judy Wood, my statics professor, told us she was in a coma for 10 years after a hit and run bicycle accident. I think she still have some brain damage.

I don't know if she's still there or not, but she had the most retarded policy on extra credit I've ever heard. She would only count your extra credit on an exam if you already had an A based on the rest of the exam anyways. Now tell me that's not lunacy. Her reasoning was she wanted people to concentrate on the rest of the test and help bring up the people who made a B on one test and were borderline. If you don't fall into that category I guess you just got screwed. It'd suck to get the extra credit right and not even get credit for it.

The Chain Rule
05-24-2006, 07:31 PM
hahahha guess who lost her tenure?...ill give you two guesses but youre only gonna need one.

FIRED!LIKE THE BITCH SHE IS

Booyah
05-24-2006, 08:27 PM
That made my day. When did this happen? Know any details?

The Chain Rule
05-25-2006, 12:00 PM
what happened was a flood of students in the dean of engineering's office comlaining about her from the last day to drop up until the day after the final. All of which comlaining about typical Judy Wood occurances. Such as this fine email


Dear Students,

Your homework for tomorrow (friday) is the following in chapter 8 1-5, 8,10,14, 20-24. I understand if you dont get it done but at least make an attempt.


Good Luck,

Judy Wood

This message was sent on Friday April th at 12:31 AM


I also heard a little hint from Dr. Miller about it, if you didnt know Dr. Miller is on the review board for associate profressors i think, all i know is her tenure was pretty much in his hands and he dropped it like it was hot. So now we are one step closer to Top 20

There's a large difference between the Judy Wood at Virginia Tech, who I've seen nothing derogatory about, and the one at Clemson.