Title: 911 What Happened - Not How It Happened - Dr Judy Wood Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gFW-sZrmSs Published:Nov 16, 2012 Author:Judy Wood Post Date:2012-11-16 10:10:44 by Horse Keywords:None Views:2954 Comments:115
That woman is a total nutcase that could have had a hand in the murder of one of her students. She is being used by disinfo agents to discredit 9/11 truth.
She is being used by disinfo agents to discredit 9/11 truth.
I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of this entire 9/11 thing, and I've been a vocal critic of the government lies since before I even signed up here on 4um half a decade ago.
The disinfo, and the effects it has on unsuspecting readers, has been amazing. They have more power over the general public than those who present facts and actual truth.
So why should I care, when apparently, many of those who proclaim themselves "truthers" don't?
So why should I care, when apparently, many of those who proclaim themselves "truthers" don't?
Real Truthers ALWAYS CARE. Always. We can not give up, we do not forget, we get to the bottom of things and we share what we learn and you can take it or leave it.
Getting to know the truth is about setting ourselves free.
We share the information that others maybe free as well.
Real Truthers ALWAYS CARE. Always. We can not give up, we do not forget, we get to the bottom of things and we share what we learn and you can take it or leave it.
Each and every time I have attempted to present facts when conversing with you in regards to the 9/11 attacks, you have attacked me with a barrage of profantities and insults, along with wild claims with no basis in fact.
Seems to me if you actually cared about what the TRUTH was, you wouldn't behave in that manner.
Since you must have guessed by now I had bozo'd you, apparently you thought you'd play the nice guy in speaking to my handle, trying to score some "points". You're just the gift that keeps on giving.
#36. To: FormerLurker, lod, GreyLmist, wudidiz, RickyJ, horse, itistoolate, christine, all, Ping, pang walla walla bing bang. (#30)
Each and every time I have attempted to present facts when conversing with you in regards to the 9/11 attacks, you have attacked me with a barrage of profantities and insults, along with wild claims with no basis in fact.
Seems to me if you actually cared about what the TRUTH was, you wouldn't behave in that manner.
Since you must have guessed by now I had bozo'd you, apparently you thought you'd play the nice guy in speaking to my handle, trying to score some "points". You're just the gift that keeps on giving.
FormerLurker,
That is the weirdest.... weakest... lamest attempt at a conversation twist and guilt redirection.
I have no clue nor interest in what you do with your settings.
In fact I am tired of addressing you because when ever we converse the subject always seems to stray from 911 and into personal nit pickings. And While I can quote where I have said I was mistaken and what not...whats the point?
Instead of making this about me and you or you vrs the world or any other nonesense thing, instead , how about we talk about what we know.... and what this thread is about.
We know we have all kinds of DEW weapons. D.A.P.A.R. doesn't make wicker baskets. It makes military advancements. It is completely possible DEW weapons were used. They existed at that time... nothing being put forward in this interview was fringe. Ms, Woods even stressed avoiding speculation and grounding our conclusions in what can be proven by peer reviewed... PEER REVIEWED.
Peer Review Definition Dec 26, 2005 ... Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality
So we can see she is not afraid of having her worked double checked and debunked.
To do that though FIRST you must know exactly what it is we are talking about...what the fruits of her labour has been, in said peer review paper.
If you have issue with her findings the point out her work exactly and speak up on what your exact boggle is with her work. And I stress "her" here because I am not wanting to know about the work of others by comparisons. I am familer(sp) with other peoples research. Specifically , if you find flaw in Woods work , I would like to keep it about her work and where you find any issue in it...
Name me ONE which can bring down a 110 story skyscraper.
Just one? I have the internet at my disposal. I could name dozens upon dozens in both practical and plausible to the theoretical yet applicable...
High intensity Laser,microwave resonance, perhaps a micro kinetic pellet...I mean, how much do you know about coil guns? Or DEW weapons in general? Are you intimate with the wide range of subject matter and what is in use?
Now, you brought up my miss spelling of D.A.R.P.A. . Was their a reason you did not use proper punctuation of the acronym? Not to split hairs here but this was the exact kind of nit pick bull shit I spoke to earlier. Everyone knew what I meant even you...but only you sought to call it out as if it were a relevant point. Our grammar and minor mistakes their in and of, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ms. Judy Woods and her interview here and her work. Try not to detract by distraction but rather , help us stick with the topic at hand. Please.
I'll try hard too.
:)
As for their being no reason for DEW weapons being involved.... well... that is kinda what this interview is about.. and her work... and this whole entire topic that is being discussed.... and you still have not spoken to any flaw or failing you find in her work. You offer alternative theories and that is all well and good but you do not cite what you find to be incorrect , point by point.
Soooooooo.........
Did you wanna talk about her interview and what she suggests?
High intensity Laser,microwave resonance, perhaps a micro kinetic pellet...I mean, how much do you know about coil guns? Or DEW weapons in general? Are you intimate with the wide range of subject matter and what is in use?
You think a laser wouldn't be visible if it were powerful enough to heat up a building sufficiently to cause it to instantly fall into itself? You're confusing Star Trek phasers with what a real laser is. It's simply amplified light, and it simply heats things up. We have NOTHING which can bring down a building, in fact, it's hard enough to heat up a missile in order to destroy it.
Such beams are NOT powerful enough in the atmosphere to do any significant damage except for objects at a very short range.
Ok, so it wasn't a laser.
Microwave resonance? Fancy word for microwave heating effects, where here, we are talking more about anti-personel or (non lethal) weapons designed for combat or riot situations.
Micro kinetic pellet? A hyper-velocity pellet might go through a battleship, but it pretty much just makes a clean hole. It certainly did not nor could it have brought down the WTC.
So can you find any sort of "directed energy weapon" which COULD bring down the WTC?
Now, you brought up my miss spelling of D.A.R.P.A. . Was their a reason you did not use proper punctuation of the acronym?
First off, it demonstrates you've probably never even read anything in terms of who they are and what they do. DARPA stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
If you look up the word, that is what it stands for.
AND, just like every other alphabet soup agency, they do not place punctuation inbetween the letters.
I mean, the FBI doesn't use F.B.I., nor does the CIA use C.I.A
I am thinking you just heard the acronym on YouTube and are spelling it phonetically, being that you didn't notice the R in the first syllable, and heard it in the second syllable where it doesn't belong.