Prime example of all that's wrong with the modern education system, a good memory (ability to pass exams) is more important than actual intelligence...
Nice find, cheers _________________ Make love, not money.
it has to be said on the basis of that video i cannot see the scientific thinking behind it. it seems as though that one picture was very important to the whole of the theory itself(thank god he took it with him).
i am seriously concerned that this is considered a root for truth when based on one picture with no calculations of energy needed or that a weapon delivering such energy exsists or is even possible, and hopefully shows people why some get angry with certain theorys.
just imagine for one second everyone bought this theory and it came to the time of proving it to the mainstream media or a court, would this interview be what the evidence would look like or come across?
beam weapons may or may not of been used for all i know but when the founder of the theory cannot prove or explain it with coming across as not having a clue its very hard to see the basis for the theory at all.
no wonder none of my questions were ever answered when asking about the beam theory. sorry to be critical but you cannot hide the way that interview came across. thank god for that interview i say or we could of all found ourselves up the creek with no paddle at a crucial time in the future had most people been swayed.
God this women is a shill! The interviewer is trying his best to help her out and she starts arguing with him. The interviewer ends up backing Steven Jones up by pointing out that there were NO NANO PARTICLES.
Dusty Woods will now be known as Sooty.
Pennies on their windowcill!! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
we should'nt be to harsh i mean if you look at the picture......
lets not concern ourselves with calculations or anyother proof its a major distraction. why would you need to prove its was possible before coming to a conclusion? lets just look at pictures.
and there i was thinking you need to prove something to be possible before coming to the conclusion ie: what beam weapon could achieve this and how much energy would it take, then is this technology even possible even if top secret(if top secret should you persue it as evidence would be a problem).
no instead look at the picture and guess at what weapon could achieve it without even knowing if that weapon could acheive it .
i am a little suspious after thinking a while longer, she didnt seem qualified and so those qualifications reeled of at the start seem impossible and maybe fake as a cover to shill an idea to sidetrack people, and then maybe thought she could blag her way through the interview only for it to get from bad to worse. is judy wood even her real name? can anyone clarify on anything about her? remember you never remember a lie, funny then she could'nt remember anything of her own site that she supposidly wrote and studied. so if i could actually vote on these polls it would be shill. planted to promote a lie that could'nt be backed up scientifically.
no i dont have any qualifications along those lines either but even i can tell this stinks of unscientific arguement/shill.
i never remember an interview with s.jone where he could not remember one fact about his own theory.
How does that terrace song go...? Oh, it's all gone quiet over there...
Your not singing! your not singing!YOUR NOT SINGING ANYMOOOOORE!!1
I thought the guy who interviewed her was hilarious, his tongue was almost poking through his cheek at some points. _________________ Make love, not money.
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
i am a little suspious after thinking a while longer, she didnt seem qualified and so those qualifications reeled of at the start seem impossible and maybe fake as a cover to shill an idea to sidetrack people, and then maybe thought she could blag her way through the interview only for it to get from bad to worse. is judy wood even her real name? can anyone clarify on anything about her? remember you never remember a lie, funny then she could'nt remember anything of her own site that she supposidly wrote and studied. so if i could actually vote on these polls it would be shill. planted to promote a lie that could'nt be backed up scientifically.
no i dont have any qualifications along those lines either but even i can tell this stinks of unscientific arguement/shill.
i never remember an interview with s.jones where he could not remember one fact about his own theory.
Exactly,though to be fair the Jones theory is a little easier to argue due the known methods of controlled demolition,and the very real existance of thermite.
It also shows up the Fetzer and Woods "interview" for what it was,if there were any doubts.
Last edited by Newspeak International on Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject:
Great find IS. I can't believe anyone can take this woman seriously. It only took one interview to expose her madness. 'Dustification', you couldn't make it up, hence I'll go for idiot. Her failure to see any debris gave me a good laugh. Well done Dr Jenkins for keeping a straight face. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
i think most would agree there is little evidence to suggest beams could even be possible judging by that interview.
the founder of the theory judy wood seems to of made it more important to disprove s.jones theory than proving her own, and in this i see a pattern emerging.
my thoughts are this: s.jones was bang on the money with method and chemical presance at the twins, the paper had been completed and distributed amongst the movement therefore getting rid of jones would not of solved the problem. therefore lets create a few theorys and pose as truthers in order to attack jones and discredit his work.
strange then how i find a NPT'er promoting judy wood whilst impling s.jones is a goverment plant. http://911researchers.com/blog/6
i hope the link works.
im seeing a pattern of creating a theory with little evidence to support it and then attacking jones theory as though thats somehow important in proving there own theory to be correct. is s.jone the target? or rather his theory. why? is he right?
John Humphrys: We invited a spokesperson for the beam weapon theory to come on the programme but we were told that nobody was available.
I suspect we will be told that they have been too busy copying DVDs and printing leaflets.
I am wondering if pennies on the windowsill is the hot information which the tight clique has been holding close to their chest and teasing us with for the past few months.
Or perhaps it was proof of the World Trade Center to be telescopic and actually three times as tall as previously believed and therefore only theoretically visible several inches beyond the edge of your best photographic evidence.
Patrick, how could you cut out all that precious material?!
Every word that woman spoke was another pint of urine on the rather wet firework which some people have been trying to ignite on here recently.
I just hope that there is a phpBB mod out which will automatically trash any further mention of this ray gun rubbish before it becomes publicly visible.
You have to sign up for the following pages, which I've done, and the comments on pages 2 & 3 are a lot worse than the front page ones. All her students thought she was pathetic basically and a couple commented that she ridiculed students as well.
Also she's not coming up on some databases I've been using except at one place in South Carolina. I find this a bit strange and I'm going to investigate it a bit more.
For comparison's sake, here's Fetzer's rating, he doesn't score that highly but I think that's because some conservative students are not being fair. He's considered by most to be very smart, but very liberal and conspirationally minded;
Just had a post deleted!!! All I said was I can't wait for Andrew to comment. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Yes that's what I figure. I'm not in Tony's good books since I've started asking Andrew why he used to push Beam Weapons and NPT! I still haven't has a answer.
So why is Tony sticking up for Andrew? Hmm you work it out. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject:
Hi Patrick,
I deleted your post for swearing.
Now, please keep to the subject of the video in question and related stuff only post if you have something worthwhile to add... and please keep it reasonably clean?
Maybe you'd like to start making insinuations against me now rather than Andrew? Or maybe you'd just like to get on and make your occasionally amusing points on the subject in hand.
I don't recall swearing in that post! All I said was “I can't wait for Andrew to comment on this thread” or something similar.
So you're lying Tony!
Also it might have been more polite to have just edited my post.
Also most swear words are filtered out by the word filter in the admin section of this forum which is why people use creative spelling quite often here.
We can only assume that you are trying to protect Andrew from being outed as a potential shill/dis-informationist. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
I would take an oath and testify that there was no swearing in that post, Patrick.
Perhaps you could hint at what word offended you, Tony. And if you are so concerned about swearing on the forum, I think you have got some work ahead of you.
The reason my constant questioning of Andrew is valid is because he is known to communicate with Woods and has also been seen to push Beam Weapons and NPT. So what does the above Judy Woods interview say about Andrew Johnson's judgment? So is Andrew the kind of moderator we want on this forum? Why is Tony Gosling sticking up for Andrew? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
it has to be said on the basis of that video i cannot see the scientific thinking behind it. it seems as though that one picture was very important to the whole of the theory itself(thank god he took it with him).
.jpg)
