| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It might seem to be more evidence of DEW / Exotic Weaponry to some, but to me it seems an even greater amount of poor quality speculation.
Is that what a scientific paper amounts to these days? A bunch of photos and some guesswork from a remote location?
Btw, is jplotus on the Randi Rhodes board your ever-ready to proselytise on Wood's behalf Veronica/Victoria Chapman?
It's almost too funny how this malformed speculation can be floated as if it's a serious, researched idea, while in the meantime jumping on any replies for verification and 'proof'.
I thought the way the dirt carrying trucks (for damping molecular dissociating steel effects, doncha know) turned out to be NYC DoT asphalt repair trucks suspiciously repairing roads to allow heavy plant access for the clear up, was about par for Dr. Wood's course.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: Nothing to see here (as usual) |
|
|
Yup, it's thermite, thermite, thermite all the way for me. See those big clouds? Thermite. That dirt in the firetruck? Thermite. Well either that or it's thermate. One or the other. Now don't be alarmed, please go back to sleep.
"For a while now I have been pointing out that there were about 1000 cars near the World Trade Centre that were corroded very strangely on 9/11/2001 - additional data." Steven E Jones, May 2007.
PS: The answer's thermite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Ensign Chekov reporting at the Helm Sir!"
"Give me your course heading kiptin..."
"Ensign, please steer us to Thermite 4. We need to investigate the life forms on that planet and see how similar their thought processes are to ours"
"Course laid in kiptin!"
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very witty. But the thing is this.
You've introduced the Wood 'paper' on molecular dissociation' - a process that describes the removal or loss of the chemical bonds of matter.
Presumably because you believe there's some merit to her conjecture.
Maybe there's even some empirical dust analysis verifying this, and it's not based solely on photo interpretation (unless an extremely hi-magnification lens was used). But I'm not holding my breath.
So...
How is it done - or at the very least, how could it be done?
What does it take achieve it?
Stupendous amounts of energy to be sure - but how much, and from where?
It would seem to me that if there's not even an idea for explaining those points (beyond an evil military industrial complex up to no good as usual), then it's merely bandying round a scientific-sounding (but meaningless) term. Fairy dust would be equally valid.
While it's certainly not a p*ssing contest, so far it seems to me that conventional chemical processes (burning/exploding/corroding) explain most phenomena within a readily grasped context, pending a
re-investigation.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow.
the 'fuzzballs'. Very very odd.
bucketheads - the bomb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
Ahhh.. the new scientific term 'fuzzballs'... very interesting. Figs 65, 66 etc on the dirt2 page almost looks like dust being kicked up by the feet of people walking along a very dusty path to me, but there again, couldn't have been, I don't hold a Phd in Physics, must be this new term 'fuzzballs'.
I just wish that we would all stop this idiotic "my pet theory is better than your pet theory" or "I've solved this crime faster than you have".
The one fact we can all agree on is that 911 didn't happen the way Bush and his cronies have told us, that is sufficient, and so we should now be united in calling for a full and proper independent criminal investigation into this horrendous crime and not waste time and energies in pushing our own pet theories, which most of the public wouldn't believe anyway (even if, by some possible chance, one day in the future they do turn out to be correct, but of that I await judgement). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
How is it done - or at the very least, how could it be done?
What does it take achieve it?
Stupendous amounts of energy to be sure - but how much, and from where?
|
Your pancakes are looking rather stale.
Following your 1st post on this thread which had no relevant points of evidence being discussed, the questions you raise here are, of course, key ones.
However, lets takes the explosives alone or explosives + thermite theory and forget dustification, fuzzballs and pulverisation - let's just say there was 200000 tons of steel girders:
1) How was the thermite/were the explosives planted?
2) How was it ignited?
3) What type of explosives were used?
4) Who supplied them?
No one, to my knowledge can answer these questions, so do we, by your way of thinking, have to rule out that theory too?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| spiv wrote: |
I just wish that we would all stop this idiotic "my pet theory is better than your pet theory" or "I've solved this crime faster than you have".
|
You support an investigation by specialists, yes? Isn't that what Judy Wood is doing? Isn't an investigation meant to get to the truth of what happened? Is a "pet theory" which is closer to the truth or explains more of the evidence better than one which does not?
How does it affect your campaigning?
Or is it that you just don't like her conclusions. Fine - don't post to this thread and draw attention to them - otherwise more people might realise she is probably getting close to the truth and that 9/11 is much bigger than many 9/11 truthers want to deal with and cannot alone be considered as a plan of the Neocons or on solely a political basis. i.e. it's to do with energy too.
If you want some copies of leaflets or disks to give out, you can get them from me - with or without fuzzballs.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Isn't an investigation meant to get to the truth of what happened? |
I agree Andrew, but you have completely missed the whole point I make. It is not up to us, the citizens of the World, to prove what happened on 911. It is demonstrated that the official explanation is a lie. So now we must push for appropriate Authorities, using proper legal powers, to hold a full, thorough and non-political investigation. I know that won’t be easy, as there is fierce political resistance coming from those who appear to be the real perpetrators of 911.
But, by way of example, just because I can demonstrate beyond doubt that a person who has been falsely accused of murder must be an innocent person, that does not mean to say that I have to then go on and prove who actually did it before that innocent person is released. On the contrary, it would then be incumbent upon the police to re-open their investigation.
Why cannot the intelligent scholastic and scientific community understand this simple basic point???? Of course, I, and I also think many others in the Truth Movement, are starting to think that these silly outlandish theories (which, as I say may or may not ultimately turn out to be correct, who knows) are just trying to obfuscate matters as disinformation to try to ridicule the Movement.
And yes, as regards my campaiging (for it is not only you who is campaigning), I am currently trying to organise William Rodriguez to appear here in Cornwall on 24th June to raise awareness with the general public with one of his excellent talks, and there won't be a fuzzball in sight!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Andrew Johnson"] | chek wrote: |
How is it done - or at the very least, how could it be done?
What does it take achieve it?
Stupendous amounts of energy to be sure - but how much, and from where? |
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Your pancakes are looking rather stale. |
Pancake theory was stale 4 years ago - that's kinda the joke. However, I accept that it, like the John Connor sub-reference, might be wearing thin.
But what the hell - I like it.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Following your 1st post on this thread which had no relevant points of evidence being discussed, the questions you raise here are, of course, key ones. |
I'll say they are. But regarding my earlier post, Dr. Wood does not give the impression of having done a great deal of research beyond photo analysis.
Let's take the molecular dissociating soil damping for just one instance.
In my town (Anytown, County Down) paving stones and concrete roads are always getting cracked by heavy traffic. The skin of a city street is only a few inches deep, and if an overweight lorry cutting a corner can break that skin, we can readily imagine a couple of big, f*ck-off, collapsing skyscrapers doing similar if not worse.
I would further imagine (without entering the realm of the imaginary) that should huge bulldozers be shifting humungous piles of rubble to allow access, that some of the sand and soil under the city street would also be shifted by the fairly indiscriminate blade of said bulldozers.
Now without some cracker but hitherto unknown molecule-rescuing property of soil being introduced by Dr Wood's dogged research, I'm inclined to believe the simpler explanation first - that bulldozer drivers aren't too picky or delicate about their work.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | However, lets takes the explosives alone or explosives + thermite theory and forget dustification, fuzzballs and pulverisation - let's just say there was 200000 tons of steel girders:
1) How was the thermite/were the explosives planted?
2) How was it ignited?
3) What type of explosives were used?
4) Who supplied them?
No one, to my knowledge can answer these questions, so do we, by your way of thinking, have to rule out that theory too? |
Hmmm, I'm not sure the logistical problems you raise regarding chemical means are even in the same league as the conceptual ones regarding DEW. I could just as easily ask the same supplemental logistical questions of your Wood conjecture. But I won't - mainly because I think your camp can't answer meaningfully, rather than your being deliberately evasive.
As the heroic defence/shilling by Jplotinus/Veronica/Victoria on the RR boards show, even the finest hooey can only be spun so far.
The mechanism for creating the nano-dust is an under-explored major issue, but to think that's major factor only in favour of DEW is mistaken.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| spiv wrote: | | Figs 65, 66 etc on the dirt2 page almost looks like dust being kicked up by the feet of people walking along a very dusty path to me, |
yes, thats what i see but you are ignoring the point made by Wood.
| spiv wrote: |
The one fact we can all agree on is that 911 didn't happen the way Bush and his cronies have told us, that is sufficient, and so we should now be united in calling for a full and proper independent criminal investigation into this horrendous crime |
What exactly happened, spiv? Come on you genius tell us all. You seem to know what occured on 9/11 and are ready to call for a criminal investigation.
Give us a rough idea of what you think happened.
Explain, explain, explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| zark wrote: | What exactly happened, spiv? Come on you genius tell us all. You seem to know what occured on 9/11 and are ready to call for a criminal investigation.
Give us a rough idea of what you think happened.
Explain, explain, explain. |
Zark, please would you point out to me in this thread just where I have intimated that I myself know what happened on 911? Indeed, I thought that my point being made was that none of us know what happened, and that is why we need a full, thorough and non-political investigation into the crime.
What part of that don't you understand?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plane son on 911
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="chek"] | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | chek wrote: |
How is it done - or at the very least, how could it be done?
What does it take achieve it?
Stupendous amounts of energy to be sure - but how much, and from where? |
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Your pancakes are looking rather stale. |
Pancake theory was stale 4 years ago - that's kinda the joke. However, I accept that it, like the John Connor sub-reference, might be wearing thin.
But what the hell - I like it.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Following your 1st post on this thread which had no relevant points of evidence being discussed, the questions you raise here are, of course, key ones. |
I'll say they are. But regarding my earlier post, Dr. Wood does not give the impression of having done a great deal of research beyond photo analysis.
Let's take the molecular dissociating soil damping for just one instance.
In my town (Anytown, County Down) paving stones and concrete roads are always getting cracked by heavy traffic. The skin of a city street is only a few inches deep, and if an overweight lorry cutting a corner can break that skin, we can readily imagine a couple of big, f*ck-off, collapsing skyscrapers doing similar if not worse.
I would further imagine (without entering the realm of the imaginary) that should huge bulldozers be shifting humungous piles of rubble to allow access, that some of the sand and soil under the city street would also be shifted by the fairly indiscriminate blade of said bulldozers.
Now without some cracker but hitherto unknown molecule-rescuing property of soil being introduced by Dr Wood's dogged research, I'm inclined to believe the simpler explanation first - that bulldozer drivers aren't too picky or delicate about their work.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | However, lets takes the explosives alone or explosives + thermite theory and forget dustification, fuzzballs and pulverisation - let's just say there was 200000 tons of steel girders:
1) How was the thermite/were the explosives planted?
2) How was it ignited?
3) What type of explosives were used?
4) Who supplied them?
No one, to my knowledge can answer these questions, so do we, by your way of thinking, have to rule out that theory too? |
Hmmm, I'm not sure the logistical problems you raise regarding chemical means are even in the same league as the conceptual ones regarding DEW. I could just as easily ask the same supplemental logistical questions of your Wood conjecture. But I won't - mainly because I think your camp can't answer meaningfully, rather than your being deliberately evasive.
As the heroic defence/shilling by Jplotinus/Veronica/Victoria on the RR boards show, even the finest hooey can only be spun so far.
The mechanism for creating the nano-dust is an under-explored major issue, but to think that's major factor only in favour of DEW is mistaken. |
You seem to be very clued up on this subject Chek, may I ask what you do for a living? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Hmmm, I'm not sure the logistical problems you raise regarding chemical means are even in the same league as the conceptual ones regarding DEW. I could just as easily ask the same supplemental logistical questions of
|
DEW is anything but conceptual - but for some reason, certain posters here deny reality:
www.deps.org etc etc
Um - did you forget the response from Kirtland AFB? It's interesting in it's own right and probably one of the more important pieces of 9/11 related correspondence - whatever you think of me, Prof Wood etc.
| Quote: | our Wood conjecture. But I won't - mainly because I think your camp can't answer meaningfully, rather than your being deliberately evasive.
|
Any appearance of evasion is likely more to to with available time than anything else. As I have repeatedly pointed out, unlike you - and your ilk - ALL my cards are on the table and quite frankly I am weary of the way you people come on here and make accusations when hiding behind a blanket of anonymity. Truth, wherever it may lie, is ultimately about revelation and courage, not hiding away behind disparaging remarks, supposedly made from some "moral high ground" and a place where you give the impression of speaking for a greater number of people than yourself.
| Quote: |
As the heroic defence/shilling by Jplotinus/Veronica/Victoria on the RR boards show, even the finest hooey can only be spun so far.
|
More disparaging remarks and no evidence to back them up.
| Quote: |
The mechanism for creating the nano-dust is an under-explored major issue, but to think that's major factor only in favour of DEW is mistaken. |
Same old, same old. We are looking at WHAT happened primarily and both Judy and I have offered possible avenues to explore to find information and answers to the questions you raise.
[/img]
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| spiv wrote: | Why cannot the intelligent scholastic and scientific community understand this simple basic point???? Of course, I, and I also think many others in the Truth Movement, are starting to think that these silly outlandish theories (which, as I say may or may not ultimately turn out to be correct, who knows) are just trying to obfuscate matters as disinformation to try to ridicule the Movement.
|
Hmm yet more disparaging remarks with no supporting evidence. See how "silly and outlandish" Kirtland AFB think the remarks are. Like I said, 9/11 is bigger than oil and politics alone. Get used to it and broaden your outlook.
Good luck with your Rodriguez event - if it gets more people into critical thinking mode (but without disparaging remarks), great stuff.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| plane son on 911 wrote: | | You seem to be very clued up on this subject Chek, may I ask what you do for a living? |
Sure. LEA technician.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew,
You say that 9/11 is bigger than oil and politics alone, yet this is based on your beliefs. We need to avoid pushing our beliefs. We categorically know the official story for 9/11 is a sham so why are we trying to solve it ourselves as opposed to getting the message out far and wide.
With regards to DEW, you seem to be jumping from they exist(which I havne't seen anyone dispute) to they were used on 9/11. Now firstly, how would this correlate with all the reported explosions? Could it not be that both may have been used? Have you seen the new film Explosive Testimony?
The fact still remains this harms the campiagn as just accepting CD is sometimes too much of a paradigm shift for many. Bringing in future weaponry allows the cognitive dissonance to kick in. We are better off campaigning on the areas we are 100% sure about as there are more than enough of those now to warrant a totally new investigation.
_________________
"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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | DEW is anything but conceptual - but for some reason, certain posters here deny reality:
www.deps.org etc etc
Um - did you forget the response from Kirtland AFB? It's interesting in it's own right and probably one of the more important pieces of 9/11 related correspondence - whatever you think of me, Prof Wood etc. |
Of course DEW are real - that's never been in dispute. What is unacceptably unclear is that skyscraper shattering ones exist as Judy Wood is publicly postulating, with your support.
| Quote: | | ...your Wood conjecture. But I won't - mainly because I think your camp can't answer meaningfully, rather than your being deliberately evasive. |
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Any appearance of evasion is likely more to to with available time than anything else. As I have repeatedly pointed out, unlike you - and your ilk - ALL my cards are on the table and quite frankly I am weary of the way you people come on here and make accusations when hiding behind a blanket of anonymity. Truth, wherever it may lie, is ultimately about revelation and courage, not hiding away behind disparaging remarks, supposedly made from some "moral high ground" and a place where you give the impression of speaking for a greater number of people than yourself. |
Believe it or not Andrew I'm not trying to put you on the defensive. You may choose to imagine that retaining a degree of privacy on the internet is somehow suspect, but I do not; and quite frankly I too am weary that those who choose to self-publicise imagine it confers anything at all apart from various forms of spam.
Anyway be that as it may, I certainly do not claim any 'moral high ground' or claim to speak for anyone but myself.
| Quote: | As the heroic defence/shilling by Jplotinus/Veronica/Victoria on the RR boards show, even the finest hooey can only be spun so far.
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | More disparaging remarks and no evidence to back them up. |
Despite the quite incredible and many thousand words of support - worthy of a top drawer libel lawyer - the character jplotinus on the RR board I referred to actually adds nothing to the understanding of the process Wood is offering as a cause of the WTC demolition. Good arguer, nonsense enlightener.
While only taking mild umbrage at being referred to as an 'ilk', one of the first questions I get asked when I do my 'it wasn't airliners brought down the Towers' routine, is 'well, what was it then?'
So far, the practical likelihood with both visible and witness evidence for explosives and cutter charges seem reasonably convincing for most people. In most cases it's getting their heads round the suspect elements within the US Govt. part that proves a harder nut to crack with most straight people.
No way does simply saying 'beam weapons dunnit' explain anything at all currently, even to me and other 'truthers' let alone Joe and Joanne Public.
| Quote: | | The mechanism for creating the nano-dust is an under-explored major issue, but to think that's a major factor only in favour of DEW is mistaken. |
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Same old, same old. We are looking at WHAT happened primarily and both Judy and I have offered possible avenues to explore to find information and answers to the questions you raise.
|
If that is indeed the case then a number of things need to be ironed out before becoming public, surely?
How useful is it saying that 'molecular dissociation' (whatever that means - has there ever been an example of it, even in nuclear testing?) is the cause, then pointing fingers of suspicion at 'the dirt' without some underlying theory supporting how the 'damping effect' idea works?
If it's a work in progress then so be it; maybe going public without some answers to readily predictable questions isn't the best idea.
But you must be aware that there is a highly excitable, less than rational element that latches onto any technical anomaly they haven't comprehended - the crazier the better, it seems - with a zeal that makes me wonder what their actual goal is.
In that respect, outfits such as 911 "Researchers" appear to me as trustworthy and reliable as the misnamed RCP (that is, not at all), and just about as authentic.
To me the goal is convincing a politically significant proportion of citizens that what we were told happened on 911 most certainly did not, and nobody but us is going to do anything about it.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Fuzzballs... |
|
|
| spiv wrote: | | Indeed, I thought that my point being made was that none of us know what happened, and that is why we need a full, thorough and non-political investigation into the crime. |
investigation into what crime?
you write 9/11 .. but what exactly would the criminal justice system be activated for?
3000 murders -- now there is a start
how were they murdered? -- this is exactly what Wood is building a case for.
| Quote: | | I just wish that we would all stop this idiotic "my pet theory is better than your pet theory" or "I've solved this crime faster than you have". |
So you are just going to rush into court to prosecute (Bush and his cronies?) someone with no idea of what they did, how they did it or who they are.
Brilliant! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
No
You start with showing GWB and his cabal lied, obstructed justice and are guilty of high treason. That is easy to demonstrate without any need to refer to DEW.
However correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Dr Woods is claiming that she can prove exactly what happened either. As I understand it she is challenging the relevent authorities to explain away evidence that she claims does not fit with the official explanations and asking whether DEW could account for this evidence. In this I think her course of action is the correct one. Namely trying to show the OCT/Nist explanations are incorrect and incomplete, rather than saying this is what happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
If it's a work in progress then so be it; maybe going public without some answers to readily predictable questions isn't the best idea.
|
Let's look at it this - Judy's student was murdered when doing research to refute claims of Jones. Jones has proven connections to the Energy cover up. Judy has received death threats.
So, she had a choice publish an incomplete analysis of damning evidence early and make it public, to give herself a measure of protection (like for example talking to people like Jerry Leaphart and me so we know what she's doing) or keeping it all to herself getting "bumped off" and next to no one notices.
Possible death or ridicule - which would you choose Ensign Chekov?
Again, the rest is essentially not based on any points of specific evidence so I am not going to spend time debating with a nameless, fearful somebody living in on the Emerald Isle unless they choose to post their name, address and telephone number and go into more detail as to why they feel so threatened by Prof Wood's research, which any normal person would simply ignore if they felt it was wrong or unimportant (look who's posted to this thread, for example).
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andyb wrote: | Andrew,
You say that 9/11 is bigger than oil and politics alone, yet this is based on your beliefs. We need to avoid pushing our beliefs. |
Andy, this statement is essentially false. It is based on evidence. When I saw you in Leeds, I started to explain this to you. Indeed, I sent you some follow up links which should show you there is far more than belief inolved.
You sat and listened to Ian Crane - who basically presented similar views, based on evidence, so it's up to you to make a decision on what you wish to speak about.
Both Ian Crane and I have made a decision about where our focus lies and we will speak about that. You do not have the right to dictate what you think is good or bad for the campaign or dicate what anyone else, other than yourself should or shouldn't be saying.
Neither do you you have a background in scienctific or technical analysis, so your capacity to comment on these sorts of topics is that much weaker than Prof Woods or mine, as I have said before. However, that should not stop you from expressing your belief on some of these topics, just don't expect me to take you seriously - because I won't
I hope it was a good pint of Timothy Taylors...[/quote]
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | No
You start with showing GWB and his cabal lied, obstructed justice and are guilty of high treason. That is easy to demonstrate without any need to refer to DEW. |
Hahahaha.
You think that Bush is stupid dont you. You think that the administration have survived decades in the corridors of power by blind luck.
The people they work for own the courts or the courts r pwnd.
You are out of your depth.
British truth... how old are you Ian? Do you actually live in the UK?
Corruption, control, power struggles, lying, cover-ups and the whole shebang are common place and only a blathering idiot would suggest that the Bush Administration can 'be got' in a court of law.
They are lawyers, they wrote passage for the judges, the supreme court installed Bush and the rest. They are MADE.
but......that said...
what exactly did the Bush Admin lie about?
what exactly did the Bush Admin obstruct?
high treason? -- who are they loyal to?
You are out of your depth. These people are not scrumpers, they are THE LAW.
So go ahead and lead whatever sheep you can recruit into oblivion. You aint got me and neither has madam.
'British' 9/11 Forum << you know exactly what 'British' stands for and if you dont .. dont use that word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | chek wrote: |
If it's a work in progress then so be it; maybe going public without some answers to readily predictable questions isn't the best idea.
|
Let's look at it this - Judy's student was murdered when doing research to refute claims of Jones. Jones has proven connections to the Energy cover up. Judy has received death threats.
So, she had a choice publish an incomplete analysis of damning evidence early and make it public, to give herself a measure of protection (like for example talking to people like Jerry Leaphart and me so we know what she's doing) or keeping it all to herself getting "bumped off" and next to no one notices.
Possible death or ridicule - which would you choose Ensign Chekov?
Again, the rest is essentially not based on any points of specific evidence so I am not going to spend time debating with a nameless, fearful somebody living in on the Emerald Isle unless they choose to post their name, address and telephone number and go into more detail as to why they feel so threatened by Prof Wood's research, which any normal person would simply ignore if they felt it was wrong or unimportant (look who's posted to this thread, for example). |
Whatever Andrew.
I'm satisfied by this mildly paranoid outburst that you don't actually have any fuller understanding of what you're promoting than any of Wood's other disciples busily attempting to spread the gospel elsewhere.
Why you find her contradictory, inconsistent and ill-researched 'evidence' so compelling will have to remain a mystery.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: Dumpers did it |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Let's take the molecular dissociating soil damping for just one instance.
In my town (Anytown, County Down) paving stones and concrete roads are always getting cracked by heavy traffic. The skin of a city street is only a few inches deep, and if an overweight lorry cutting a corner can break that skin, we can readily imagine a couple of big, f*ck-off, collapsing skyscrapers doing similar if not worse.
I would further imagine (without entering the realm of the imaginary) that should huge bulldozers be shifting humungous piles of rubble to allow access, that some of the sand and soil under the city street would also be shifted by the fairly indiscriminate blade of said bulldozers.
Now without some cracker but hitherto unknown molecule-rescuing property of soil being introduced by Dr Wood's dogged research, I'm inclined to believe the simpler explanation first - that bulldozer drivers aren't too picky or delicate about their work. |
Well thanks for clearing that one up for us, chek. But can you just clarify - the reason why the bulldozer drivers would dump their sand and soil on top of the WTC pile that others were busy clearing, would be..? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
dirt on the rubble proves what exactly? i dont know if its suspious or not, but if it is what does it prove?
i dont see how it would prove anything other than just being strange, or is soil dumping an after action when using energy weapons?
if so does anyone have an idea why they would dump the soil as in what purpose it serves? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zark
Minor Poster
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
due to the fact that its never been questioned or highlighted from within the 'truth movement', the epa hasnt mentioned it, fema and NIST have no mention of it and almost 6 years later there has been no question directed to the State of New York or the first responders as to why dirt was dumped.....
i agree, the question is valid.
Maybe a thanks to Judy Wood is in order for highlighting this 'strangeness' among many many many other 'odd' things.
You are a 'campaigner' i guess Marky 54, asking the forum is one thing but i think your question would be well developed among the top level organisers of your group.
who dumped it?
when was it dumped?
where did it come from?
why was it dumped?
simple simple questions
seems to me, dumping dirt only to remove it days/weeks/months later is extremely curious in and of itself. The cost to bring in the dirt and whatever methods were used in doing so must have been justified thus have a purpose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: Re: Dumpers did it |
|
|
| MadgeB wrote: | | Well thanks for clearing that one up for us, chek. But can you just clarify - the reason why the bulldozer drivers would dump their sand and soil on top of the WTC pile that others were busy clearing, would be..? |
No Madge - my contention is that the dirt is a natural by-product of the clearance.
It's up to you to provide some reason why its presence is suspicious, which might for good measure show how it was transported and dumped separately and specially, and what in God's green Earth (no pun intended) the 'molecular dissociating damping effect' actually is - should it exist.
That's Wood's assertion - so defend it if you want. Though if Dr. Wood doesn't feel it necessary to explain such trifles, I'm b*ggered if I can fathom why you feel the need to do so.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: Links |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | However correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Dr Woods is claiming that she can prove exactly what happened either. As I understand it she is challenging the relevent authorities to explain away evidence that she claims does not fit with the official explanations and asking whether DEW could account for this evidence. In this I think her course of action is the correct one. Namely trying to show the OCT/Nist explanations are incorrect and incomplete, rather than saying this is what happened. |
This is my interpretation also - I think molecular dissociation is not an 'assertion' as claimed above, because we don't have enough knowledge yet about how such destruction was achieved. But it seems to be an explanation that would fit the steel of the core column 'spire' turning to dust in mid-air. If this process continued during the clean-up itself, the dirt would dampen it down and hide it from public view to some extent. Quite why there should be dirt from under pavement slabs among the mangled pile of steel as a natural part of the clean-up is most mysterious.
Wood's seems to be a very fruitful line of research, and links in to the fact that more and more of the 'players' in the 9/11 story are being discovered to have links to directed energy and secret weapons research - Steven E Jones, Greg Jenkins (probably), Van Romero (the apparent CD expert who said it was CD and then recanted) and NIST contractors, for starters.
You don't often hear that commented on by those who say 'let's all work together and keep quiet about everything except CD', do you? NIST is challenged to explain its DEW links and why it ignored evidence unaccounted for by its theory. Whatever it comes up with, it will be an important step in getting to the truth about 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
