| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| The Beamer QueenBee - Idiot or shill? |
| Idiot - no doubt, unmistakeable. |
|
73% |
[ 17 ] |
| I can't believe somebody could be this stupid - so Shill |
|
26% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Nice tactic posting this in the news forum.
I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts.
Some of you (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood and debunk the evidence) are going to need to take a long hard look at the 9/11 Truth Movement. I am about to publish a 6500 word article which will expose what seems to be behind these sorts of threads being posted here - and the NSA-connected Greg Jenkins (PhD)
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf
(search for NSA).
who asked Judy Wood to sit before a camera, close to midnight, after she had given her main persenation and after she had driven 600 miles and had almost no sleep in 48 hours.
Oh - and it seems Patrick Brown is still posting here.... how interesting.... I'm so glad you are being self-documenting.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52035#52035
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm now this thread has been moved!!!
As said not complicated is it. 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Nice tactic posting this in the news forum.
I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts.
Some of you (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood and debunk the evidence) are going to need to take a long hard look at the 9/11 Truth Movement. I am about to publish a 6500 word article which will expose what seems to be behind these sorts of threads being posted here - and the NSA-connected Greg Jenkins (PhD)
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf
(search for NSA).
who asked Judy Wood to sit before a camera, close to midnight, after she had given her main persenation and after she had driven 600 miles and had almost no sleep in 48 hours.
Oh - and it seems Patrick Brown is still posting here.... how interesting.... I'm so glad you are being self-documenting.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52035#52035 |
Andrew you sound...!...?..!!!..?..@.. of
So we can see that you buy into the Beam Weapon theory (or something!$!$!£!£!£!$!$!$!%!) but what about aircraft impacting the twin towers?
Aircraft or not Andrew? Yes or No?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have just watched the Judy Wood interview, she may not be a candidate for Miss World or the most articulate person on the planet but I got the gist of what she meant.
She has not been discredited at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | I have just watched the Judy Wood interview, she may not be a candidate for Miss World or the most articulate person on the planet (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) but I got the gist of what she meant.
She has not been discredited at all. |
?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Nice tactic posting this in the news forum.
I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts.
Some of you (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood and debunk the evidence) are going to need to take a long hard look at the 9/11 Truth Movement. I am about to publish a 6500 word article which will expose what seems to be behind these sorts of threads being posted here - and the NSA-connected Greg Jenkins (PhD)
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf
(search for NSA).
who asked Judy Wood to sit before a camera, close to midnight, after she had given her main persenation and after she had driven 600 miles and had almost no sleep in 48 hours.
Oh - and it seems Patrick Brown is still posting here.... how interesting.... I'm so glad you are being self-documenting.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52035#52035 |
Ludicrous. Judy Wood is an adult and should know if she is fit to do an interview or not, the facts are obvious: she cannot lucidly explain any of her theories or the reasoning steps that lead to them. Every single calculation or written evidence is "not done yet". I'm looking at a woman with nothing who cant even make a case on the level of a child
The only difference I can see with this interview and the one with fetzer is that this time she doesnt have fetzer going "very exciting" all through the interview and the interviewer asks her questions based on basic physical principles. Her mugging trying not to give an answer is both palpable and pathetic
Judy Wood is a disgrace to the truth movement
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood and debunk the evidence) |
Are you Thought Criminal hacking Andrew's account?
May as well be, even though your not
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | I have just watched the Judy Wood interview, she may not be a candidate for Miss World or the most articulate person on the planet but I got the gist of what she meant.
She has not been discredited at all. |
are you joking?
this is a part of the problem here with these theorys. there is nothing wrong with investigating and posting evidence as non fact untill proven fact but when people deny what is abunduntly obvious and cannot admit when they are wrong this is where friction tends to set in between the two sides.
judy wood did the beam theory no favours what so ever, it also did the truth movement no favours what so ever, how can you deny this?
its the worse interview i have ever seen.
beamers should just put it behind them and get on with serious research there is no same in being wrong or seeming to be wrong it is up to you to prove your theory and put it across to people in a way that can be understood. judy wood had that chance and failed badly.
i am all ears even after that interview but will not lie about what i think or if i see a problem i will ask questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
lets remember nothing is stopping judy woods doing an interview when she is not tired ect. and nothing is stopping people proving the facts if there are any. but i dont see either of these being done as yet. we get the talk that beams is true 100% true in some cases but nothing to prove it to us here. the breakdown in npt and beams is failure to prove it and nothing to do with posters who get frustrated trying to see evidence for theorys when there is very little to see. if beams and npt are true and can be proved can somebody do so scientifically and present it in an understanable way please.
this isnt evidence "LOOK NO PLANE" (followed by a clip from the otherside of new york). the same goes for beams somebody needs to explain, unless we are suppose to be convinced from that last interview  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | ...snip... |
Can someone, anyone, tell me why this loon is a moderator of this site and why TTWSU3 hasn't been banned yet?
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Note from a "loon" (i.e. me)
==============
Top of P225 of 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERRORISM
MADE IN USA
By Webster Griffin Tarpley
© 2004 by Webster Griffin Tarpley
According to Jim Hoffman, the leading expert on the collapse of the World Trade Center
and the source heavily relied on here, the energy necessary to create the mushroom
clouds and expand them to the extraordinary dimensions actually observed to pulverize
virtually all the concrete in the towers, and to chop the steel into segments is far greater
than the gravitational energy represented by the buildings in the first place. According to
Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work. When
prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to speculate that these
energy sources might have been unconventional ones. High energy microwave
interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be
a possibility, but this would require so much energy that, if it had to be delivered as
conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a meter in diameter –
and there is no evidence of this. So the problem remains intractable.
====
I do love it when posters are self-documenting. I really do! (However, I do wonder about Jim Hoffman....)
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Note from a "loon" (i.e. me)
==============
Top of P225 of 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERRORISM
MADE IN USA
By Webster Griffin Tarpley
© 2004 by Webster Griffin Tarpley
According to Jim Hoffman, the leading expert on the collapse of the World Trade Center
and the source heavily relied on here, the energy necessary to create the mushroom
clouds and expand them to the extraordinary dimensions actually observed to pulverize
virtually all the concrete in the towers, and to chop the steel into segments is far greater
than the gravitational energy represented by the buildings in the first place. According to
Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work. When
prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to speculate that these
energy sources might have been unconventional ones. High energy microwave
interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be
a possibility, but this would require so much energy that, if it had to be delivered as
conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a meter in diameter –
and there is no evidence of this. So the problem remains intractable.
====
I do love it when posters are self-documenting. I really do! (However, I do wonder about Jim Hoffman....) |
Andrew we know that you buy Woods Beam Weapon theory but could please state whether you believe aircraft impacted the twin towers?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Andrew we know that you buy Woods Beam Weapon theory but could please state whether you believe aircraft impacted the twin towers? |
You need to get out more Patrick. With all the posts you make here, I can't believe you have missed the answers I have given several times here.
I do not think that the large 7x7's hit the towers. The video evidence (e.g. delayed fireball) indicates there is a big problem with this part of the offical story).
Now, I thought you were considering not posting here once I had answered these questions? Presumably you have changed your mind?
It won't look good to people reading your posts, ye know. I will just ignore you from now on - as I have answered your questions several times.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | I do not think that the large 7x7's hit the towers. The video evidence (e.g. delayed fireball) indicates there is a big problem with this part of the offical story. |
Can you explain what you mean by "problem"? We have been over this all before haven't we.
Basically you're suggesting that you're not sure that aircraft hit the twin towers aren't you Andrew?
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Webster Griffin Tarpley wrote: | | According to Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work. When prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to speculate that these energy sources might have been unconventional ones. High energy microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive interference might be a possibility, but this would require so much energy that, if it had to be delivered as conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a meter in diameter – and there is no evidence of this. So the problem remains intractable. |
...no evidence of this.
Maybe the first sentence can be disregarded and then the problem would not remain intractable? We only have a handful of flaky sources who insist that the WTC was 'dustified' and therefore must have been destroyed by unconventional means.
And not just might be (a bit of a wriggle) but might be a possibility (a complete get out clause).
Ergo, because there are letters on the mat and nobody witnessed the postman delivering them, there might be a possibility that they were teleported there.
No Evidence! Just speculation!
Drop the dead donkey! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | The video evidence (e.g. delayed fireball) indicates there is a big problem with this part of the offical story. |
Garbage!
The fireball wasn't 'delayed' at all! Allowing for the time taken for the wings to break up, the compartmental fuel bags to rupture, vapourisation, ignition and the time taken for the fireball to expand through the building's structure, I'd say that was perfectly consistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Nice tactic posting this in the news forum.
I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts.
Some of you (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood and debunk the evidence) are going to need to take a long hard look at the 9/11 Truth Movement. I am about to publish a 6500 word article which will expose what seems to be behind these sorts of threads being posted here - and the NSA-connected Greg Jenkins (PhD)
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf
(search for NSA).
who asked Judy Wood to sit before a camera, close to midnight, after she had given her main persenation and after she had driven 600 miles and had almost no sleep in 48 hours.
Oh - and it seems Patrick Brown is still posting here.... how interesting.... I'm so glad you are being self-documenting.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52035#52035 |
Hmm so you moved this post then Andrew?
“I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts.”
The words of a man that can't make his mind up as to whether or not aircraft hit the twin towers!
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Note from a "loon" (i.e. me) |
Errr your point? Or, I'm guessing here, you're trying to legitimize Bean Theory by saying Webster Tarpley included it in his book so it must be true? Except he didn't say it, he quoted Hoffman as saying it, and sceptically at that....
Your gonna have to pedal faster A. Johnson!
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | The video evidence (e.g. delayed fireball) indicates there is a big problem with this part of the offical story. |
Garbage!
The fireball wasn't 'delayed' at all! Allowing for the time taken for the wings to break up, the compartmental fuel bags to rupture, vapourisation, ignition and the time taken for the fireball to expand through the building's structure, I'd say that was perfectly consistent. |
just to pick up on delayed fireballs play this clip in slow motion and see how long we have to wait for the fireball. the plane ploughs through numerous trees and hits the ground and i still dont see a fireball instantly upon hitting the ground. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve2NV8B8oSc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew I do not care if you 'Moderate me'... 'Expell me' or 'Get abducted by feckin aliens!'
... But you don't half talk some nonsense... your comments are a disgrace to the fight for 9/11 truth and I am now convinced that your first priority is to have 'fun' with stupid consiracy theorys... and that you are actually not interested in gaining a further investigation as that would end your little tirade and end this website reason for being.
'Maybe some new moderation is needed'
"Powerfull Energy Sources"... "Ray Guns"... ??? What Next Mr Johnsone?
Answer me one single question then... How come the steel in the towers did not all melt at the same time... Just some funny angles of it...
http://www.debunking911.com/angcut.jpg
... Or are you trying to say that it was a "Multi Directional Ray Beam"?
... Fool! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Ludicrous. Judy Wood is an adult and should know if she is fit to do an interview or not, the facts are obvious: she cannot lucidly explain any of her theories or the reasoning steps that lead to them. Every single calculation or written evidence is "not done yet". I'm looking at a woman with nothing who cant even make a case on the level of a child
The only difference I can see with this interview and the one with fetzer is that this time she doesnt have fetzer going "very exciting" all through the interview and the interviewer asks her questions based on basic physical principles. Her mugging trying not to give an answer is both palpable and pathetic
Judy Wood is a disgrace to the truth movement |
I am very surprised by your post John - it all based on personal remarks and not any evidence. As I said, you are NOT in posession of as many facts about this as I do. As a moderator, therefore, I feel it is best to remain more neutral until you have availed yourself of the facts. I am awaiting some final comments from Prof Fetzer on a section particularly relevant to himself before publishing my article.
If you want to take a look at Morgan and Judy in "their own space", then see these other posts I just made.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6964
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52435#52435
Time will tell who is a "disgrace" - of that I have little doubt.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
just to pick up on delayed fireballs play this clip in slow motion and see how long we have to wait for the fireball. the plane ploughs through numerous trees and hits the ground and i still dont see a fireball instantly upon hitting the ground. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve2NV8B8oSc |
Thanks Mark - that's an interesting clip. I would make the following comments:
1) We cannot see what the plane is hitting (we don't actually see the crash itself as with WTC impact 2)
2) If the plane is hitting trees, it is not the same as it hitting metal. A wing hitting a tree would not necessarily causes sparks in the same way as metal hitting metal (i.e sparks that would ignite the fuel/vapour)
Nevertheless, the difference with your post is that you went to the trouble of providing evidence to back up your point.
Most of the other posts here just seem to be insulting and raise no similar comparisons or points of evidence - go figure.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Andrew I do not care if you 'Moderate me'... 'Expell me' or 'Get abducted by feckin aliens!'
... But you don't half talk some nonsense... your comments are a disgrace to the fight for 9/11 truth and I am now convinced that your first priority is to have 'fun' with stupid consiracy theorys... and that you are actually not interested in gaining a further investigation as that would end your little tirade and end this website reason for being.
'Maybe some new moderation is needed'
"Powerfull Energy Sources"... "Ray Guns"... ??? What Next Mr Johnsone?
Answer me one single question then... How come the steel in the towers did not all melt at the same time... Just some funny angles of it...
http://www.debunking911.com/angcut.jpg
... Or are you trying to say that it was a "Multi Directional Ray Beam"?
... Fool! |
Thanks for your supportive comments! I won't be taking them to heart.
Have nice day.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: |
"Powerfull Energy Sources"... "Ray Guns"... ??? What Next Mr Johnsone?
Answer me one single question then... How come the steel in the towers did not all melt at the same time... Just some funny angles of it...
http://www.debunking911.com/angcut.jpg
... Or are you trying to say that it was a "Multi Directional Ray Beam"?
... Fool! |
Let's talk evidence shall we? Couple of points. I will refer you Douglas Beason of Los Alamos National Labs - "Rays Guns" exist. Sorry to disappoint you...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6055
I posted this a while ago. Oops. No replies on that thread. Wonder why.
As for the angle cut column. Judy's analysis of the evidence suggests that the lower 20 stories were not "dustified" by the weapon (if that's what was used). If you take 30 minutes or so to watch this, you will hear explain her reasoning on this part.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868
Always better to talk about evidence, ya know.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Ludicrous. Judy Wood is an adult and should know if she is fit to do an interview or not, the facts are obvious: she cannot lucidly explain any of her theories or the reasoning steps that lead to them. Every single calculation or written evidence is "not done yet". I'm looking at a woman with nothing who cant even make a case on the level of a child
The only difference I can see with this interview and the one with fetzer is that this time she doesnt have fetzer going "very exciting" all through the interview and the interviewer asks her questions based on basic physical principles. Her mugging trying not to give an answer is both palpable and pathetic
Judy Wood is a disgrace to the truth movement |
I am very surprised by your post John - it all based on personal remarks and not any evidence. As I said, you are NOT in posession of as many facts about this as I do. As a moderator, therefore, I feel it is best to remain more neutral until you have availed yourself of the facts. I am awaiting some final comments from Prof Fetzer on a section particularly relevant to himself before publishing my article.
If you want to take a look at Morgan and Judy in "their own space", then see these other posts I just made.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6964
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=52435#52435
Time will tell who is a "disgrace" - of that I have little doubt. |
| Quote: | | I am very surprised by your post John - it all based on personal remarks and not any evidence. As I said, you are NOT in posession of as many facts about this as I do. As a moderator, therefore, I feel it is best to remain more neutral until you have availed yourself of the facts |
Really Andrew? And your own support of Woods whilst suppressing (apparently) those "facts" says what exactly? you are scarcly demonstrating neutrality! perhaps your own advice would indicate it would be wiser for you to remain silent on this issue until there are some facts?
Becuase if you have facts that others do not have, and this superior knowledge is what enables you to continue to consider Woods has credibility, then you are damaging the spread of truth by not making those facts available: therefore do so: immediately
I also hope sincerely that you have not been hasty in accepting this story that the Woods interview was conducted at the witching hour, not that such is any excuse for the poverty of her argument, becuase if that story ends up pwned, where are we then?
I can tell you this though: just becuase I accepted the invitation to moderate on this forum does not mean I will not call bullsh*t bullsh*t, whether it comes from JREF critics or the sci-fi fringe. I am not a man who can be bought with position, title or favour
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something about protesting too much me thinks!
(that's Andrew that is)
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thanks for your supportive comments! I won't be taking them to heart. |
... They were anything but supportive... and maybe you should take them to heart.
In any event... I expected nothing other than you to ignore my previous question. Do I get an answer, or have you none?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | The video evidence (e.g. delayed fireball) indicates there is a big problem with this part of the offical story. |
Garbage!
The fireball wasn't 'delayed' at all! Allowing for the time taken for the wings to break up, the compartmental fuel bags to rupture, vapourisation, ignition and the time taken for the fireball to expand through the building's structure, I'd say that was perfectly consistent. |
Mu
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Nice tactic posting this in the news forum. |
It was news.
| Quote: | | I would advise most of the posters here that they aren't in full posession of the facts. |
Well none of us are, or this forum would not exist.
| Quote: | | Some of you (the ones that aren't being paid to perniciously attack Judy Wood |
I wish, where do you pick up the cheque?
| Quote: | | I am about to publish a 6500 word article |
Still trying to put Meacher off are you?
| Quote: | | and the NSA-connected Greg Jenkins (PhD) |
That's a huge stretch. He's one of six to write that paper, and your accusation is based on this;
"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-
9705129 and by funding from the NSA."
NSF is National Science Foundation. Did it occur to you it was they who bought in the NSA funding? Are all six of those writers now NSA connected? And realistically if you're in science in the States you're going to have some connection to the Military Industrial machine along the way somewhere. Also on your own criteria, if I found out that Judy Wood was connected to the US Army (lol) would that take her out of the picture?
| Quote: | | who asked Judy Wood to sit before a camera, close to midnight, after she had given her main persenation and after she had driven 600 miles and had almost no sleep in 48 hours. |
If true it's irrelevant, because her science was sorely shown up to be just about completely lacking. Anyway she lives in Virginia doesn't she? Not exactly a long way from DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
