Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

jammonius said:
But, while vertical holes implies destruction from above, that is not necessarily from orbit.
Click to expand...

Hold the front pages!

WTC was zapped by flying saucers !?!?!?!???!!!!!

:jaw-dropp

(I really hope you're being paid well for this jammonius. It's the only justification for the humiliation you're experiencing here)
 
Why do I get the feeling we're going to get to some sort of cloaking device soon?
 
excaza said:
Why do I get the feeling we're going to get to some sort of cloaking device soon?
Click to expand...

You didn't know they hid Megatron in a Klein Bottle? That's where Judy Wood goes wrong, it wasn't a beam from space, it was Megatron's arm mounted cannon.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
That's the offical story. You must have missed NWO information pack #22310.1 part (ii)
Click to expand...

I never get any NWO post delivered by "the mailman". I do get a lot of "you are almost a winner" letters.
 
jammonius said:
Instead, the evidence that Dr. Wood has posted does imply vertical destruction based on the evidence of the holes in WTC 4,5,6 and in various places in the flat GZ. You have to look for this information at drjudywood.com.

But, while vertical holes implies destruction from above, that is not necessarily from orbit.
Click to expand...

Well, DUH. The crazy old bat kind of disregards the fact that her discombobulator ray would leave holes with rounded margins, but, on close-ups, the holes have a irregular polygonal margins, closely matching the grids of the columns within the buildings. She also utterly ignores the evidence of sections of the outter walls of the towers lying inside the holes.

See, for instance, the statement of actual 0/11 eyewitness, Patricia Ondrovic, that describes seeing in the sky flying objects that very closely matches the video of DEW demonstrations, all as posted elsewhere:
Click to expand...

As a veteran fire fighter and investigator and A NCO, I have been trained to spot bevaiors which might indicate that an individual is about to lose control. Ondrovic dispalyed numerous of them on 9/11, as shown in her oral histories statement.

She had utterly FREAKED.

She was looking at the sky through a haze from the collapse of one of the buildings.

She would have had dust in her eyes, blurring her vision, as had Deshore. There is no way that she could have seen much of anything exactly as it was in the sky, and the position she describes seems irrelevant to events on the ground, as does the timing.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
When do you plan on (why am I yelling :)) watching the rest of that video?
Click to expand...

Well, DGM, your rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, I have examined Pt. 3 of your 5 part video; and lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW, to be found in the audio account:

wtc3disappeared.jpg


Thanks
 
I have decided to start a little project.

I'm going to review Judy Woods' "work" and point out some of the many logical fallacies contained therein. (Once again thanks to Brian Dunning podcast for the guidance)

Those that want to join in, feel free!

Here goes:


Observational Selection

The process of retaining data samples that agree with an assertion but ignoring the data samples that don't.
Click to expand...


Judy Wood is guilty of this logical fallacy on many counts. A prime example is her claim that "all the steel was "dustified" at the WTC". Many pictures exist showing the thousands of tons of the remnants of the steel structure at Ground Zero. Pictures that are readily available for inspection and which must have come to her attention. These are ignored.

A classic case of Observational Selection.


Compus
 
jammonius said:
Well, DGM, your rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, I have examined Pt. 3 of your 5 part video; and lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW, to be found in the audio account:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/wtc3disappeared.jpg?t=1285888359[/qimg]
Click to expand...

"Disappeared" means that it wasn't there any more.

A building broke it and buried it.
 
jammonius said:
...lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW...
Click to expand...

How do you know this, if you don't know which kind of DEW was used and what physical and technological properties it had?
 
excaza said:
Why do I get the feeling we're going to get to some sort of cloaking device soon?
Click to expand...

Please keep up:D
Post 239 by me
"I would like to know how in FSM's name did the whole planet miss this thing being launched? Does anyone think that this sort of thing is not monitored by the likes of China and Russia? It must be huge given the power requirements. That would mean a massive launch vehicle, which apparently no one spotted.
Jammy, have you considered bring cloaking devices into your life
Here's some help in what to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device"
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Well, DGM, your rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, I have examined Pt. 3 of your 5 part video; and lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW, to be found in the audio account:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/wtc3disappeared.jpg?t=1285888359[/qimg]

Thanks
Click to expand...

O.M.G.

That was the most blatant quote-mine in the history of the innernetz. :jaw-dropp

I'd say you were off the deep end, Jams...but you crossed that threshold some time ago...
 
jammonius said:
Well, DGM, your rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, I have examined Pt. 3 of your 5 part video; and lo and behold there's clear and unmistakable proof, consistent with DEW, to be found in the audio account:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/wtc3disappeared.jpg?t=1285888359[/qimg]

Thanks
Click to expand...

And this just proves that WTC2 collapsed on the Marriot Hotel. So what? DEW's don't exist!
 
leftysergeant said:
"Disappeared" means that it wasn't there any more.

A building broke it and buried it.
Click to expand...

You do not substantiate your claim, or opinion or attempt at changing the clear statement made in the video. You haven't got any right, standing, justication or reason to change the statement made.

The statement, made in the narrative, that the building "disappeared" stands as unrefuted.

Moreover, by virtue of GZ being flat where once stood WTC 3, it is visually confirmed that WTC 3 disappeared, as in nothing left, as in GZ, as in destruction by DEW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom