Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[A W Smith]

Jamm, pray tell, how many members there are of Librarians for 9/11 Truth? There doesn't seem to be a members section. LOL.

Epic site Jamm, EPIC! Are you perhaps that Librarian for 9/11 Truth?

 

[JohnG]

Epic site Jamm, EPIC! Are you perhaps that Librarian for 9/11 Truth?

Ask Laura Wilson (described as a "Library Technician III"). She the registrant of the site. You'd think a Library Technician would know the difference between "its" and "it's", though.

The fact that the site hasn't been updated since last September doesn't exactly inspire confidence, either.

 

[carlitos]

You'd think a Library Technician would know the difference between "its" and "it's", though.

Sadly, you wouldn't. The rule of "its" is pretty solid, vis a vis trutherdom.

 

[Oz1976]

Ask Laura Wilson (described as a "Library Technician III"). She the registrant of the site. You'd think a Library Technician would know the difference between "its" and "it's", though.

The fact that the site hasn't been updated since last September doesn't exactly inspire confidence, either.

Ah you beat me to it. I was just going through the /whois.

ETA: appears she works for Oregon State University. http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/staff/wilsolau Though, her publications are related more to plants, especially lichen and fungi. I bet her and Dusty could talk for hours.

 

[JohnG]

I bet her and Dusty could talk for hours.

Well, it would seem like hours, anyway.

 

[CompusMentus]

Here we see proponents of Dr Woods' various idiotic 9/11 theories rabidly whine and bleat incessantly about the disrespect shown to her, but then unfailingly go on to denegrate and censure those that lost the most back then. Let's remember that the victims they are always ready to attack in this fashion were innocent men women and children. People who, in going about their normal everyday lives, were horribly murdered on that day.

Jammonius in particular is a person who willingly posts here that "no planes hit the towers". Yet immediately he will hand-wave away awkward but highly pertinent questions about any airplane passengers that died on that day. "I do not indulge in rhetoric" "I won't play that game" are favourite, cowardly responses of his to any difficult questions that naturally arise from his impossible denial. For instance please read the below:-

Peter Hanson, 32, Susan "Sue" Kim Hanson, 34 and Christine Lee Hanson 2½, were passengers on Flight 175. They lived in Groton, Massachusetts. The Hanson family were travelling to Los Angeles on their way to visit the Kim family.

Peter, was Vice President for sales of the company TimeTrade. His wife was a student working on a post doctoral degree at Boston University.

During the hijack, moments before the jet crashed, Peter Hanson phoned his parents, Eunice and Lee Hanson of Easton, Conneticutt. In 2006, Peters father recounted the ordeal for the federal jury at the trial of confessed al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

Whilst testifying there, he said that after hearing his son's final words — "Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God!" — Lee Hanson then said he turned to the television and saw the jet carrying his son, daughter-in-law and 2½-year-old granddaughter slam into the World Trade Center's south tower.

Remnants of Peter Hansons body was recovered and identified by DNA analysis from the WTC crash site. The remains were delivered to Peter's parents in a box which was no bigger than a few inches. Lee Hanson told the jury, "I held the small bone in the palm of my hand, it was all I had left of my beautiful son."

THE HANSON FAMILY

This from a post HERE at JREF where I countered jammonius' plain (plane) nonsense with immutable fact. One can read through that thread and see he had no answer to the questions posed by the many simple accounts of those that died and the words and actions of those they left behind.

One would think also that it would, as self-acclaimed searchers for the "Truth", be incumbent on the likes of jammonius, Wood, Blevins, Fetzer and the rest of that odious ilk to read the facts like those presented above and investigate the veracity of them.

What happened to little Christine Hanson? Did Christine even exist? Did she die on 9/11? If she didn't where is she now? What was in that little box that Lee Hanson recieved, if not the remains of his son? These are questions that jammonius will always avoid. He will not, cannot, address them. To do so would lead him down avenues he knows from where there is no return.

However the body of Woods' 9/11 "work" is examined it can only ever be seen (by those of rational intellect) as nothing but a ridiculous cornucopia of badly interpreted pictures, unfettered supposition and unfathomable speculation. I suspect her website reflects her state of mind. It is an unavigable, cavernous, twisted maze. Her book I have been told is merely a hard-copy of her website. I would suggest that anyone who is tempted to splash out on it's over-inflated cost first have a look HERE before making a decision. A cursory browse should give you an indication what you would be wasting your hard-earned cash on.

Dr. Judy Wood is now (rightly IMO) shunned by her peers and sacked from her place of employment. She is ridiculed by many and believed by few. She's a crackpot. A crank. The only thing proven so far is that she is unable to prove anything of what she claims.

Christine Lee Hanson was the youngest victim of 9/11.

Compus

 

[WildCat]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

Judy Wood is no scientist.

 

[LashL]

While it is not clear to me if the term "bleatings" was meant to apply to Dr. Wood's book...

Judy Wood's bleatings have been well documented here over the years, from her ridiculous website full of fluff and nonsense, to her stupid request for correction submitted to NIST, to her interview with Greg Jenkins, to her ridiculous back and forth with "'Scholars' for 9/11 'Truth'", to her insane ramblings about 'the Hutchinson effect', to her ludicrous qui tam application, to her even more ludicrous and bound-to-fail lawsuit against various and sundry companies. In the latter, her lawyer was very lucky in that he just barely escaped being sanctioned by the court for bringing such a stupid and bound-to-fail action, and managed to get off with a stern warning from the court not to bring any further stupid claims.

Judy's bleatings are just repetitions of the same old same old, long-debunked nonsense without any substance that she's been spouting for years, none of which has ever amounted to a hill of beans because it is all complete and utter BS without any basis in fact or reality.

As an aside, you won't get far trying to tout Wood's 'book' here, so give it up.

 

[carlitos]

As an aside, you won't get far trying to tout Wood's 'book' here, so give it up.

I think that he wrote some it, or at least a blurb. I trust that his attempts to promote it here will stay within the rules.

 

[LSSBB]

Here we see proponents of Dr Woods' various idiotic 9/11 theories rabidly whine and bleat incessantly about the disrespect shown to her, but then unfailingly go on to denegrate and censure those that lost the most back then. Let's remember that the victims they are always ready to attack in this fashion were innocent men women and children. People who, in going about their normal everyday lives, were horribly murdered on that day.

Jammonius in particular is a person who willingly posts here that "no planes hit the towers". Yet immediately he will hand-wave away awkward but highly pertinent questions about any airplane passengers that died on that day. "I do not indulge in rhetoric" "I won't play that game" are favourite, cowardly responses of his to any difficult questions that naturally arise from his impossible denial. For instance please read the below:-

THE HANSON FAMILY

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914c5d785abd220.jpg[/qimg]​

This from a post HERE at JREF where I countered jammonius' plain (plane) nonsense with immutable fact. One can read through that thread and see he had no answer to the questions posed by the many simple accounts of those that died and the words and actions of those they left behind.

One would think also that it would, as self-acclaimed searchers for the "Truth", be incumbent on the likes of jammonius, Wood, Blevins, Fetzer and the rest of that odious ilk to read the facts like those presented above and investigate the veracity of them.

What happened to little Christine Hanson? Did Christine even exist? Did she die on 9/11? If she didn't where is she now? What was in that little box that Lee Hanson recieved, if not the remains of his son? These are questions that jammonius will always avoid. He will not, cannot, address them. To do so would lead him down avenues he knows from where there is no return.

However the body of Woods' 9/11 "work" is examined it can only ever be seen (by those of rational intellect) as nothing but a ridiculous cornucopia of badly interpreted pictures, unfettered supposition and unfathomable speculation. I suspect her website reflects her state of mind. It is an unavigable, cavernous, twisted maze. Her book I have been told is merely a hard-copy of her website. I would suggest that anyone who is tempted to splash out on it's over-inflated cost first have a look HERE before making a decision. A cursory browse should give you an indication what you would be wasting your hard-earned cash on.

Dr. Judy Wood is now (rightly IMO) shunned by her peers and sacked from her place of employment. She is ridiculed by many and believed by few. She's a crackpot. A crank. The only thing proven so far is that she is unable to prove anything of what she claims.

Christine Lee Hanson was the youngest victim of 9/11.

Compus

Nominated.

 

[TheProfessor]

Who are we talking about?

Who is Judy Wood?

 

[DGM]

Who is Judy Wood?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Enjoy.

Welcome BTW.

 

[TJM]

Who is Judy Wood?

A lunatic who thinks the World Trade Center was destroyed by an imaginary weapon that turned the buildings to dust - somehow. No planes were involved either - 'They' fooled us into seeing them - somehow.

 

[MIKILLINI]

If you disrespect a scientist by using a derogatory name,
nobody should respect what you have to say about that scientist.

When it's bad science, I disrespect the methods in a derogatory manner since bad science is disrespectful to true science.

Even Steven Jones, a man I consider the enemy of the United States,
I basically don't disrespect in a personal way. I hate him. I think he
is either evil or scarily out of touch, but probably evil.

First you say this, but then...

I discuss the work of Steven Jones as it is, as he produced it.
I can do this because I have very closely studied the work of
Steven Jones since it first appeared on the scene.

You believe what Steven Jones has concluded is the result of true science?

I think part of the reason so many people make fun of Judy Wood
is because they don't understand her. I know how much work it
takes to understand Dr. Wood, because it took me so many dedicated
hours of study before I started to understand her, and I earned my
PhD years before all this happened. I'm used to studying scientific
things, and Judy Wood was hard for me to understand.

True science is not based on understanding a person, but understanding how science works with testing to find empirical evidence..i.e. actual facts.

It might sound snobby, but if you don't have extensive training
in science, then I won't believe that you've taken the time and
done the work that is required to understand Judy Wood.

I can't even say I like the woman personally, but you don't see me
disrespecting her because I understand in outline what she is
talking about, and it is interesting and very solid science.

Name call her and you call yourself out as lazy or bad at science.

Judy Wood is a few bricks short of a load...Now it doesn't take lazy or science to figure that out.

 

[MIKILLINI]

No, I do not play that game. If you've got a claim you want to make about Ground Truth or about any other truth, you make it.

I am not ever going to allow you to judge my posts and then tell me to convince you. I'm not here to convince you of anything. Do your own claim making if you want to contradict me.

How you respond to posts that challenge your claims is a true reflection of your lack of evidence. Your arguments have been contradicted many times.

 

[LashL]

How you respond to posts that challenge your claims is a true reflection of your lack of evidence. Your arguments have been contradicted many times.

He doesn't even have any arguments. Neither does Judy.

 

[jammonius]

A lie.


Good choice.

Carlitos,

"A lie" you say? You have claimed that WDTTG? is not found in any library, or words to that effect. As your statement is "absolute" in nature it is a bit hard for you to prove, don't you think?

By the way, do you agree with me that the word "incorrect" might be more suitable than "a lie"? The former is courteous and respectful; the latter, not so much. I know we don't have to be respectful to Judy Wood here; after all, the thread is entitled "disrespecting Judy Wood." But, the fact is, Librarians for 9/11 Truth were quoted in my post that you said contained "a lie."

Your statement is "incorrect."

You may wish to double check that post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8242257&postcount=200

 

[jammonius]

"Game"?

You've made a claim, that a theme within Farmer's "The Ground Truth" was "that the 9/11 Commission Report was flawed, at best, largely useless and incomplete".

I asked you to stand it up.

And to do so, is a "game"?

No.

What actually happened here is that Farmer wrote Ground Truth, of which the publishers said: ""Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security."

Many truthers assumed he meant the 9/11 Commission Report. But he didn't. He doesn't say that in the book, which is why you cannot back up your claim. And he's explicity said otherwise in interviews. A transcript of one includes this, for instance:



Of course truthers could care less about reading his book, so they carry on with their fictional claims regardless.

Will you? Your evasive response tells me all I need to know about you, to be honest. I've never bothered with this before, but welcome to ignore.

You have not quoted anything from Ground Truth. I think your post is, then, rather inconsistent. You do no more than quote a teevee interview, not the book.

As we all know, teevee is a medium of misrepresentation and of illusion. If you claim Ground Truth is a resounding reaffirmation of the 9/11 Commission Report, rather than a critique of its flaws and of its weaknesses, so be it.

I do not have a copy of Ground Truth. I borrowed it; read it and came away with the impression it was intended to convey disappointment with the commission report and to inform the public that the commission did not do a good job. Given the position John Farmer had, I formed the opinion that he was veiling his criticism and his reporting on how the commission had functioned so as to make very serious claims, but to do so in as milquetoast a fashion as possilble.

If you disagree, fine. I am here reporting on my recollection of the book.

I also borrowed Without Precedent, but had a similar impression about the Kean and Hamilton book as I have stated concerning Ground Truth.

I did not borrow Touching History. I bought that one. I will here quote Lynn Spencer:

"I also discovered that the 9/11 Commission Report did not even begin to tell the full story; that it did not convery the heroism, confusion, anger, bravery, and sacrifice that an inextricable part of this tragedy. I invite you to reconsider what you know about the events of 9/11, and to experience 9/11 through the eyes and minds of those who were there." pg ix

And as an example of what Spencer states that the 9/11 Commission Report did not "even begin to tell" is this:

"Even as NORAD's commander for the continental United States [Gen Larry] Arnold is not privy to everything concerning the [military] exercise."

Therein lies a clue to the use of secret compartmented information on 9/11.

Thanks to Ms. Spencer.

 

[jammonius]

Here we see proponents of Dr Woods' various idiotic 9/11 theories rabidly whine and bleat incessantly about the disrespect shown to her, but then unfailingly go on to denegrate and censure those that lost the most back then. Let's remember that the victims they are always ready to attack in this fashion were innocent men women and children. People who, in going about their normal everyday lives, were horribly murdered on that day.

Jammonius in particular is a person who willingly posts here that "no planes hit the towers". Yet immediately he will hand-wave away awkward but highly pertinent questions about any airplane passengers that died on that day. "I do not indulge in rhetoric" "I won't play that game" are favourite, cowardly responses of his to any difficult questions that naturally arise from his impossible denial. For instance please read the below:-

THE HANSON FAMILY

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914c5d785abd220.jpg[/qimg]​

This from a post HERE at JREF where I countered jammonius' plain (plane) nonsense with immutable fact. One can read through that thread and see he had no answer to the questions posed by the many simple accounts of those that died and the words and actions of those they left behind.

One would think also that it would, as self-acclaimed searchers for the "Truth", be incumbent on the likes of jammonius, Wood, Blevins, Fetzer and the rest of that odious ilk to read the facts like those presented above and investigate the veracity of them.

What happened to little Christine Hanson? Did Christine even exist? Did she die on 9/11? If she didn't where is she now? What was in that little box that Lee Hanson recieved, if not the remains of his son? These are questions that jammonius will always avoid. He will not, cannot, address them. To do so would lead him down avenues he knows from where there is no return.

However the body of Woods' 9/11 "work" is examined it can only ever be seen (by those of rational intellect) as nothing but a ridiculous cornucopia of badly interpreted pictures, unfettered supposition and unfathomable speculation. I suspect her website reflects her state of mind. It is an unavigable, cavernous, twisted maze. Her book I have been told is merely a hard-copy of her website. I would suggest that anyone who is tempted to splash out on it's over-inflated cost first have a look HERE before making a decision. A cursory browse should give you an indication what you would be wasting your hard-earned cash on.

Dr. Judy Wood is now (rightly IMO) shunned by her peers and sacked from her place of employment. She is ridiculed by many and believed by few. She's a crackpot. A crank. The only thing proven so far is that she is unable to prove anything of what she claims.

Christine Lee Hanson was the youngest victim of 9/11.

Compus

Hey Compus,

You lifted en haec verba a post from a thread for which I supplied the OP.

Do you want to revisit that thread? I don't think you completed the project you started in that thread of posting up obituaries for all alleged passengers on alleged Flight 175.

As you will recall, I responded to most of your posts about alleged victims.

The Hanson family may have been your first choice of alleged victims that you used to try to confirm there was a Flight 175 and that it caused the explosion and fireball that was seen to occur at WTC 2

My reply was set out at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158630&postcount=2521

 

[TJM]

Hey Compus,

You lifted en haec verba a post from a thread for which I supplied the OP.

Do you want to revisit that thread? I don't think you completed the project you started in that thread of posting up obituaries for all alleged passengers on alleged Flight 175.

As you will recall, I responded to most of your posts about alleged victims.

The Hanson family may have been your first choice of alleged victims that you used to try to confirm there was a Flight 175 and that it caused the explosion and fireball that was seen to occur at WTC 2

My reply was set out at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6158630&postcount=2521

Yes Compus, how dare you resort to teevee.

We should all know by now media reports aren't allowed unless they support jammy's delusions.

I expect a full retraction immediately.