Hi Jammonius. Do you have any opinion concerning Dr. Wood's DEW theory, which (as has been shown in this thread) she not only presents no evidence that such a device exists; she doesn't even offer any indication that it can exist? Dr. Wood's promotion of this theory indicates she seriously misunderstands weather and the planetary magnetic field (among other things, she says there's a connection where none exists), optics and astronomy (a spaced-based DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be easily visible from the surface of the Earth), and physics (an Earth-based DEW, no matter where it were located, would leave abundant and extremely obvious physical proof of its existence as it zapped the WTC, since it would also vaporize all matter between it and the target).
In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wildly contrary to all known facts and science, and calls into question her very competence in this area. Thus I'm curious as to whether or not those who support and/or defend Dr. Wood still believe that her views concerning the DEW have merit. Do you have any thoughts regarding this?
I will here answer the question part of your statement: Yes.
I will here discuss the statement part of your statement:
Hi Jammonius. Do you have any opinion concerning Dr. Wood's DEW theory, which (as has been shown in this thread) she not only presents no evidence that such a device exists; she doesn't even offer any indication that it can exist?
As you may know from other responses, I do not question, let alone quarrel with beliefs that posters may have formed or shared in their posts. I will here only add that your conception of what is or is not "evidence" of an assertion or of a claim appears to differ from mine. And that is fair enough. I am not seeking to convince you of anything. For instance, I consider Stairwell B and the photo showing where it was located and how it was situated to be evidence that GZ was flat. Others disagree and believe, instead, that GZ was a huge mountain of debris extending twenty stories, when counting by various and sundry means taking into or leaving out of their calculation that the underground segment of GZ was intact.
In any event, the point here is evidence appears to be in the eye of the beholder.
Dr. Wood's promotion of this theory indicates she seriously misunderstands weather and the planetary magnetic field (among other things, she says there's a connection where none exists), optics and astronomy (a spaced-based DEW capable of bringing down the WTC would be easily visible from the surface of the Earth), and physics (an Earth-based DEW, no matter where it were located, would leave abundant and extremely obvious physical proof of its existence as it zapped the WTC, since it would also vaporize all matter between it and the target).
I would have preferred to break the above portion of your statement into smaller segments. Alas, it was too difficult to do that, while being fair to you, in doing so. That is because that part of your statement is one sentence. I cannot be sure what connections you make and what assumptions you incorporate between and among the segments of your sentence. I note, however, that your concern for "evidence" appears to have vanished as the quoted portion of your statement does not refer to any evidence that I can discern. The sentence appears to me to be a declaration. And, to the extent you are declaring what you believe, well, once again, I do not quarrel with posters' beliefs. You are free to have and to hold your beliefs for as long as you can or desire to do so.
In short, Dr. Wood's DEW theory is wildly contrary to all known facts and science, and calls into question her very competence in this area.
That sentence is rather broad and generalized, even for debunkers, in my opinion. Would you consider posting up 1 fact and 1 scientific claim, perhaps, that would at least give me something to respond to. As it stands, you have not done so.
Thus I'm curious as to whether or not those who support and/or defend Dr. Wood still believe that her views concerning the DEW have merit.
I apply the same standard to my own posts as I apply to others. I do not post up "belief" statements. Rather, I post up facts and claims based on evidence and information.
Do you have any thoughts regarding this?
I have given you my thoughts.
Blessings
