Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

bill smith said:
What is it about Judy Wood that makes you guys skip and jump so ? A person would think that you were scared stiff of her. lol
Click to expand...

What's just as curious is they don't seem to realize their posts reflect solely upon them, and have nothing whatever to do with Dr. Wood's comprehensive scientific work. It's as if they don't realize the joke's on them.

Thanks for your post.

:)
 
jammonius said:
What's just as curious is they don't seem to realize their posts reflect solely upon them, and have nothing whatever to do with Dr. Wood's comprehensive scientific work. It's as if they don't realize the joke's on them.

Thanks for your post.

:)
Click to expand...

Np. I guess orders are orders for them.
 
jammonius said:
What's just as curious is they don't seem to realize their posts reflect solely upon them, and have nothing whatever to do with Dr. Wood's comprehensive scientific work. It's as if they don't realize the joke's on them.

Thanks for your post.

:)
Click to expand...

Boomerang
 
jackanory,

All above, despite being pulled from hat, is irrelevent.
Click to expand...

Surely you realize you aren't refuting anything and are merely engaging in empty denial, right?
As things stand, the "all above" you have referred to stands as being true and accurate as you've done nothing whatever to show otherwise.

KSM's admitance of guilt and the information he supplied invalidates all your brown noseing of Dr Judy's 'conclusions'. KSM has and will continue to give key evidence detailing the entire nature of the planning and execution of 911
Click to expand...

You've opened yourself up here to a requirement to source your claims. When you do so, please also include what part of your claimed admissions stem from the 183 instances of waterboarding torture KSM was subjected to. In addition, of the 31 listed crimes that you are going to point to, some of which were committed while someone named KSM was attending college in North Carolina, what part did he play in them?

Please explain why all your evidence should overide the confessions of OBL, KSM and more.
Click to expand...

Because a) the confessions are a joke, evidenced by the content of them, when and how they were given and their contrived context that included the use of a 'spokesperson' for KSM who was actually making the admissions; and b) as they were obtained through torture, they are invalid and will not be used; and c) the whole point of the trial is to help the USA rid itself of the "rogue state" label it has earned by virtue of torture; and d) by showing the world there's evidence that can convict KSM separate and apart from torture, the USA hopes to redeem its image; and e) unfortunately, the administration appears not to have been informed that 9/11 was not done by way of the common myth and that the evidence to that effect is available.

Please explain why OBL and KSM continue to state that they carried out 911 and why they would do this and not resort to jumping on the truther band wagon to get themselves free.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Please source your claims and be clear as to what you are claiming. If a so-called 'truther' were to post up banter like the above, those who require precision in explanation would be posting up a long list of epithets and put downs here. I am not going to do that as it demeans the posters who find it necessary to do that, not the poster who has been imprecise.

So, anyway, please provide quotes, documents and sources for your claims.

Please explain why no terrorist organisation agrees with the 911 truth movement.

Please explain why KSM's defence team are simply sitting on their hands and doing nothing to convince him to plead not guilty.
Click to expand...

Once again, you cannot presume what you have not shown via quotes and sources to be true. Those who support the common myth seem to have this terrible habit of presuming they can just post up elements of the common myth with no proof whatever. Ironically, you are doing this in a context of asking me to prove the converse of what you haven't shown exists.

Once again, that is rich.

Please explain why KSM's defence team have not been unindated with truther evidence that gets KSM set free.
Click to expand...

Source your claim then I will respond. Please name KSM's defense team and the source of your declaration concerning truther evidence.

If you believe so strongly in your views then may i suggest that you start petitioning the prosecution and defence teams before KSM's trial begins. Unless of course you believe that these law firms are 'in on it' too?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your advice. I have seen no information that the KSM trial will be a "show" trial; i.e., one that intends to look like a trial but isn't. I think that is what you mean when you say "unless...you believe that these law firms are 'in on it' too". So, no, as far as I can tell, the KSM trial is intended to be a real trial and not a fake show trial.

What is your view on whether KSM will be given a fair trial?

Out there in mainstream land, sentiments callling for "hanging KSM first and trying him later" are quite common.

A google search shows, for example, the following freeper discussion:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2445064/posts

Excerpt:

"Execute KSM and the 9/11 Killers; Give them what they want
National Review Online"
...
"This fiasco disgusts Americans. A February 1 Rasmussen survey discovered that only 16 percent of likely voters want terrorists to enjoy the same legal rights as U.S. citizens, while 74 percent disagree. Meanwhile, HumanEvents.com (which often posts my columns) has gathered 126,665 signatures on its online petition demanding KSM and company’s ejection from civilian court."

So, if KSM were to have a phony show trial, that would apparently please a lot of Americans. Are you one such?
 
Last edited:
I just wonder if the properties of all that flying paper had been changed somehow.
 
jammonius said:
What's just as curious is they don't seem to realize their posts reflect solely upon them, and have nothing whatever to do with Dr. Wood's comprehensive scientific work. It's as if they don't realize the joke's on them.

Thanks for your post.

:)
Click to expand...

Dr Wood's work is neither "comprehensive" nor "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination. The woman can't even do the most basic power calculations to even prove the feasibility of such a weapon.

Oh and jammonius, I actually work on space based power systems. Space based DEW weapons of any kind do NOT exist. Anybody who thinks we have THAT kind of technology is delusional.
 
Rocket_Scientist said:
Dr Wood's work is neither "comprehensive" nor "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination. The woman can't even do the most basic power calculations to even prove the feasibility of such a weapon.

Oh and jammonius, I actually work on space based power systems. Space based DEW weapons of any kind do NOT exist. Anybody who thinks we have THAT kind of technology is delusional.
Click to expand...

You waited two years for you second post?

Seeya in 2012.
 
Rocket_Scientist said:
Dr Wood's work is neither "comprehensive" nor "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination. The woman can't even do the most basic power calculations to even prove the feasibility of such a weapon.

Oh and jammonius, I actually work on space based power systems. Space based DEW weapons of any kind do NOT exist. Anybody who thinks we have THAT kind of technology is delusional.
Click to expand...

Oh I wouldn't go that far there. What about these ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QKnhjYIG7Q Audio estroyed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tOXmbHVR9g&feature=channel Audio good
 
carlitos said:
Hey jammonius (cool nickname, by the way). There is a new thread since you stopped posting here. It's at this link, and it's the best place for you to post your hypothesis / theory / hypothetical story that explains the events of 9/11/2001. Here is a direct link to the last page. Why don't you give it a try? Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

Greetings carlitos,

and thank you for your suggestion as to where I might post information about the claims and the evidence and the proof of validity of Dr. Judy Wood. I respectfully decline to post there. After all, the claims made by Dr. Wood made it to the USSupreme Court, so the thread you recommended does not seem worthy to me.

But, there was a thread that I seem to recall that dealt with the issue of DEBRIS HEIGHT at Ground Zero. As I recall it, that thread caused, shall we say, quite a stir around here. For my part, suffice it to say, the evidence in support of the claim ground zero was flattened, thus confirming, among other things, that the steel had been pulverized and turned to dust, was rather overwhelming.

Did you participate in that food for thought fest, carlitos?

Well, guess what, friend, amongst the newly released ABC stash of photos are those that further confirm that GROUND ZERO WAS FLAT. So much so that, in fact, ABC had to construct a propaganda layer claiming the photos show a debris pile when, in fact, the photos plainly show the opposite.

Here's where to begin and an excerpt:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sept...tos-new-york-fire-department/story?id=9819500

"They show, among other things, firefighters climbing atop the massive piles of rubble in darkness, hours before large generator-powered lights were brought in to the scene. Some photos offer a close-up look at the massive debris filling lower Manhattan streets. Others show the thick gray ash and countless pages of white office paper that settled over the devastated area."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow?id=9817532

The actual slide show confirms just the opposite of the above propaganda. Here's but 1 example:

ht_09ffcotten%20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg


the firefighters are on the ground, as is the apparatus, of course, AND, the fire hoses are pointed downward! That is the opposite of the false claim that sounds, at first glance as if heights are being scaled: "... firefighters climbing atop the massive piles of rubble..."

You see, carlitos, there was never any need for me to declare 'victory" or to assert "I am right, you are wrong" or anything like that. All we need do here is LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Here's one more for your consideration of the fact that ground zero was flat:

ht_fdny1820_11_100212_ssv.jpg


This one's pretty interesting because it reveals that the iconic one, shot from an angle and looking up makes it seem as if there's height when, in reality, there was none. You remember that iconic photo that tried to give the impression (false) of height don't you? Or, do you want me to post it up next to the one shown above, showing gz was flat as a pancake?
 
bill smith said:
A sleeper awakes . lol
Click to expand...

Hey bill,

We should be honored. They're coming out of the woodworks (no pun intended!). We must be hitting a raw nerve or something. I guess they realize Jenkins and Mackey won't do.

Well, bill, new challengers are welcome!

Bring it on, posters;)
 
MaGZ said:
You waited two years for you second post?

Seeya in 2012.
Click to expand...

I rarely feeling like jumping into this stuff MAGz, but I registered here so I could see all the posts from various topics including AAH. I'll start posting a lot more on subjects i'm familiar with if it'll make you happy. This topic is one of the funnier ones. I also like the remote control planes theory also, having actually worked on remote control sytems for naval aircraft (The ACLS system to be specific) back in my navy days.

My post still stands though. I'm quite familiar with space based power systems since i've been working on them for the past 18 years (basically the entire main bus of the spacecraft and it's battery systems) as well as spacecraft avionics and some of the propulsion system electronics on both government and commercial spacecraft. Anybody who thinks this stuff is possible doesn't know the first thing about the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom