My contention isn't if 'Energy Beams' exist. But this is about Judy Woods and her 'Energy Beams' as my thread states. The science she is using
and her logic is ridiculous. Let me give you an example;
She talks now about it being 'Energy Beams', but when interviewed by Fetzer on his show a while back she said maybe the beams were fired from a
That is a space weapon effectively and her and her people are arguing silly semantics. Now Fetzer is running around and saying the "BEAM" was fired
from Building 7!
He thinks this because Building 6 had a big hole in it??
Now it is one thing to start wondering about things, but it is entirely different when you start making wild conclusions absent of any facts.
Frankly I think Steven Jones is on to something and his work is getting bogged down with ridiculous attacks.
The day in question we all saw Buildings fall in ways that didn't look right intuitively, some of us started to really question this years later but
we have to let our better sense of judgement come to conclusions.
For one thing if our contention is "BEAMS" took down the Towers we would have to back up our claims with some real hard science, we would have to
get into exactly what type of "Beams" they were, what was their energy source, exactly how much energy was needed.
We would then have to answer to, why or how could we know about Classified Weapons?
Its a no win situation. At best we could put forth a hypothesis that the buildings and their collapse were caused by mechanisms unknown, but that the
collapse were not the result of Fire and Damage alone.
I mean it is clear to me, there is a vast difference when I read Steven Jones and his work vs Judy Wood's and her work.
Steven Jones who has been accused of being a disinfo agent at least tries to back up the things he is saying.
I heard him on a radio program
Where he debates Les Robertson.
It is clear from the above discussion that Steven Jones is not some 'dis-info' agent and that he is making some real sense.
AT times during the above Roberston just hid behind 'I haven't looked at that so I can't talk to that'.
Before we get to 'Energy Beams' taking down the Towers we must make every effort to examine other possibilities as well.
Just to add, here in this article I thought Jenkins does a fine Job at refuting Woods completely.
[edit on 14-3-2007 by talisman]