I was a MAJOR supporter of Jones who emailed 100s of structural engineering professors asking for support. It took me a while to "see it", but I now
know he's a plant. But you need not believe me. Instead, you should look at the data: www.911researchers.com...
Like I said, this is about Judy Wood and her 'Energy Beams'. I know you want to turn it into an attack on Steven Jones but you can as I already
stated start your own thread on that. So far, all you have linked me to was a site that has links to a guy named Fintan Dunne who thinks almost
everyone in the 9/11 truth movement is working for the CIA.
Give me a break and nice try. Raise suspicions about other everyone hoping in the end it will raise suspicion about YOURSELF and eventually it leads
to a person believing in nothing.
I don't fall for that garbage. You also had a link about Steve Jones and cold fusion some 20 years ago, so what? Big Deal? I am sure everyone has
done things, besides he hasn't spoken to it on that documentary. Its pointless.
Did Steve Jones delay Cold Fusion? Or did he just believe otherwise? That is up in the air.
she did a poor job because it was an ambush interview designed to discredit her. This article explains in full. Again, look at the data:
Excuse me, that article is ridiculous and after the fact with most of it just someone saying 'its this way and this is the way it happened'. Why
should I believe the writer of that article?
What are we dealing with here? A 2 year old? She knew the game she should always be prepared to deal with people who have questions.
Lots of people in the field of Science, be it doctors or whatever deal with lack of sleep etc.
That isn't her excuse. She did poor but she spoke a little too much. You can point to links where people claim all kinds of things, but the FILM IS
WHAT IT IS.
She spoke and ended up vaporizing her own theory.
People can make up their own mind.
What you need to do is look at the data.
Show me the data that shows the military *TEST FIRING* some energy beam on a large building! Every weapon must be tested, so where was this one
How would they know exactly how this weapon would work?
Then you go on about the this article at the "Ambush" of Judy Wood. The following defending Wood.
why did he bring at least two professional video cameras, recording equipment, special lighting, and a camera crew to the National Press Club that
evening and not attend Jim Fetzer's presentation?
So what was so "special" about the lighting>? Can you prove it was special lighting? Or is this another "its this way because I say so"?
More from that article:
Why did Greg Jenkins plan this interview without telling anyone who knows Judy?
Prove it. To me that is just the writer telling me something. So what. The film is what it is. She had the time to speak.
The article continues:
Jenkins and/or his group tried to talk Judy out of going to the restroom, saying the "interview" would only take 2-3 minutes. But, Judy felt she
couldn't wait. She saw the cameras for the first time after she came back from the restroom.
Again prove it. The author states this. So what.
the people helping Jenkins felt they needed to change the lighting and camera positions. As you can see in the video, Jenkins is well lit and Judy is
half in shadow for most (if not all) of the interview.
So now because Judy is in the shadow her mind couldn't think straight?
This article goes on with a bunch of nonsense and garbage.
But what is on film best represents Judy Wood. It is what it is. Take or leave it.
The film shows disinfo agent Jenkins' in action.
I know the game here. I won't bite. You claim a whole bunch of people are dis-info. Some people do this in hopes eventually they get called dis-info,
the goal being to create doubt about everyone leaving the person with a lack of ability to 'trust'.
You can claim you feel the odd person might be dis-info, but it seems to be a running theme on that site and with people like Fintan.
Nice try, but I won't bite. I think a lot of people can see where that nonsense leads.
To me the site your writing for seems more interested in 'sowing' doubt about "A LOT OF PEOPLE". Not just a few.
Doubt is contagious, the more you sow, the more you reap. It won't work with this person. I can read Steve Jones and know as clear as day what he is
saying isn't dis-info.
But again this is about Judy Wood. I am sure many people originally thought she was "dis-info" but now think she just hasn't got the right
'logic' to deal with this.
I was not deceptive. Judy never said that the beam MUST have come from space.
Your being deceptive again. Just because she never said "MUST HAVE" doesn't mean she didn't refer to it as a space based weapon, as she did on the
Now you also asked me what my definition of 'PEER REVIEW WAS'.
Let us go with how most Scientist's understand it:
Get the work reviewed by respected and top experts in the field and then to have it written in a respected Journal.
I can go into detail, but I think we all know what 'Peer review' is and means.
So again, show me the PEER REVIEW article that is going to be published in a respected Science Journal and has undergone expert opinions and
Show me this that states "ENERGY BEAMS DESTROYING THE TOWERS" is a viable hypothesis.
[edit on 16-3-2007 by talisman]