It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 DEW / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
It's already been pointed out that Jenkins is a government plant with NSA/DEW connections, and that he ambush-interviewed Dr Wood.


"Ambush-interviewed"?

So what, if I sit you down and ask you a question you aren't prepared for, you're going to make up some complete garbage and try to pass it off as a scientist?

Judy Wood was obviously not forced into the interview. She wasn't bewildered (well at least not by Mr. Jenkins). What's the problem? Why discount/hand-wave away her ridiculous statements in this context?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by bsbray11]




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



The information in the transcript shows it to be an ambush interview:
drjudywood.com...

Besides, you are derailing the topic of the timeline and the DEW connections in the truth movement.


Also, the simulation photos mentioned. Try responding intelligently.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


So let me get this straight.

There were no planes on 9/11.
An energy beam destroyed the towers.
Cartoon CGI was used on the tv to fool the masses.
A projected plane and or hologram or whatever else fooled the millions of New Yorkers.
There is a vast conspiracy which includes camera men, emergency workers, helicopter pilots, news people, all the eyewitnesses that saw a plane strike the Towers, the internet filled with shills.

do you not see how utterly ridiculous this sounds?

If you are to believe this then again, you have no solid reason for telling me that 9/11 even happened.

First tell me how is someone even to think 9/11 happened if they can't trust the MEDIA on mass, if they can't trust the eyewitnesses, if they can't trust the internet, if they can't trust their own eyes. Sure the media might have CIA in it, our eyes can be fooled etc and etc.

But this is a major event of immense proportions, it is very difficult to use that many people, the conspiracy is just to vast.

Tell me honestly Sir/Her, what are you then left trusting??? Just Judy Wood??

With all that mistrust then there is no good reason to even believe in this DEW theory, we can go around and around in circles.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
The information in the transcript shows it to be an ambush interview:
drjudywood.com...


Uh, ok? That doesn't answer my question, which was, how exactly was Judy Wood impaired during this interview?

Why is she excused from the statements she made? She went into it under her own free will, and answered the questions under her own free will. She was a mess and didn't make a whole lot of sense.



Also, the simulation photos mentioned. Try responding intelligently.


Can you plainly lay out the assertion you're making? A graphic looks vaguely like a Manhattan street while one of the towers was falling, therefore.... ? Therefore energy beams did it? That's your case? That, and laughing at everyone who actually has some sense about them?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
It looks to me like the "orange wtc" buildings in that image are for highlighting purposes. Is someone actually trying to assert that this graphical illustration is meant to represent a realistic event? If that's the case, how come we're not trying to figure out how they made everything around the WTC turn charcoal gray? Or how Manhattan island has been reduced to just the area from around SOHO to over Battery Park?

CB_Brooklyn, your problem is that you don't have a shred of actual data to back up any of your claims; and your hero, Judy Woods doesn't seem to either. No matter how high you stack up a group of coincidental bovine digestive waste bits, it's still just a pile of bullsh**.

By the way, nice article:

CB_Brooklyn ramblings at Judy Woods' website

[edit on 28-11-2007 by StudioGuy]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by Soloist
 



It's already been pointed out that Jenkins is a government plant with NSA/DEW connections, and that he ambush-interviewed Dr Wood. The links showing this are in the timeline, which you obviously didn't even read.



You're response is about as laughable as your attempt at explaining Newton's Laws.

Ambush interviewed? Government plant?

Open your eyes man, WIDE! Dr. Jenkins was softer on her than a character from Sesame Street would have been had they conducted this interview, and she still ducked and dodged and tried to writhe and twist out of everything. I almost felt embarrassed for the guy having to even sit there and attempt at having any kind of meaningful, logical or scientific discussion with someone so obviously delusional and loony.

When he asked her about data from the website, it was the same excuse, that the website was old and needed to be updated, blah blah blah ...

Instead of talking about the energy requirements she wanted to switch to the photos which he DID, now how in the world does that resemble an "ambush from a government plant" ?????

Please.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Also, the simulation photos mentioned. Try responding intelligently.


They don't really prove anything. As others have said, the only proof we have that they mean anything is from Judy woods article. Willard856 sums it up nicely

A couple of pictures with no context to the pictures other than the narrative provided by someone who suggests what the pictures look like they are portraying, and who obviously has an agenda
.

And that the WTC is glowing orange. What if they are highlighting it to the uneducated? Before 9/11 it wasn't the case that everyone knew where the WTC was, so to some people it would be useful to say, we're modelling the possible future collapse of the WTC, and here's a slide to show you what exactly we mean. Of course for all we know they might have tried modelling it after 9/11, and that image nicely shows what areas were destroyed.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by apex]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
 


So let me get this straight.

There were no planes on 9/11.
An energy beam destroyed the towers.
Cartoon CGI was used on the tv to fool the masses.
A projected plane and or hologram or whatever else fooled the millions of New Yorkers.


Now you're catching on




Originally posted by talismanThere is a vast conspiracy which includes camera men, emergency workers, helicopter pilots, news people, all the eyewitnesses that saw a plane strike the Towers, the internet filled with shills.


Pilots/Cameramen? Yes! Check out my timeline and learn of the WABC Chopper pilot who was run over and killed just a few months after his cameraman was questioned by 9/11 researcher Jeff Hill.

Emergency Workers? Yes! Why was this FDNY First Responder murdered?
janedoe0911.tripod.com...

News people? Of course! Check out the Octopus 8 film on google. (Note: the maker of that film recently became an enemy of mine after accusing me of being Dr Judy Wood, for which I am not. But the Oct 8 video is still worth watching.)

Eyewitnesses? Yes! Many of those who reported seeing commercial jets worked for the media.



Originally posted by talisman
do you not see how utterly ridiculous this sounds?


Yep, I do! And that's what the perpetrators are counting on. They are experts at PSYOPS.



Originally posted by talisman
If you are to believe this then again, you have no solid reason for telling me that 9/11 even happened.


No, I just go where the evidence leads.



Originally posted by talisman
First tell me how is someone even to think 9/11 happened if they can't trust the MEDIA on mass, if they can't trust the eyewitnesses, if they can't trust the internet, if they can't trust their own eyes. Sure the media might have CIA in it, our eyes can be fooled etc and etc.


Hmmm.... that's a very good question I hadn't even thought of.

Speaking of CIA in the media.. here's a news report from March 2000:
Army 'psyops' at CNN
News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel
www.worldnetdaily.com...



Originally posted by talisman
But this is a major event of immense proportions, it is very difficult to use that many people, the conspiracy is just to vast.


The media control everything. How come Steven Jones was on MSNBC/ C-SPAN/FOX/etc and not Drs Wood/Reynolds or Jerry Leaphart? They filed actual court cases and not one mention in the media. The media is controlled.


Originally posted by talisman
Tell me honestly Sir/Her, what are you then left trusting??? Just Judy Wood??

With all that mistrust then there is no good reason to even believe in this DEW theory, we can go around and around in circles.


The evidence she compiled speaks for itself. No need to trust an individual when the evidence is out in the open. Quite different from Steven Jones' dust samples in his laboratory.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
CB_Brooklyn


You talk of 'evidence'. You have discounted the Media entirely, you have discounted numerous corroborated eyewitnesses, you have discounted people on this board who saw with their own eyes the planes hit the South Tower.

What exactly are you left with?

You at this point can't even prove 9/11 even happened. You have nothing left to prove because the standard you set out to disprove with, has now disproved what you were trying to prove..



[edit on 30-11-2007 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
You talk of 'evidence'. You have discounted the Media entirely, you have discounted numerous corroborated eyewitnesses, you have discounted people on this board who saw with their own eyes the planes hit the South Tower.

What exactly are you left with?


And all s/he's provided so far is a computer graphic from an article on DEWs that s/he says looks like the WTC disaster.

I know I'm a conspiracy theorist in a lot of eyes, but CB must be the conspiracy theorist, the stereotype, and the one that doesn't need any evidence at all to tell people what to believe.


CB needs a job as a missionary, spreading the word of some religion to anyone who'll blindly listen. Not trying to debate scientific issues on online forums, that s/he has no understanding of.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Well, 9/11 was a PSYOPS. The crazier-sounding the truth is, the easier it is to hide.

I believe some type of projection was used. There are just too many people who did report seeing planes hit the towers. But too few of them reported hearing them. Even the First Responders. They reported hearing the fighter jets afterwards, but not hearing Flights 11/175:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

I don't know what type of projection, but the idea of a projection fits with the other information.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join