Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by PookztA
Please discuss the evidence instead of attacking Dr. Wood.

Abraham, instead of referring people to thousands of pictures etc by Judy Wood, perhaps you could pick something specifically?

None of Judy Wood's theories hold any truth as far as I am concerned, so perhaps you could pick what you consider to be the very cream of the crop, the strongest evidence possible, and we can discuss that?




She talks about a *lot* of physical phenomena. This photo captured my attention and has me examining other material she has:

drjudywood.com...


I have contributed to AE911, but I'm not convinced that *anyone* outside of the conspiracy knows 100% of the facts in this crime. I'm keeping an open mind until we have convictions and 100% of the evidence explained.

Does anyone know if AE911 has examined this particular 'disassociation' of steel?




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by praxis
She talks about a *lot* of physical phenomena. This photo captured my attention and has me examining other material she has:

drjudywood.com...

This photo may be superficially convincing, but in fact all that is occurring is that the core structure remaining fails at a low level, and the dust and debris which is light enough to be somewhat buoyant stays in the air, it is easily discernible here

The majority of Judy Wood's evidence is cherry picked like this, most coupled with an extreme amount of speculation based on non-existent physical mechanisms.

edit on 14-9-2010 by exponent because: Fixing link to include time seek



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

drjudywood.com...

This photo may be superficially convincing, but in fact all that is occurring is that the core structure remaining fails at a low level, and the dust and debris which is light enough to be somewhat buoyant stays in the air, it is easily discernible here

The majority of Judy Wood's evidence is cherry picked like this, most coupled with an extreme amount of speculation based on non-existent physical mechanisms.




The video is interesting but is no where near enough resolution to understand what is going on. Any chance you know of any 720 or 1080 sources?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by praxis
The video is interesting but is no where near enough resolution to understand what is going on. Any chance you know of any 720 or 1080 sources?

This was 2001, the only 720 or above cameras that existed were not typically affordable by the average consumer.

Many of the videos of this day were very low quality, but you can clearly see the columns begin to fall downwards, and speculating that it is in fact them disintegrating rather than simply collapsing requires explanation of a physical phenomena which breaks current laws of physics. This is what Judy Wood claims the Hutchinson effect is, despite the fact that this effect has never been shown to exist (to my knowledge) in any repeatable experiments.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Exponent,

Why would I post a few images here when people can view all of them simply by going to Dr. Wood's website? I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves and look into this for themselves, rather than spoon-feed them information. Instead of having me cherry picking select images for you to view, I will just post a small list of questions which demonstrate just a few pieces of the evidence which must be explained. All of these questions are based on the evidence seen at Dr. Wood's site, so if you are curious, just go check it out for yourself. Also, Dr. Wood does not have "theories", she simply has gathered an overwhelming amount of evidence which must be explained, and has been explained. I can't baby you through your own research, for I have very little free time due to school, plus each person must find what is true for their own self. So, here is just a very small, partial list of questions based on some of the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, just in case it might help get you started:


• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin at its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by the major corporate media stations?
• How come there were statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 Alaskan magnetomer stations detecting normal readings until the 9/11 attacks commenced, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?


Also, here are two sections of her website which help to summarize some of the basic points of evidence. These lists are not complete, but are more of 'summary' or 'cliff-notes' style views of some of the major pieces of evidence which must be explained. Here:

1. drjudywood.com...
2. drjudywood.com...

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology



edit on 14-9-2010 by PookztA because: fixed links



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
I will just post a small list of questions which demonstorate just a few pieces of the evidence which must be explained.

I guess this is a start, I will do what I can to answer as many as I can, but you won't like the answers.

  • • How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
  • This did not happen. Steel was not turned into dust, concrete was turned into relatively large chunks and some finer dust as would be expected. Paper was burned, aluminium was oxidised. There's never been any evidence of this other than Judy Wood posting pictures and claiming that this occured.
  • • Why was Hurricane Erin at its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, yet it was not reported on by the major corporate media stations?
  • Erin's position was a coincidence, and it was not reported as there were more important things to report on.
  • • How come there were statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 Alaskan magnetomer stations detecting normal readings until the 9/11 attacks commenced, when there was suddenly a huge surge in electromagnetic activity?
  • I am not aware of the evidence for this, or even what it is supposed to be implying. Could you elaborate?
  • • How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
  • There were giant planes flown into the towers? I think that may cause some minor electrical issues

  • • How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
  • This didn't happen, the finer dust was from lighter and less solid materials such as gypsum and various fire products.
  • • How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
  • The vehicles were on fire, or close to a source of high heat. Many were towed away from the WTC as part of the recovery and rescue efforts. Many people were injured by debris, both on fire and not.
  • • How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
  • I am not aware of this happening, could you provide a citation?
  • • How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
  • They were involved in the largest building collapse in history and then exposed to significant fires.
  • • How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
  • What is so suspicious about this? If the front of a car is on fire, then it's not going to look the same as the back
  • • How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
  • Fires do not last for 7 years, and debris from fires does not need to be hosed down. However, hoses are used for cleaning and for settling dust caused by things such as pile driving which was very evident in the video I saw
  • • How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
  • Citation again please, I have never seen any evidence of a perfectly circular hole in any glass near the WTC
  • • How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
  • As far as I am aware, the bathtub suffered extensive damage, which is why it took so long to prepare the site for building the new tower
  • • How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
  • What sort of question is this? How could the survival of a specific store in the basement favour any sort of conspiracy theory?
  • • How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
  • Same answer as above
  • • How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
  • Same as above once again, why are you surprised that not everything was entirely destroyed?
  • • How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
  • Because Judy Wood is likely mentally ill.
  • • Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
  • The call for a new investigation has been going on since before Judy Wood existed on the scene, as far back as before the NIST reports were even published


Man that was tiring. Not very productive either, if you want to discuss something specifically, post it specifically, i'm not going to go through a massive list again.

edit on 14-9-2010 by exponent because: Formatting



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I don't know if she's right about any of this, but she's abviously put a great deal of work into it.

IMO if she brings anything new to the table that can be substantiated, I'm all for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

A fine effort.

Just a shame it's entirely in vain, as your points will either be ignored or thrown aside.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
A fine effort.

Just a shame it's entirely in vain, as your points will either be ignored or thrown aside.


Why thanks, that's why I tried to buzz through them as quickly as possible, because I've been at this long enough to recognise a 'true believer'



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Ok, in the interest of "thinking for myself" I spent the last couple of days going through her website, looking at her "evidence" (I use that term loosely). As far as I can see, although she put a lot of time and effort into compiling what "evidence" is there, her conclusions are absurd, to say the least. I could just as easily explain all her "evidence" by stating that the group of "dancing Israelis" pulverized the towers with the combined force of their awesome telekinetic powers, and it would make as much sense.

I don't know if she's unstable, deluded, or a dis-info agent, but I do know that she's just plain wrong. I dont blame AE911 Truth from distancing themselves from her. She would damage the credibility of anyone associated with her.

Feel free to believe her "proof" if you want to, but the truth will not be found there.

As far as that goes, the truth will not be found anywhere else on the internet, either.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Exponent,

I read your inaccurate answer to the first question and realized that you either have not looked very closely at the events and results of 9/11, or you may be intentionally trying to distort the truth (as BoneZ seems to be doing). For this reason, I did not continue reading your post, so that I could address your severely inaccurate answer instead.

How can you deny the fact that a vast majority of the Twin Towers' steel and concrete were turned to dust? You are either not looking, or perhaps you are corrupt and are purposely trying to distort the evidence. Here are a few pictures from Dr. Wood's site, and a video from my YouTube channel, which clearly show that you are absolutely incorrect, because the majority of steel and concrete in these buildings did indeed turn to dust. Here:

1. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
2. 'Dustification' process in action: drjudywood.com...
3. 'the 'Bubbler': drjudywood.com...
4.


There are many many more photos at Dr. Wood's website showing these things, so I do not know why you are spreading inaccurate and false information by claming the buildings did not turn to fine dust particles. Again, I hope that you are just severely mistaken, but in my opinion, it seems like you, BoneZ, and many others, have been recruited to push a specific set of information, and a specific view, so that if/when we do charge the true terrorists with 9/11, they will go free.

Claiming that 'thermite-only' could cause all this evidence is scientifically inaccurate. It is comparable to charging a murder suspect for 'stabbing the victim with a knife', despite the fact that numerous bullet casings had been found at the crime scene and the murder victim actually had several gun shot wounds. There is a thing called Double Jeopardy in our legal system, so we only get one shot at charging the true suspects, and thus, we better figure out exactly how they did it before we charge them.

We can accomplish this by looking at all the evidence from the attacks, and drawing one, cohesive, scientific conclusion from that evidence. This is what Dr. Wood has done, and that is why she filed this conclusive evidence in a court of law in the form of a Qui-Tam whistle-blower case. Her case was so strong that it made it to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, when it was suddenly dismissed by a judge who labeled the case as a 'conspiracy theory' and dismissed the case before it went to trial. He was able to dismiss the case because very few people were aware of it.

You can see legal documents from her court case here: www.drjudywood.com...

You can see the RFC she filed with NIST (months before AE911Truth filed theirs) here: www.drjudywood.com...

In contrast, Dr. Steven Jones has not filed his 'conclusive' thermite-paper with a court of law, most likely because he would be penalized by the justice system for filing a frivolous law suit which barely accounts for any of the evidence. I am not afraid to admit that thermite could have played a very small role in the attacks, but because thermite-alone barely explains any of the evidence, it is important that we look for the true cause of the destruction of these buildings. In my honest and scientific opinion, anyone who claims 'thermite-alone' can explain all the evidence of 9/11 which Dr. Wood has gathered, is either severely mistaken, very unintelligent, or protecting the interests of the true suspects.

Hope this clarifies things,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 14-9-2010 by PookztA because: fixed typo and link



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
Exponent,

I read your inaccurate answer to the first question and realized that you either have not looked very closely at the events and results of 9/11, or you may be intentionally trying to distort the truth (as BoneZ seems to be doing). For this reason, I did not continue reading your post, so that I could address your severely inaccurate answer instead.

If you see no reason to read my post because I disagree with you, then I feel no need to continue this debate. I deny that steel was turned to dust for several reasons.

1. There's no physical mechanism to do it, nobody has ever demonstrated it occuring.
2. There's no evidence of it actually occurring on 911
3. There would be no need to use such ludicrous technology
4. There's no way to test for such ludicrous technology.

Good enough for me, if you fancy a proper debate, feel free to respond to individual points and try and provide some evidence, instead of insulting me. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


The answers to your reasonable questions are probably classified Above Top Secret, if the Hutchinson effect is actual the govt know all about it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
You are either not looking, or perhaps you are corrupt

So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt? That's impeccable logic. You're saying "believe me or be accused of being corrupt". Give me an effin break. I don't know how people like you are still allowed to post here when you attack others like that.



Originally posted by PookztA
How can you deny the fact that a vast majority of the Twin Towers' steel and concrete were turned to dust?

The concrete was turned to dust because it was a light aggregate and was crushed by the countless tons of steel. The steel, however, was not turned to dust and that loony disinfo artist, the fake "Dr." Wood, has zero forensic or scientific proof. Does she have any lab results from testing WTC dust to prove that steel dust was present in the dust? I didn't think so.

Do you even comprehend how high the temperature needs to be to turn steel to dust? I bet you don't. Think on the magnitude of 4000-5000 degrees F.



Originally posted by PookztA
There are many many more photos

Looking at photos does not prove dustification of steel. Someone needs to acquire WTC dust and test it in a lab to look for steel dust. Has she done that? No. Therefore, she has zero proof or evidence. She just has made-up fairytale BS.



Originally posted by PookztA
Claiming that 'thermite-only' could cause all this evidence is scientifically inaccurate.

And improbable. Anyone who says that therm*te was the only means to bring down three skyscrapers also doesn't know what they're talking about.



Originally posted by PookztA
In contrast, Dr. Steven Jones has not filed his 'conclusive' thermite-paper with a court of law

Would you mind posting a source for this inaccurate claim? Nowhere is it stated that Dr. Jones' work was conclusive. In actuality, it was preliminary and further testing needed to be done.

I'll wait for that source.



Originally posted by PookztA
Perhaps you missed the point which matters most, the same point which BoneZ keeps ignoring:

Please explain the EVIDENCE.

The evidence was explained many times, many years ago and all debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You keep asking people to explain her "evidence", but they don't need to when it's been done over and over so many years ago. And then when someone does explain her "evidence" and you don't like the answer, you attack them or tell them they didn't look hard enough. Eff that.



Originally posted by PookztA
Thousands of photos, graphs, documents, and videos, all which need to be explained

No they don't need to be explained. Anyone can make anything up in graphs, documents, videos and photos. What really could need explaining is if she has tangible, forensic, lab samples (you know, real scientific evidence) of WTC dust that showed steel dust.

Until then, she's got nothing! Period.

And you as a "medical" student would have had the necessary science courses to know the proper way to gather and present scientific evidence. Photos, graphs and documents isn't scientific evidence. Lab samples is.

Game over.






edit on 14-9-2010 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Dear BoneZ,

I see you are still making your non-evidence-based assertions that Dr. Wood never received a Ph.D. I am literally amazing by how unscientific and dishonest your logic is...


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt?


Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing. See here: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

Why do you attempt to convince people Dr. Wood does not have a Ph.D, when in fact she does? How come you blatantly ignore the evidence and continue to try and convince people of something that is not true? If you are this dishonest in your attempts to refute Dr. Wood, who says you are not being dishonest about other things? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just show where she is wrong? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just explain to the forum how thermite-alone can account for all the photos, graphs, videos, and documents at her website? Why are you spreading so much dishonesty and lies, when you should be encouraging scientific analysis and careful scrutiny of the evidence? Why lie to others when you could simply encourage them to view all the evidence and make up their own minds about it? Why are you lying to the people of this forum???

I already know why...

...the same reason why so many 9/11 "Truth" groups and Wikipedia censor discussion about Dr. Wood, the same reason why there is an organized campaign to discredit Dr. Wood and divert people away from the evidence she has gathered, and the same reason Dr. Wood's graduate student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered in 2006. See here: www.iamthewitness.com...

Checkmate.



Lastly, I wanted to quickly address a common concern regarding the reality of Directed Energy Weapons:

I know 'Directed Energy Weapons' sound far out there, but in reality they are not. This is why we must not let skepticism prevent us from viewing all the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, because the evidence will show us exactly what happened on that day.

Here is a short documentary discussing the reality of DEWs:

Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3):


Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3):


Direct Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3):


and one of my favorite videos just for fun:



For those of you who want to view all the evidence and make up your own mind about it, a good place to start is the outline of evidence I have compiled, which can be found in my signature.

Thanks again for taking the time to look deeper into this topic, for those of you that do.

In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 14-9-2010 by PookztA because: fixed typos, added a link to clemson.edu site



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 

I see you didn't address any of my points. That's typical and was expected. All this DEW garbage is just a ploy by the conspirators to direct peoples' attention away from controlled demolition and to get them to believe in some fake space beam weapons instead.

People are too smart for that and aren't falling for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PookztA
Dear BoneZ,

I see you are still making your non-evidence-based assertions that Dr. Wood never received a Ph.D. I am literally amazing by how unscientific and dishonest your logic is...


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt?


Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing. See here: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

Why do you attempt to convince people Dr. Wood does not have a Ph.D, when in fact she does? How come you blatantly ignore the evidence and continue to try and convince people of something that is not true? If you are this dishonest in your attempts to refute Dr. Wood, who says you are not being dishonest about other things? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just show where she is wrong? Why make up lies about Dr. Wood when you could just explain to the forum how thermite-alone can account for all the photos, graphs, videos, and documents at her website? Why are you spreading so much dishonesty and lies, when you should be encouraging scientific analysis and careful scrutiny of the evidence? Why lie to others when you could simply encourage them to view all the evidence and make up their own minds about it? Why are you lying to the people of this forum???


Dear BoneZ,

I see you didn't address my questions:

Why are you lying to the people of ATS? Who else have you lied to? What else are you lying about?

Who's interests are you protecting?

Like I said...

Checkmate.


Thank you for letting me expose the disinformation and lies you are spreading here.

People have been misled here and in other forums for far too long. The future is looking to be a bright one, once we get this technology out of the hands of the Military Industrial Complex and into the hands of loving people. Nikolas Tesla would be ashamed to know of how his technology is currently being used, to kill innocent people, when it should be used to bring peace, love, and happiness to this planet.

The truth will prevail, and it is prevailing, as we just saw in this thread.

Long Live PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, & RESPECT

Sincerely,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


edit on 14-9-2010 by PookztA because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
*SNIPPED*

as for the topic itself, I never heard of Judy Wood and her theories, thank you for bringing this new information to light, I will look into it.

edit on Tue Sep 14 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So if someone doesn't agree with you (or the fake Dr.), then they didn't look closely enough or they are corrupt? That's impeccable logic. You're saying "believe me or be accused of being corrupt". Give me an effin break. I don't know how people like you are still allowed to post here when you attack others like that.


Funny that is exactly the same as truthers who post here, if you do not agree with them and their silly conspiracy theories you are a government "disinfo agent" or have not looked at their "evidence". Funny how you cannot recognise that!





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join