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.

 

VIDEO: 'Cold' Fusion, 9/11, Disinformation, & The BIG Picture

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Dear ATS Members,

For those of you wondering why the campaign of censorship against Dr. Judy Wood is so strong and well-orchestrated, this may help you understand what is at stake. For those of you who are looking to understand the 'big picture', this might help shed some light on it for you.

Why would the government use a "fake Dr" as a "disinformation agent"? Some people in this forum have accused Dr. Judy Wood of being a "Fake Dr." who "doesn't really have a Ph.D". Some people have claimed that Dr. Judy Wood is "mentally-ill". Some have claimed she is both. Many of these same people also claim that the government has hired this "mentally-ill, fake Dr." as a "disinformation agent" sent to cover up 9/11...

...so, to make sure I understand these accusations correctly, these people are claiming that the government would choose a "mentally-ill" scientist who "doesn't really have a Ph.D" to cover up the truth about 9/11? You can see some examples of these accusations throughout the course of this thread: Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood? and on page 4 of this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why would the government hire someone with a "fake Ph.D" or someone who is "mentally-ill", to cover up 9/11? Why wouldn't the government choose someone with a real Ph.D, like Dr. Steven Jones, who worked for the government's Department of Energy, and was suspected to help cover up the reality of 'Cold' Fusion (a form of Free Energy)?

In my honest opinion, the attacks of 9/11 reveal the fact that Free Energy technology does indeed exist, and is being used by the military industrial complex for purposes of war and violence, instead of being used to make our world a more peaceful and loving place. They control us with energy, through the oil companies and more, and if word gets out that Free Energy exists and was used on 9/11, the people of this world will be furious.

Proof of Dr. Judy Wood's Ph.D: www.registrar.clemson.edu...

Brief Summary of the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered: drjudywood.com...

9/11 Finding The Truth (free e-book by Andrew Johnson): www.lulu.com...

Videos:

Heavy Watergate: The War on 'Cold' Fusion

Google Video Link



Eugene Mallov, the MIT professor who's lab validated the results of the 'Cold' Fusion experiments, resigned from MIT after his lab's data was criminally manipulated and changed during the publication process, so that it appeared to no longer be supportive of 'Cold' Fusion. After he resigned from MIT and began speaking out about the reality of 'Cold' Fusion and the corrupt manipulation of his lab's data, he was spontaneously murdered. Why? See here: www.pureenergysystems.com...


*SNIP*


Thanks for looking into this if you do,

-Abe

*SNIP*


P.S. - An avid AE911Truth-supporting ATS member claims that directed energy weapons are part of a "disinformation' campaign". Since I feel that it is important for you to view ALL the evidence you can from ALL sides of the story, I will now share a link to his article with you all. Please view ALL the evidence you can, and make up your own mind. We are all intelligent human beings who are capable of deciding what is true and what is false for our own selves, so do not let ANYONE tell you what to think or believe. Look at ALL the evidence, and make up your OWN mind. You can view his "no planers are disinfo" article here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



*SNIP*


edit on 19-9-2010 by PookztA because: Long Live TRUTH, JUSTICE, PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, & RESPECT




edit on 19/9/2010 by Mirthful Me because: Removed personal information, spammed YouTube videos.




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Whether or not she is a fraud, the evidence put forth that Jones uses, clearly doesnt account for the total annihilation we see... at some point that has to be reckoned with.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Judy Wood is a fraud and is exposed in the following articles and papers:


What about 'Cold' Fusion BoneZ? Is that fradulent too? What about Mr. Hutchison, is he a fraud too? What about Eugene Mallov, the MIT professor who validated the results of the 'Cold' Fusion experiments, only to have his lab's data manipulated and changed during the publication process? After he resigned from MIT and began speaking out about the reality of 'Cold' Fusion and the corrupt manipulation of his lab's data, he was spontaneously murdered. Why? See here: www.pureenergysystems.com...

Also, if Dr. Judy Wood is wrong...

Why are AE911Truth, Wikipedia, and others, censoring her work? Why censor someone who is wrong? Wouldn't her wrongness be obvious by now? Why are a growing number of people looking at the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents she has gathered, and realizing she has hit a bullseye? Why do you attack her, when you should be able to easily explain to us how explosives (nuclear or thermite) can explain all the evidence she has gathered? Obviously explosives do not explain all this evidence, which is why she is being censored. See full article here: Why are AE911Truth & Wikipedia Censoring Information about Dr. Judy Wood?

Watching you (BoneZ) avoid the evidence and try to divert people away from her website is very telling, just as Wikipedia and AE911Truth's censorship of Dr. Wood was also very telling. Why are you trying to steer people away from the evidence Dr. Wood has gathered, as they have? Why not let people view it and decide for themselves? Why does your behavior suggest that you feel threatened by the evidence she has gathered, as if you are afraid people might actually look at the overwhelming amount of evidence at her website? Why do you seem to be dead-set on convincing people not to look at the enormous amount of evidence she has gathered, when you should be encouraging people to examine all the evidence with careful and accurate scientific scrutiny?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Spamming this fake "Dr."'s disinformation over and over again isn't going to get people to believe her.


Again, here is the proof of Dr. Wood's Ph.D (and title of Dr.), which you could have easily found for yourself if you were actually looking at evidence instead of spreading lies: www.registrar.clemson.edu...


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Why do you have to keep spamming the disinfo from this fake "Dr."?


Why do you feel the need to push lies on other ATS members? Why spread lies and rumors about Dr. Wood if she is so 'wrong'? Why try to divert people away from her website rather than just explaining how explosives-alone could explain the overwhelming amount of evidence found at her website?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And as you continually post the fake "Dr"'s disinformation, I'll continue to post the debunks


Your repeated implications that Dr. Wood does not actually have a Ph.D by claiming she is a "fake Dr.", as you put it, are very telling as to what type of behavior you deem 'acceptable' in your 9/11 "Truth" Movement. Claiming someone is a "fake Dr." means that you are implying that her title of "Dr." is fake / non-existent / not real. Lying to ATS members when you could just explain the evidence...? Not very honest if you ask me!
Attempting to convince ATS members of rumors and falsehoods...? Doesn't sound like truth-seeking to me!
That type of behavior is acceptable in your 9/11 "Truth" Movement...? I want no part of such an unscientific movement!
You think that you can spread lies like that and people won't notice?


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?


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.erichufschmid.net...

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin

Also, why do you always post that same ambush interview that Dr. Jenkins did? How come he showed up at the end of a meeting that Dr. Wood was not even speaking at, at approximately 12am, with a full camera and lighting crew, and asked her to be interviewed? How come he only would discuss one small black and white photo, when there are literally thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, which need to be addressed? Why do you keep posting this old, unscientific interview which barely discusses any evidence, when you could be posting newer interviews which actually discuss more of the evidence?


Here is a more recent interview with Dr. Wood if you would prefer to hear about some of the evidence this way instead of going to her website:











Claiming that 'explosives-alone' 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. See legal documents from her court case here: www.drjudywood.com... and see the RFC she filed with NIST (months before AE911Truth filed theirs) here: www.drjudywood.com...


Long Live the TRUTH,

-Abe

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

edit on 10-10-2010 by alien because: ...editted to removed personal information...



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
the evidence put forth that Jones uses, clearly doesnt account for the total annihilation we see

I 100% agree. Dr. Jones' lab findings were preliminary and not conclusive. If his results end up being conclusive, there's no way of telling where or in what capacity thermitic material may have been used.

Explosives were the main cause of the destruction of three WTC towers. What part any thermitic material played is yet to be seen.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
the evidence put forth that Jones uses, clearly doesnt account for the total annihilation we see

I 100% agree. Dr. Jones' lab findings were preliminary and not conclusive. If his results end up being conclusive, there's no way of telling where or in what capacity thermitic material may have been used.

Explosives were the main cause of the destruction of three WTC towers. What part any thermitic material played is yet to be seen.


BoneZ,

Please explain to me and the rest of the forum how explosives of any kind, can explain all this EVIDENCE.

Thanks for trying if you do,

-Abe

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



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Wow Abe, you've put together a really nice piece here. Thank you for all the hard work on this, I'll be watching every video and giving this some serious consideration.
I realize Dr. Woods theories sound way out there but I'm finding her case quite compelling. Nobody knows everything about how and what happened on 9/11 so I'm willing to give idea at least a hearing before I can personally dismiss it.
The cold fusion case is rather long and complex, I am going to have to refamiliarize myself with the story.
I'll get back with some comments after I've finished watching all the videos you've posted.
Good work, star and flag
Put your helmet on, it's going to start raining you - know -what.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 

I'll tackle a few sections from the so-called EVIDENCE link.

D. Dustification
Coming up with names such as "Bubbler", "Snowball", "Fuming Dogleg" and "Alkaseltzer" doesn't suggest anything but an attempt to make people believe something that isn't there.

Let's look at figure 31a.
If there was actually dustification why are there many objects that clearly aren't dustified? I've only circled a few but there are many.


Let's look at figure 31c.
This picture, also from the dustification section, shows numerous pieces of the building that haven't been dustified. I only circled the two largest pieces that clearly aren't dustified.



Let's look at figure 33.
From this group of 4 pictures and the suggestive writing one could believe that the steel disintegrates into dust. If one takes the 4 pictures and animates them a very different outcome seems likely. It sure looks an awful lot like the remaining portion is falling to the left and away from the camera giving the illusion of it disintegrating into dust

Beam falling


F. Toasted Cars
The cars look like vehicles that were on fire and have damage from items falling on them. If dustification actually happened what could've fallen on them? Here's some pictures of other cars that were on fire from events outside of 9/11 which look eerily similar. These pictures were originally used in this thread

The origin of this car fire is apparently in the engine compartment. Without the inset picture one might presume that the engine is no longer there, but it is. One can also clearly see the extensive damage to the entire front end of the car and all of the missing parts that presumably were consumed by the fire.


Here's a couple of pictures of police cars, one from being burned during a riot (the inset) and the other from malfunctioning after market police specific lighting.


This car was apparently fully engulfed yet part of the rear bumper was not affected by the fire.


It appears that not all of the paint was destroyed (driver's door at least) during this inferno. Of particular interest is the "missing" hood and what could be perceived as a void in the engine bay.


These 2 trucks were destroyed when the garage they were in was struck by lightening and caught on fire. You can see damage from the roof that collapsed on the truck in the foreground. (I'm unsure why there's grass growing but simply relating the story that was attached with the picture)


This car is fully engulfed but the paint at the front is unaffected.



G. Windows and Marble
I don't find holes in windows suspect to anything when 2 very tall buildings and debris fell. Maybe it's not odd for me since I believe that pieces fell and don't buy into dustification.

Let's discuss figure 43.
I see some windows that have round like holes, others that are totally blown out and others that are neither round like nor totally blown out. Have you ever thrown a base ball through a window? There's often a round hole. Is this evidence of something other than a baseball going through the window? I wouldn't expect two different panes to show the same damage and don't know who would. The facade that's missing looks like it was hit and either shattered or fell because of adhesive issues. Are you familiar with marble or the facade material? They usually aren't very thick material, shatter easily and, by definition, are attached to a sub-structure. The unaffected parts appear to be a different material and are probably part of the sub-structure so I wouldn't expect similar damage as they're two different materials. Also, what is it supposed to imply that only the marble is missing? What is it suggestive of?


Let's discuss figure 44.
What is it that's suspicious about round holes? More importantly, since the round holes seem to be the suspicious issue here, where are all the rould holes? I see many windows that are totally blown out, again, and other windows that have some damage to them that don't even look round. I also see part of the WTC that was supposedly dustified. Why is that?




Let's discuss figure 56.
Yes, I see the holes in the windows of Bankers Trust. Should I be surprised? There's a huge piece of the WTC, that was supposedly dustified by the way, and it's wondered why windows are broken? Really? Seriously? I don't know, maybe because debris falling caused it?



I see no reason to discuss other window pictures as I'll simply be repeating myself.


M. Paper
I have to admit, I love this one. Why aren't the papers burning? Why should the papers be burning? Are they at the fire? Should the fire be attracted to them by means of an accelerant? The paper isn't burning because it's not near enough to the fire to catch fire. Should the paper around me catch fire when I light a cigarette? Why? Because the flame isn't near enough to the fire. The paper issue has got to be one of the stupidest issues to have ever even been thought about to discuss.

Speaking of paper and fire, let's discuss figure 96.
With all this talk about paper not being on fire I find it strange that there's a picture of paper actually on fire in the section that's supposed to be talking about paper not catching on fire. Wow, look at that! Paper's on fire! Can you imagine that?



O. Toilets
I haven't heard about this one yet. I'm still on the same page that was talking about dusification, right? If dustification actually happened why would one be looking for toilets that would have been dustified in the first place? Taking dustification out of the equation, let's look at this from a more realistic point of view, if that's even possible. Maybe everyone doesn't know that toilets are made of porcelain, that's fine. I guess that's why they discussed tank performance but not the material they're made of. What do you think happens when porcelain is dropped, hit or crushed? Go take a hammer to your toilet repeatedly and let me know what you're left with. After doing so, come back here and tell me why it's not surprising that toilets weren't found in the rubble pile.


You asked, although not to me, to "Please explain to me and the rest of the forum how explosives of any kind, can explain all this EVIDENCE". I ask you this. With evidence outside of even questioning any kind of explosives being used and trying to debunk some aspects of your evidence and this dustification why should I even pay attention to any other aspect of this alleged evidence when I have issues with some of this alleged evidence?

Looking forward to your reply.


Oh, and because of the reasons mentioned above is why I feel I was able to say what I did in your other thread.


Originally posted by Three_moons
66 flags and 46 stars.


Really?


Flags and stars are awarded for what reasons again?


Thirteen pages with an alarming number of believers.


Absolutely amazing...


I simply don't think people can think for themselves and follow whatever other people say. It's a sad world in my mind.
I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
WHERE did the Towers go?
Where DID the Towers go?
Where did the TOWERS go?
Where did the Towers GO?

They AREN'T THERE...because they have been dustified. They. Just. Went. Away.
80-90% of the matter is GONE. Tell me: WHAT did that? Where did the debris pile go by NOON?

You obviously haven't looked at all the evidence: A few photos randomly drawn does not an epic research make.

No debris pile. No toilets. No paper on fire. No cars on fire. Because...drum roll, please: It's not fire! Sort of looks like fire but doesn't act like fire at all. So it's probably not hot. Melted boots but no cooked feet. People waving from Tower "hot" spots. Darn. Gashes in adjacent buildings but little to no debris. Dust clouds that encompassed crowds but were cool, not hot. No burned bodies...hmmm. Doesn't add up, does it? No steam explosions, although water present, so zero molten metal there...oh, darn again. No debris in lower levels of "tub"...darn. No damage to the "tub"...darn, again. No real booming explosions heard, either. Shoot! No significant seismic readings recorded for any building, oops. And earth's magnetic field disrupted at the exact moment of impacts, and recorded thus...ooopsie again! And what about that CAT 3 Hurricane sitting there off the coast? Nobody mentioned Erin, not even the weathermen.

So a woman does it again!!
And we're left with fantastic fuzzy blobs, brilliant bubblers, fun fumes, dandy dustification, titilating toasted cars, wonderful wheat chex, luscious lather, holy-holed windows, perfect paper, rich rustification, excellent exploding Scott Paks, funny funky fires, and COLD GLOWING CHEETOS!!! CHAH-CHING!! Yuppers! A LACK of HIGH heat!! Somebody messed up, didn't they...!

MANY Thanks goes to Dr. JUDY WOOD! And the world will owe a great debt for all she has done...in the name of Truth.

...and, well...boys will be boys...Gage, Jones, Fetzer, Jenkins...poor fellas.

Cheers!
JoeyMooreYogi



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by joeymooreyogi
 


Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
No debris pile. No toilets. No paper on fire. No cars on fire. Because...drum roll, please: It's not fire! Sort of looks like fire but doesn't act like fire at all.




Hold the drum roll, please. Now it wasn't even fire?


Come on, really?





And what about that CAT 3 Hurricane sitting there off the coast? Nobody mentioned Erin, not even the weathermen.


What about the storm that nobody allegedly mentioned? Do you do much of your own research or do you prefer to rely on others to tell you what did or didn't happen?


Here's just a few articles that mentioned Erin:

Stormpulse
BBC
NOAA
CNN
LA Times
Chicago Tribune
New York Daily News

Wow! Even the New York Daily News ran an article on hurricane Erin. The article was even released on 9/11/01. Yet nobody mentioned it?
Okay, you can believe whatever you would like to believe. Have fun with that.



Thanks for making an account just so you can spread even more of Dr. Judy Woods' nonsense.





posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
...and what's your point, Three Moons?

Ah, I see. You didn't really have a point of your own, just: "Bad Judy! Bad Judy!"

I hope you'll one day be able to wrap your head around the actual evidence. Seekers and researchers who truly want justice for those who've died as a result of 9/11, and those who continue to die, are united in the search for Truth, not divisive. Little boys can play "sticks & stones"; but only a woman was able to really file concrete charges.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much! And...I really wonder why... Why be divisive? Why be a hater? It can only mean someone is threatened by Reality...or by the opposite gender. Piteous...

Cheers!
JoeyMooreYogi



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by joeymooreyogi
 

My point was to address some of your issues, which I did. I never said "bad Judy" but instead presented information why I don't agree with her research and referred to her work as nonsense. Because of that it suggests to me that you're either trolling or have poor reading comprehension skills. Not surprisingly, you didn't mention anything about what I posted such as the fact that Erin was mentioned when you insisted that it was not. I'm unsure how you can honestly say that I don't have a point of my own since I actually took the time to look at Judy's evidence and gave my detailed view on it. Maybe you missed my post in this very thread? Here it is in case you didn't see it. I am wrapping my head around the actual evidence that's presented; my own head, not someone elses. I'm all for the truth concerning 9/11 since there are some issues with the OS in my opinion. I looked at Judy's work and I have some issues with it. I presented some of them and nobody commented on them, not even you who says I have no point of my own when I clearly do.

I don't know why you feel the need to bring gender into the equation; I certainly never did. I could care less what gender a person is but prefer to look at the evidence and use my own brain to decide if I agree with it or not. Maybe you have some gender bias issues you need to address because your words certainly suggest it. You think I protest too much but you want the truth yet I haven't even seen you debate the issue or any points I've brought up but only see you keep mentioning Dr. Judy Woods and sidestepping with gender games and other nonsense. Who's really looking for the truth?

Go ahead and read the issues I posted about why I don't agree with the information presented. Then come back and reply with something that's on topic and actually debatable. Pick my linked post apart and tell me where my logic is wrong. That's how we may achieve the truth.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Dear _BoneZ_

Sorry for my delay in replying to this, as this is the first chance I have had.

This woman Dr. Judy Wood to me sounds like a poor relation to the village idiot. Can you suggest a reason to listen to her???



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Explosives were the main cause of the destruction of three WTC towers. What part any thermitic material played is yet to be seen.



Explosives were not the main cause of the destruction of the towers. They were destroyed in an explosive fashion
but its wasnt thermite, TNT, C4 or anything similar that caused their destruction. It also wasnt explosives that destroyed cars many blocks away.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   


Do you Osers ever give up? I think GOD needs to come down and apologize to soddom and gamorrah. he forgot one other country. you people who support this nonsense are jokes. :shk:



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by joeymooreyogi
 


I see you guys like Judy because she makes the truth movement look bad. That is why you defend her work. You guys seriously don't care what really happened on 911. I am truly ashamed to be human.

:shk:



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by joeymooreyogi
 


I see you guys like Judy because she makes the truth movement look bad. That is why you defend her work. You guys seriously don't care what really happened on 911. I am truly ashamed to be human.



No, the 'truth movement' tries to make Judy look bad. The sad thing is they have infiltrated those people that are seriously looking for the truth and they dont see it. Demolitions my ass. The destruction of the WTC's was done using hi-tech weaponry and you guys are playing around with thermite theories. Kinda sad really..



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


sorry, you are just a quack trying to make the truth movement look like quacks. I have disproven her theories on here many, many of times.

You people make me want to vomit.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
You obviously haven't looked at all the evidence

That seems to be the programmed response from those that peddle the DEW disinfo.



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
No debris pile.

Is this a deliberate hoax or lack of research?

911digitalarchive.org...

Debris is piled stories high.



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
No real booming explosions heard, either.

Deliberate hoax or lack of research? You must've missed this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
And what about that CAT 3 Hurricane sitting there off the coast?

Deliberate hoax or lack of research? Hurricane Erin was a Category 1 hurricane by the time it got that far north. So, you must've missed this:

www.google.com...



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
oh darn......oops....ooopsie again

Indeed.



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
MANY Thanks goes to Dr. JUDY WOOD!

Yes. Many thanks to that fraudulent, lunatic, disinfo artist for peddling disinformation and getting herself banned from the 9/11 truth movement. That likes of her are not need, nor wanted.



Originally posted by joeymooreyogi
Why be divisive?

I'm sorry, can you explain what's being divided? Since the disinformation of DEW and no-planes isn't part of the truth movement, nor accepted by scientists and scholars in the truth movement, there's nothing being divided.

So, can you please show who or what's being divided? Something can't be divided when it's not even accepted as possible or plausible.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


It's funny that you have "9/11 was an inside job" splattered all over your mini profile, yet you peddle the disinformation of no-planes and DEW that the 9/11 truth movement doesn't support.

What's even funnier is the no-planers are peddling DEW and vice versa. That screams "agenda" and "disinfo campaign" all over it. Most intelligent people aren't falling for it, just as the 9/11 truth movement hasn't. Why waste more of your time?




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join