The exposure of Dr. Judy woods fraudulent Directed energy brought down WTC 1,2, and 7 on 91101.
Unfollow Post · Share · September 27 at 11:25pm
-
2 people like this.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks The film is a fraud and since there was no vaporizing of the core structure of wtc 1 or 2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8901649107/ 
Explore quinazagga's photos on Flickr. quinazagga has uploaded 58 photos to Flickr.
-
Justin Larmore Daniel Grant Wilks, are you an purposefully stupid or just ignorant? Vaporization really?. lol
-
Daniel Grant Wilks Well that is what the claim was of Dr. Judy Woods. A simple look at the recovery photos destroy her claims As they contradict them. She uses the i got a photo and stated my opinion of it but that is speculation not fact.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks No I look at the connections between impact floors and other structual elements.
-
Justin Larmore First of all its Dr Judy Wood and second of all she never once claimed vaporization. You don't even know her claims so you clearly should research before you open you mouth and make your self sound stupid. To late now I guess. You maybe should also look up the definition of fact because you clearly lack basic elementary understating of what that word means.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks Already have and she has made the claim about the core Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
(Drifting, Rolling, Venting and Fuming) All of which is fraudulent researched based on her speculations that do not hold up to the facts established by ph...See More -
Justin Larmore Sorry to see you also do not know what speculation means as well as vaporization. Do you self a favor and actually look it up. Name one photo that is no sourced in her book? I'll be waiting.
-
Justin Larmore facts established by physical evidence? Let me guess the pancaking and gravity collapse? lol That nano particles as fine as 100th the size of red blood cells or DNA size are always created in a gravity/fire collapse.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks Reading the NIST final report would be a start and seeing the physical forensics behind the report is key to understanding it. Also paint chips burn in an acetylene torch is what the fraudulent Bentham report proves that degraded samples do not yield t...See More
-
Justin Larmore Have you read the NIST report. I guarantee you have not. Second I do not see any relevance in the paint chips you bring up. Most important is your lack of understanding of basic words. I see you looked up speculation but clearly do not understand the fruits of the definition. SO you need to look those up too. Look up theory, and facts because you clearly do not know what it means.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks speculation the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. That is exactly what she did and there is no debate her findings in relation to WTC are speculation. They are not factual. It boils down to a huge false appeal to her authority (education) when in fact she has very limited education in the field of DEW.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks They are understood and Knowledge or information based on real occurrences and physical evidence. To be mor accurate Her work falls under Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be...See More
-
Matthew Naus Daniel, you were just added to this groups membership on Tuesday. What's your purpose for joining this group given the title of the group and what the "about section" states?
-
Justin Larmore "That is exactly what she did and there is no debate her findings in relation to WTC are speculation"
Daniel claims himself to be authority on the existence of debate.
words of a troll whose purpose is distraction. -
Justin Larmore He does nothing to disprove nor does he present any facts or evidence. He cleverly resorts only to claiming authority on impossible absolutes.
-
Justin Larmore He also fails to see that no one has made any unfalsifiable claims.
-
Justin Larmore He thinks that because he can ignore the facts and evidence presented or brush it off as "fraudulent research" that it has anything to do with what actually happened .
-
Matthew Naus lt doesn't surprise me when I ask a new member, who starts making comments that are negative to what the group is about, why he or she joined the group and get no response. Giving no response to such a question usually means they have a negative objective in their purpose for joining the group.
November 8 at 2:15pm via mobile · 1
-
Daniel Grant Wilks So the groupthink is to make assumptions based on no facts and pass it off as if their opinion was fact.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks As to the facts ignoring the facts surrounding the damage to cars being already recorded by NYFD and the initiator not being any DEW
-
Daniel Grant Wilks It is predictable that a fact does threaten those whom buy into Pseudoscience and research that is based in speculation
-
Justin Larmore That is exactly what the group think(official story) is. I agree. They have to ignore and deny facts in order to fit their theories because it is a threat to the truth and to their control.
-
Matthew Naus Daniel, you didn't answer my question!
-
Matthew Naus Daniel, your time here will soon end unless you give me some reasonable explanation for why you joined this group.
-
Daniel Grant Wilks Even if my time here ends here the only reason will because the facts don't change and your reaction would prove positive of an attempt to push the fraudulent research of Dr Judy Wood which is soundly rejected by the scientific community. As to havin...See More
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by
-
Daniel Grant Wilks Justin Evidence was shown problem is you won't look at it objectively and physical evidence she shows is misrepresented. Bent steel came from the rubble and was amongst other pieces also heated by secondary fires in the 16 acre site. Physical State what things are and you find physical facts. Make guesswork and groupthink you get false information and this is endemic in Dr Judy Wood's research which draws attention to an attempt to profit off of the events of 91101.
-
Justin Larmore Those facts that you are saying have already been determined are mostly speculation and not fact. You can claim something all day but that doesn't change anything but opinions.
-
Justin Larmore Again you resort vaporization to something that does not imply such. It is your ignorance that allows you to come to your conclusion. I can obviously see that this will just turn into a your stupid no your stupid match that I could care less to be part off. Enjoy your opinions that there exist some scientific community with absolute, 100% consistent beliefs where all knowledge is already known and understood. When in fact that is essentially the destruction of scientific reasoning.
-
Justin Larmore I am so glad you listen to your authorities in white coats. I am glad your dogmatic beliefs allow you to assume popular consensus is always truth.
-
Matthew Naus I'm going to end the membership of Daniel Grant Wilks because he failed to give me a reasonable answer of why he joined this group considering his negative responses.
The problem is Matthew is he gave you a valid reason and then put evidence out that states that her findings are not factual. Like other 91101 terror attack profiteers you booted him for being correct. Her entire website is pseudoscience and misrepresenting photos that have established histories documented to them. Instead of stating theses cars were towed here and this was not the original location of them she goes and makes up fiction about the initiator of the damage. It was recently she put accreditation to the photos she used.in her book and on her website.
Published on Jul 26, 2012
Judy Wood used a copyright claim (again) to remove the previous version of this video (and others) Which to any right thinking person would clearly demonstrate that the information in the videos is correct - proving Wood is Wrong (as you can see).
If you visit Judy`s shockingly bad website you can see the images of police car 2723 on this page:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/St...
This video once again debunks Woods incorrect assumptions.
An in depth discussion of Judys so called "toasted" cars can be read and joined in here:
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-...
A detailed discussion of the seismic readings can be found here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.ph...
Note:
Fair Use allows you to make use of a pre-existing artistic work for purposes of education, training, news reporting, scientific research, critique or commentary, or parody. Material used here is used under "fair use", as non-profit, educational, and critical usage.
==========================================
QUOTE:
I just thought I would add a little more to the BBC's explanation of the early report of World Trade Center 7's collapse...
=================
Angled cuts:
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-10-11...
-------------------------------
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
==========================
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/...
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/peo...
===============================
Stairwell B Survivers: (an irrelevant point except to conspiracy enthusiasts - you`ll have to ask them why exactly...) With an image of the stairwell - Wood disciples like the pretty pictures:
https://sites.google.com/site/911stor...
===============================
Category
Science & Technology
License
Standard YouTube License
1) The video clearly proves that cars were moved to FDR 2) Wood uses the assumption that the cars were damaged in situ on FDR to make the wildly outrageous claim that the vehicle damage "must" therefore have been caused by a DEW (space beam). Wood knows that the cars were transported there - so she also knows that there is zero requirement for her space beam assumptions. Wood is also well aware that there is zero evidence to support any of her other DEW claims. Judy is a debunked disgrace.
She`s cracked it wide open?? That will be why she is completely ignored by right thinking rational people. Also she is 100% UNsupported by any scientists or engineers worldwide. That alone "should" tell any sane person all they need to know about Judy`s incorrect guesswork. Those that remain are a disenfranchised lost cause, and an ever smaller, dwindling group. How long has Judy been spouting her lies now? Still no peer reviewed paper - just trufer appearances for the mentally ill...
Comments
Post a Comment