Meet David L. Griscom: a research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
He studied "Effervescent Magnetic Peroxyborates:"http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja01033a010
He also contends that thermite, a welding material, can turn buildings into dust.
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
Like   Comment   
  • 3 people like this.
  • Amanda Toone oh did he now? I'd like to see him reproduce those effects in a lab...pfft
  • Ryan G Banister I don't think he'd want to show these effects to the public. It might give the rest of us insight into his motivations following his retirement from NRL in 2001.

    That wouldn't work out so well for the A&E disinfo squad.
  • Barry Nelson No, thermite burns, it does not explode or turn to dust. "Dustification" occurs in the presence of a highly charged free energy field, and cold fusion---see Judy Wood's book, "Where Did The Towers Go?"
  • Daniel Grant Wilks Actually it does not occur all the steel was accounted for also you can't have Dustifacation when the steel is present after the collapse of the structure. Also, The Cars ect Dr. Wood claims were affected by n Non EMF or EMP producing directed energy w...See More
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ryan G Banister Daniel, you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you read Dr. Wood's book?
    10 hrs · Like · 1
  • Daniel Grant Wilks Yes it is bunk and I do have a full understanding of the collapse of the towers and the effects of EMP and EMF propagation in the fantasized Directed energy weapons Since Dr. Woods has no background in Nuclear physics and has very little understandin...See More
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ryan G Banister Why are you talking about EMP and EMF fields? That is not what Dr. Wood's book is about. Maybe you need to read it again, and this time read with comprehension.

    Dr. Judy Wood is a structural engineer with a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science and expertise in experimental stress analysis, engineering mechanics and strength of materials testing.
    10 hrs · Like
  • Daniel Grant Wilks So she has no background in Nuclear physics or directed energy thanks for proving the point of her taking another friends data out of context.
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ryan G Banister All that has been proven here is that you lack basic reading comprehension, if indeed you read the book.
    10 hrs · Like
  • Daniel Grant Wilks No Kyle you can't look at physical evidence Versus a made up fantasy.
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ryan G Banister You have 24 hours to read the About section for this group. If you do not delete your own comments above or retract them, being that they are inaccurate and inflammatory, you will be deleted from this group. Have a nice day, sir!
    10 hrs · Like
  • Daniel Grant Wilks Good because they are factual and Dr. Wood's book is available at the public library. Under alternative fiction due to her editing the weather charts to back her theory. Her lack of knowledge of nuclear physics and misrepresentation of physical evide...See More
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Ryan G Banister What motivates you to make claims without evidence?
    10 hrs · Like
  • Amanda Toone Fictionalized weather charts? Oh you mean this one? (which comes from the National Hurricane Center btw). Oddly enough the data is all the same....weird. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL062001_Erin.pdf
    9 hrs · Like
  • Ryan G Banister Yes, it is very weird that Daniel Grant Wilks is motivated to lie about hurricane evidence.
    9 hrs · Like
  • Daniel Grant Wilks No try checking your claims first Ryan Dr Woods admitted to editing the data and charts. You don't want proof or physical facts that undermine Dr. Wood's fictionalized account of dustifction.
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/.../911...
    So ends the false claims as I am not the only one whom sees her fraudulent data
  • Well Ryan it is not money or profiteering as you like to be the shout out boy for false and misleading evidence. no the Hurricane evidence is factual as Dr. Wood's misrepresentation of it.  Apparently you are six years behind the intelligence curb here. 

Comments

  1. Ryan G Banister The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive — that is all of the available evidence must be considered. This includes NIST findings and the straight forward recovery of all the WTC steel For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification.
    In Dr woods presentation The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. In This case he claim of directed energy destruction of WTC is false and should be abandoned as all physical evidence of the incidint contradicts her false claims.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Mystery of Rh-Negative Blood Genetic Origin Unknown

Awareness of EBE Contact

American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence