Fair enough. But again, I did not ridicule her research skills.
I critisised her research as poor.
My definition of ridicule is name calling. Yours seems to be critisism.
We disagree. What shall we do about it?
Thank you for answering my question and clarifying.
No Paul, I am not.Posted by Paul (here)
You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques,
That is how you are reading it and I cant help that.
Your view of me has been twisted for some time and I held out an olive branch near the bottom of my post here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post586978
You aim this criticism at me all the time and I am sick of it.
I have gone into great depth about who I am in other posts. Once again see this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post586978
I don't know what else I can say to convince you but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about me.
My motivation for posting about 9/11 as I said in previous posts is I worked with the family members in the past.
They want the truth.
Woods ideas are unprovable in court, let alone through repeated experiments.
Maybe that is why she has not done any?
I really dont know.
Whist back in court her case was droped because she had no actual evidence.
Where as Gage and the rest of them at least have something you can hold in your hand and experiments to back up their claims.
It's no wonder Judys case was dropped from court. The could do little else with it.
Because there are no experiments or actual science, its up to us to discuss it and work through it.
Thats all I am trying to do. Her ideas don't add up to me and I am asking for clarification.
Thats the whole point of this thread paul.
I just thought the Bush connection was an interesting tidbit.
Its up to everyone else to make of it what they will. It was news to me so I posted it. The End.
You don't need to be so hostile with me.
I am feigning nothing Paul. I cant help being sensitive.Posted by Paul (here)
feigning outrage over minor, or in this case, non-existent, insults
Some of us are more sensitive that others obviously.
Also, this is where our problem lays I feel.
Where you see "non-existent, insults", I see quite serious insults.
Please let me explain.
You agreed with a previous poster I was "casting aspertions".
That is what I took issue with and explained in depth about.
To me, this is an attack on my character because it suggests (without actually saying it) I am some kind of disnfo agent.
You know what these kind of comments mean just as well as I do and how they can help form readers opinions of people.
We are not on the same page here.
I type one thing and you seam to read another.
By saying or agreeing that I am "casting aspertions", its almost like you are trying to sway any readers that I maybe some kind of disinfo agent without actually coming out and saying it.
That is what hurts me the most.
People listen to you paul and you have influence so I feel I must defend my honor.
I consider it an insult even if to you its just a "non-existent insult."
You only ever seem to suggest things about be and never seem to be able to actually clearly state what you believe.
Even the phrase you used: "You're engaging in classic disinformation techniques", covers you because although you dont call me disnfo, its just one step away from actually saying it.
I find it upsetting.
I am happy to continue this discussion but please, please stop suggesting / hinting I am disnfo.
There is no reason to think this Paul.
I think we just misunderstand each other.
Either just come out and say it or please please drop it. Thank you.
Now back to the evidence....
"indefensible claim"? I don't think so...Posted by Paul (here)
By the way, EYES WIDE OPEN, nice deflection.
You have defended your indefensible claim that "185,101 tons of structural steel" was hauled away by making a second indefensible claim, that photographs show that the mass of the towers fell outside the footprint.
There are quite literally hundreds of photos showing that the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=384:384
Scroll down halfway for the debris pattern image and click on the links on the left for photos of the debris pattern of each area outside the footprint of the towers.
You will see steel in lots of the photos.
Here is just one photo: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/..._Photo_id=1787
They are quite interesting to look at.
Note that debris from the towers also made holes in other trade center buildings around the twin towers. Debris all fell into these holes too.
The point here is that this is the logical explanation for why the debris pile is not high.
There is no need for energy weapons to explain this. Occums razor.
Has anyone got a link for this I can read?Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Anyway, If ANY structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel in the debris.
Has Judy shown any evidence of this?
I dont think there is any I can recall in her book. Unless someone can show me this proof?
edit, Paul - If you wish, I will leave the thread for the sake of forum harmony. Is up to you. I just want an easy life.