Thread split from "Excellent Judy Wood Presentation" - some anti-Judy views

[gooty64]

I watched the whole thing.

Pretty good.

So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

===

[ Mod-edit: The first 12 posts of this thread began life on a different thread - Excellent Judy Wood Presentation - Where did the towers go? (Penzance, Nov 2012). The attacks (a fair choice of words, I believe) on Judy Wood were becoming too distracting on the original thread, so I split them off to this thread. - Paul. ]

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question."

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Its true, Jones does not come off well in that last clip. I wonder why he stopped the research into fusion?
I find this as troubling as Wood working with the Bush insider.
Both things are very strange.

Posted by Paul (here)
(Steven Jones, of 9/11 thermite fame, does not come off looking so good, in the last video of this talk, which rather amused me.)

The most amusing bit to me in the video is when the words "science by vote" came up.
I had to raise a smile as the irony of Judy putting this remark in made me laugh.
She has done zero experiments so maybe she should try "science by science" before she stars lecturing those who actually do science.
Its a shame she feels she has to spend a large amount of time attacking Jones and Harriet (what did Harriet ever do to upset her anyway) instead of actually answering their criticisms or actually doing science to proving her theories. By just attacking her critics or those who want clarification instead of answering them, she discredits herself as if her theory is sound, it should be able to stand up on its own.
She seems to take criticisms of her work as some kind of personal attack.
She should just answer her critics rather than shoot the messenger IMO.

Posted by gooty64 (here)
I watched the whole thing.
Pretty good.
So what is her whole point?
I get that "truthers" are bad.
Clearly she is an agent imho.

I don't think she is disinfo. I think she is just plain wrong and a bit misguided. But her heart is in the right place. That is my honest opinion. Not a popular one I know.

[gooty64]

Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dxSjCanohp8

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by gooty64 (here)
So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question."

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

That video is not available ... sorry.

[gooty64]

Ok, I fixed it. These new youtube video codes and numbers are so long and more complicated than before.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by gooty64 (here)
Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

That video is not available ... sorry.

[modwiz]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
Good question Paul and thanks for asking. I'll refer you to this short video, this young man says it better and more succinctly than I can.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by gooty64 (here)
So what is her whole point?

I get that "truthers" are bad.

Clearly she is an agent imho.

Judy Wood does a better job of explaining her point than I can. If you understood, but disagreed, that would be one thing. But to insinuate that she doesn't have a point, or that she's an "agent" ... well ... that suggests to me that you missed her point.

I'd ask what your point was in making this post, but like my Dad used to say, when I objected to the way he answered some question of mine, "Son, if you didn't wanna hear the answer, maybe you shouldn't have asked the question."

I will not question Judy Woods science. Just her motive. This is a murder mystery and she is focused on what dunnit rather than who dunnit. Once you have the criminals in custody, what done it will all come out. So focus on what rather than who is smokescreen, or disinfo. Even if the technical info is correct. She is changing the subject in a way that is not obvious.

We want to know who, not what.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by modwiz (here)
I will not question Judy Woods science. Just her motive. This is a murder mystery and she is focused on what dunnit rather than who dunnit. Once you have the criminals in custody, what done it will all come out. So focus on what rather than who is smokescreen, or disinfo. Even if the technical info is correct. She is changing the subject in a way that is not obvious.

We want to know who, not what.

If you want to know the "who dunnit", that's fine. Go for it.

Your preference to focus on that question in no way indicates whether Judy's motives are questionable, and she certainly is not "changing the subject in a way that is not obvious". She quite up front that she's looking at the how ... that's entirely obvious.

Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times.

To my way of thinking, she's right that solving a "murder mystery" starts with figuring out what happened. Depending on the results of that investigation (and a difficult investigation it has been in this case, with the several layers of lies and disinfo thrown up at us), different answers to the "who dunnit" become more likely.

I wonder about those who make insinuations as to her motives being questionable, based on the flimsy grounds that they are interested in some different question ... what are their motives ?

[gripreaper]

Posted by Paul (here)
Both the who and the how are important, for various reasons, to various people, at different times

With all due respect Paul, it's been ten years since the event, and are we still discussing whether nano-thermite was planted in the towers and charges went off, or whether particle beam technology was used?

Nothing against Judy Wood, for I think she has done a stellar job in her extensive research, and the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth as well.

But, is it not time to quit focusing on whether there was a second shot from the grassy knoll and shine the light on the murderous psychopaths who did this? Otherwise, the discourse never changes and decades turn into centuries and the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

I am with Modwiz on this one. It's time to get the bastards who did this and roll back all the illegal draconian measures which have been foisted on us as a result of this fraud.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
I am with Modwiz on this one. It's time to get the bastards who did this and roll back all the illegal draconian measures which have been foisted on us as a result of this fraud.

I wasn't recommending you or modwiz not do that.

Indeed, I hope you do, and I will at times contribute in what ways I can to such efforts.

Modwiz wrote something else ... to which I disagreed.

[onawah]

Figuring out what technology was actually used is a big step on the way to uncovering who did it.
When the evidence is conclusive enough that the official story was a fabrication, then the question as to who was behind it will take center stage.
I don't understand enough about the technical aspects to see why the young man in this video is so critical of Judy Wood's work

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dxSjCanohp8

But it's encouraging that questions continue to be asked and the disinfo agents have still not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up, imho...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
When the evidence is conclusive enough that the official story was a fabrication, then the question as to who was behind it will take center stage.

I wouldn't wait to look into the who, or the why ...

This is not an either-or situation.

Different people, with different expertise, interests, opportunities, ..., can focus on different aspects of this, at the same time.

I hope those who are interested in the "what happened" and "how it happened" have taken the opportunity to listen to this excellent presentation of Judy Wood's.

[onawah]

Agreed, Paul. It doesn't have to be a linear progression of events, and hopefully it won't be.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
... and the disinfo agents have still not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up, imho...

Yes it is encouraging that the disinfo agents (such as alienscientist, in my view) have not succeeded in hushing the whole subject up (thanks to the dedication of people such as Judy Wood, in my view.)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Is it possible to disagree with Judy would without being called a disinfo agent or a shill?
This is an honest question.
Im starting to think its not. I have seen on this forum and others on the net that those that don't agree with her ideas have this unfair title thrust on them. It seems to be a default position for many of her supporters. Its a shame.

People mentioned motive earlier on this thread. Here is a great little video that puts it together: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...le-Deniability

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Is it possible to disagree with Judy would without being called a disinfo agent or a shill?

Yes.

Notice the manner in which the disagreement was presented above in the posts and in alienscientist's video -- name calling, innuendo, misinformation, and the other usual tricks of the disinfo business.

I occasionally call out some of these tricks when I see them, as above.

From what I can tell, the goal seems to be to mire any thread that is usefully presenting the work of Judy Wood in the muck of dissension, disinformation and conflict, so that any ordinary person who might find something useful there will be driven away.

That's why I split off this thread.

[Akasha]

I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I think its a good idea you split the thread. It keeps misunderstanding and friction to a minimum. Plus there is already the other thread were myself and others are debating her work in a calm way.

[Akasha]

Posted by Akasha (here)
I'm in no way trying to be confrontational here but can a "Wood Skeptic" point me to material which sensibly and comprehensively (and conventionally) explains the bizarrely partially melted vehicle phenomena? This is an aspect of 9/11 that has continued to bug me, the attempted explanations that I have come across being nowhere near satisfactory. Cheers.

[observer]

The single point that is being missed by those objecting to Dr. Judy Woods conclusions:

• If we were all to focus only on who did it, and ignore the how we could spend years sifting through the paper trails of evidence attempting to prove or disprove any particular suspect.
  
  
• If, on the other hand, we focus on the how, and from that focus we conclude Dr. Wood's hypothesis to be correct, we eliminate all the possible who's down to only one single entity - the global elite with their exclusive access to this type of weaponry.
  
  
• If one accepts all the other theories of aviation fuel, thermite, mini-nukes, etc. the list of perpetrators is endless.
  
  
• If one accepts Dr. Wood's theory, the list of possible perpetrators is narrowed-down to one group - the hyperdimensional controlleed-global elite/international banking network complex.