In UK - Dr Judy Wood On 9/11 Anomolies..!

[jackovesk]

In UK - Dr Judy Wood On 9/11 Anomolies

Oct 30, 2011

Dr Judy Wood is one of the most controversial speakers regarding 9-11, yet her message is simple, and it is an examination of the evidence, I caught up with her while she was in Brighton, on the south coast of the UK.

vNfPB0As560

[Cidersomerset]

Thanks Jackovesk ...........She keeps to the science as she sees it..

Judy wood reminds me of Sheldons girlfriend on 'Big Bang Theory' I wonder if the writers based her on Judy !!!

If so what a compliment..LOL

8g9OszJFIzg

[jorr lundstrom]

Dr Judy Woods and John Lash on 9/11


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32217-Dr.-Judy-Wood-and-John-Lash-The-quintessential-talk-on-911

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Really gutted I could not go to this. I work in Brighton about 2 and a half mins from where this was and walk past it every day! I was off work for 2 days (nothing mms could not solve I might add!) and so missed it. Really wanted to talk to Judy and put my questions and concerns to her and record it. I dont think her ideas stand up very well at all. Maybe next time.

[Mad Hatter]

I dont think her ideas stand up very well at all.
I'll admit I haevn't read the book, but from that clip she simply appears to be claiming to have collected and presented evidence that has failed to be adequately addressed by the curentlty accepted theories for what went on.

If the inference to free electricity at the end of the clip means that she might personally feel the use of scalar (HAARP) weaponry may be a possible cause, my own research tells me that that could quite easily be so.

Thus I would appreciate it it you care to enlighten us further on any particular insight you may have.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

The short version is that every single one of her "proofs" can be explained without the need for invisable weapons and there is much stronger and better evidence for other alternatives that rely on hard physical proof and not imagination.

[jorr lundstrom]

Wot I hear Judy state is that this is proof for that they have this kind

of weapons. The oppositions state that this couldnt be done the way

she describes it because those kind of weapons doesnt exist and she

answers, this is the proof they do exist. This reminds me of the

reaction when science saw the first skins of an Okapi and concluded

it was a scam because nobody had seen such an animal. LOL

As if the skin wouldnt be evidence enough of its existence.

And then they found living specimens deep in the forrests of wot was

then Belgian Congo and brought them to Europe.

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/okapi.jpg


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/okapi2.jpg

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I have at long last started writing a post that covers some of this in more detail.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Wot I hear Judy state is that this is proof for that they have this kind

of weapons. The oppositions state that this couldnt be done the way

she describes it because those kind of weapons doesnt exist and she

answers, this is the proof they do exist.



Its nothing of the sort.
I am not saying these wepaons do not exsist.
I am saying that her evidence is not representative of her theories. The simplest explanation that fits all the observed data and experiments is that of demolition.
Its like me dropping something and it hits the floor and I say its space lasers rather than gravity that is the cause of this action. A massive leap of logic.
She has done zero experiments to back up her work. This is the scientific method and she does not follow it.

[haibane]

I dont think her ideas stand up very well at all.
I'll admit I haevn't read the book, but from that clip she simply appears to be claiming to have collected and presented evidence that has failed to be adequately addressed by the curentlty accepted theories for what went on.

If the inference to free electricity at the end of the clip means that she might personally feel the use of scalar (HAARP) weaponry may be a possible cause, my own research tells me that that could quite easily be so.

Thus I would appreciate it it you care to enlighten us further on any particular insight you may have.

You'd better investigate further yourself - I'd recommend starting off at her web site and there are lots of videos on Youtube. In the interview above she comes across as very reasonable, open minded and NOT jumping to any conclusions but rather ONLY presenting evidence, which AFAIK is a bit misleading to say the least.


The short version is that every single one of her "proofs" can be explained without the need for invisable weapons and there is much stronger and better evidence for other alternatives that rely on hard physical proof and not imagination.

+1 (^___^ )