Re: La teoria di Judy Wood: fantascienza o realtà?
Inviato da Oscar Jager il 18/9/2014 18:09:03
A tal proposito, ovvero i cd. falsi amici, sarebbe interessante ( ma magari ci vorrebbe un altro post ).
In una discussione piuttosto recente nel forum di David Icke e stato postata una questione simile
Judy Wood, Simon Shack and Ace Baker: 9/11 Disinfo
Qui invece questo : The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research
[..]I own a copy of Dr. Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go? (sent to me by a reader)
[..]Wood posits that not only can plane impact and fires not account for what happened to the Twin Towers, neither can conventional controlled demolition.
[..]She believes that some kind of directed free energy weapon was responsible for the destruction, including the mid-air pulverization, of the buildings.[..]
She points out that had conventional explosives brought the buildings down, the material would have slammed into the ground with a great force, potentially causing serious damage to the “bathtub” keeping the Hudson River from flooding lower Manhattan
[..] the building hitting the ground would also have shown in the seismic evidence, which she contends it didn’t.
The very title of her book suggests her main point: that there was nowhere near enough rubble to account for the “collapse” of two 110-storey buildings. She contends that most of the material that made up the buildings was turned to dust and simply blew away.
[..]
[..]When people want to ridicule her, they refer to “space beams.” She does use the term “Star Wars beam weapons” but this is a reference to energy-weapon technology associated with the “Star Wars” missile defense program (the Strategic Defense Initiative). She says research on energy weapons goes back a century and remains classified.[..]
[..]I’d like to know what her detractors have to say about Hurricane Erin – how it headed straight for New York City, stopped on the morning of Sept. 11, then turned sharply away – all the while being virtually ignored by the media.
Here are a few questions that might be worth discussing concerning her research:
- Does the amount of rubble fit with two massive skyscrapers being brought down in a conventional demolition, with or without thermite?
- What could account for the lack of rubble?
- Why did so many cars burn (or melt) in such odd patterns – parts of vehicles melted, parts totally undamaged? Why were some vehicles flipped over and others not? And why did blowing paper and leaves on trees seem not to burn in the midst of the burning cars?
- What caused massive “holes” in other World Trade Center buildings?
- What about her references to phenomena like buildings “lathering up,” being “dustified,” or steel beams resembling “rolled up carpets”?
- Is the photographic record that she bases much of her observations on reliable?
- For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
- For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?
[..]
E mi fermo qui, l'rticolo e' lunghissimo, non me ne ero mica accorto, ed e' un po' troppo per me
comunque
In una discussione piuttosto recente nel forum di David Icke e stato postata una questione simile
Judy Wood, Simon Shack and Ace Baker: 9/11 Disinfo
Qui invece questo : The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research
[..]I own a copy of Dr. Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go? (sent to me by a reader)
[..]Wood posits that not only can plane impact and fires not account for what happened to the Twin Towers, neither can conventional controlled demolition.
[..]She believes that some kind of directed free energy weapon was responsible for the destruction, including the mid-air pulverization, of the buildings.[..]
She points out that had conventional explosives brought the buildings down, the material would have slammed into the ground with a great force, potentially causing serious damage to the “bathtub” keeping the Hudson River from flooding lower Manhattan
[..] the building hitting the ground would also have shown in the seismic evidence, which she contends it didn’t.
The very title of her book suggests her main point: that there was nowhere near enough rubble to account for the “collapse” of two 110-storey buildings. She contends that most of the material that made up the buildings was turned to dust and simply blew away.
[..]
[..]When people want to ridicule her, they refer to “space beams.” She does use the term “Star Wars beam weapons” but this is a reference to energy-weapon technology associated with the “Star Wars” missile defense program (the Strategic Defense Initiative). She says research on energy weapons goes back a century and remains classified.[..]
[..]I’d like to know what her detractors have to say about Hurricane Erin – how it headed straight for New York City, stopped on the morning of Sept. 11, then turned sharply away – all the while being virtually ignored by the media.
Here are a few questions that might be worth discussing concerning her research:
- Does the amount of rubble fit with two massive skyscrapers being brought down in a conventional demolition, with or without thermite?
- What could account for the lack of rubble?
- Why did so many cars burn (or melt) in such odd patterns – parts of vehicles melted, parts totally undamaged? Why were some vehicles flipped over and others not? And why did blowing paper and leaves on trees seem not to burn in the midst of the burning cars?
- What caused massive “holes” in other World Trade Center buildings?
- What about her references to phenomena like buildings “lathering up,” being “dustified,” or steel beams resembling “rolled up carpets”?
- Is the photographic record that she bases much of her observations on reliable?
- For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
- For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?
[..]
E mi fermo qui, l'rticolo e' lunghissimo, non me ne ero mica accorto, ed e' un po' troppo per me
comunque
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=7&topic_id=7750&post_id=261007