Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood | |
Posted by: | Michael Brown | |
Date/Time: | 02/12/14 10:15:00 |
Fred/Dave/Russell, the official story is also an alternative theory, a theory that isn’t supported by any evidence so, presumably, this is why you present an argument put forward by a group that also asserts that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, only using a different type of weapon. You could, of course, have chosen the official story to challenge Dr Wood’s evidence, so it’s interesting that you haven’t. Plus which points of Dr Wood’s evidence are you challenging, or using a blanket ‘debunking’ claim by a third party to challenge her evidence? Do you even know? Considering the importance of this matter, I think it is most important that people first understand that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition rather than be too concerned about the type of weapon used. Once this is understood, people can, if they wish, look at things in finer detail to see how it was done. On the point of finer detail, who may be right – Dr Wood or A&Efor9/11Truth? Are either of them right? The only way to have any chance of establishing this is by comparing their claims with the evidence. Dr Judy Wood doesn’t actually make too many claims; she presents evidence, which scientifically disproves the official story whilst pointing out all of the weird behaviours of certain materials, behaviours which have only been publicly witnessed before in experiments involving the interaction of radio waves with magnetic fields. A&Efor9/11Truth on the other hand have not put forward any explanations for the weird behaviours of the different materials. In fact, they completely ignore the existence of this evidence; why might this be? I can only surmise. Dr Judy Wood can also only surmise. However, whilst most members of groups like A&Efor9/11Truth are probably well meaning people, she suspects that the leaders are actually ‘controlled opposition’. In other words, they are working for the US government, a government that knows that 9/11 has been exposed for the lie that it is, so acts to limit the amount of damage. In this case, damage limitation in respect of the very sensitive subject of Free Energy, which the evidence presented by Dr Wood shows was likely used on 9/11 in a weaponised form. Of course, you may still prefer to believe the claims made by A&Efor9/11Truth, and there may well be truth in some of their claims. Perhaps various types of weapons were used; but as you can see, if you think that you can disprove claims made by any party, you need to be specific about the claims, which you believe have been disproven, and explain how and why. |