9/11 Weather Anomalies & Field Effects (Dr Wood)

[cb_brooklyn]

A new groundbreaking paper by former Clemson University Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Dr Judy Wood, on Hurricane Erin on 9/11 has been published on her personal website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

A press release by Andrew Johnson regarding this paper has been published as well:

New Study by former Professor Examines Hurricane Erin on 9/11/01

Dr. Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, has posted a new study which highlights the possible links between events on 9/11 and the occurrence in the Atlantic ocean of Hurricane Erin.

continued...
http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-study-by-former-professor-examines-hurricane-erin-on-9-11-01.html

[americana]

[QUOTE=cb_brooklyn;362653]A new groundbreaking paper by former Clemson University Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Dr Judy Wood, on Hurricane Erin on 9/11 has been published on her personal website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/
QUOTE]

So, once again . . . I love new ideas.

BUT, you really cannot call pages and pages of photos and not much text a scientific paper.

Her ideas may indeed be groundbreaking and challenge received ideas, but there is no real cogent argument which builds upon itself, ending in a strong conclusion.

For example, in Wood's selection of hurricane pictures, she shows a car with "selective rust". Is she making a parallel between the rust that she points out in pictures of the World Trade Center 9/11 incident, and this "rust"? If so, then lay it out! I kept clicking on the red headline text to see if there was more. Sadly, there wasn't.

If Wood sees the WTC disaster having odd effects that she feels are caused by directed weather, then the reader/ viewer goes away feeling a bit bombarded by extraneous information. In a published scientific paper in a journal with texts reviewed by peers, do you think that the authors break into their arguments to cite entire articles by other authors? NO!

This is all very intriguing, but the manner in which it's presented is completely distracting.

[cb_brooklyn]

Dr Wood is merely presenting the data, and an analysis of the data.

I personally consider this important. Not only does it get closer to exposing the real 9/11 perps, but also exposes free energy technology that civilization should be using for productive purposes.

[john white]

Dr Wood is merely presenting the data

Absolutely none of which is anything to do with her or any work she has actually done or been part of

and an analysis of the data

A bunch of claims about what it means totally unsupported by anyone producing the data shes making claims about

So what we have here is "Judy Wood makes up claims which I believe is important says 'CB Brooklyn' "

[john white]

"And btw shes a hero of exposing free energy by making up claims about other peoples work and slapping them on her website! Judy's so cool! Yayyyy"


^^^^

Judy Wood is acting to obscure the truth behind "free energy", NOT reveal it!

[cb_brooklyn]

John White does not want the real truth of 9/11 to come out simply because he does not like it.

[mr_self_destruct]

The more I see by her, the more I think she's either a crank or a disinfo agent.

[john white]

John White does not want the real truth of 9/11 to come out simply because he does not like it.

No, John White DOES want the truth about 9/11 to come out which is why he asks questions and challenges bullshit

As for liking the truth about 9/11: What CB, do you LIKE the truth about 9/11? You want the truth to come out becuase you like it? So whats your point? That your the same as me?!

Oh how you must wish you were! Unfortuantely you fall short, both in the courage and integrity stakes

After all, who are you? Yet here I am as myself, provably and obviously so

Meanwhile, is it not more the truth that YOU do not like the fact that my summary of the value of Wood's "work" is woefully accurate

[mr_self_destruct]

That your the same as me?!

Oh how you must wish you were! Unfortuantely you fall short, both in the courage and integrity stakes

After all, who are you? Yet here I am as myself, provably and obviously so


No offence but you do come across as pretty arrogant sometimes.

[john white]

No offence but you do come across as pretty arrogant sometimes.

Indeed.

And I dont care

[mr_self_destruct]

I thought you would, if you want your truth to prevail. Because your attitude is hardly likely to change peoples' opinion, in fact it's more likely to make them belligerently stick to it.

On the one side we've got masonfree party mouthing off with poorly constructed insults, and on the other there's you who seems to think you know it all...neither is particularly constructive, would you not agree?

[john white]

I thought you would, if you want your truth to prevail. Because your attitude is hardly likely to change peoples' opinion, in fact it's more likely to make them belligerently stick to it.

On the one side we've got masonfree party mouthing off with poorly constructed insults, and on the other there's you who seems to think you know it all...neither is particularly constructive, would you not agree?

Thats one way of looking at it

How I look at it (from a lot of experiance Im sorry to say) is that I cant be doing with it

I state my POV, back it up with evidence, and what happens after this is not my business

Have you noticed that David Icke is also a little "arrogant"? :) Alex Jones? anyone actually getting info out?

The point is that I'm not going to type 200 words to put out sops to other feelings when 10 will do and other peoples feelings are their responsibility

But as is also well known, when people actually want to have a conversation with me and engage in truthseeking together, then I'm happy to expend a little more time and energy letting a more warm and "human" conversation take place

The Core No Planers, regretably, simply arnt worth that to a great extent... and dont assume I havnt tried... I certainly have. These days they get what they have shown they are worth

Now if that doesnt jive with how someone else thinks this "debate" should be conducted, then fine, get involved in conducting it personally yourself, thats certainly fine with me, I'd love to see more members posting more threads with more info and more questions. But I'm not responsible for people not doing so however people want to decide my posting "looks"

[mr_self_destruct]

Would it not be better to completely avoid this kind of abrasive dialogue with the core no-planers? Because you said yourself you have tried to engage with them, with no result. If you are continuing to try and debate with them because you don't want others to be swayed by their arguments, I would suggest that most reasonable people can judge for themselves what rings true and what doesn't! You're only damaging your own credibility and that of your argument.

[john white]

Would it not be better to completely avoid this kind of abrasive dialogue with the core no-planers? Because you said yourself you have tried to engage with them, with no result. If you are continuing to try and debate with them because you don't want others to be swayed by their arguments, I would suggest that most reasonable people can judge for themselves what rings true and what doesn't! You're only damaging your own credibility and that of your argument.

Am I? Don't I?

When I say I dont care I do mean it: I dont care: what others think or why they think it: its their business: not mine. I'm reponsibility for my thoughts and taking responsibility for my actions: which I do. You dont see me denying anything, do you?

But I can still question them and challenge them: I have the right, not least in part becuase I challenge and question myself

Its called freedom

The alternative you are starting to lay our there is actually the road to self-consorship

Its my opinion we dont have time for that crap

[mr_self_destruct]

Yes, you have the right, but why would you want to? You say we "don't have the time for that crap", but you're partly responsible for encouraging it...

If anyone is trying to impose censorship and restrict freedom it's you...if you just let the no-planers go about with their business then most reasonable people will see the argument for what it is.

[john white]

Yes, you have the right, but why would you want to? You say we "don't have the time for that crap", but you're partly responsible for encouraging it...

If anyone is trying to impose censorship and restrict freedom it's you...if you just let the no-planers go about with their business then most reasonable people will see the argument for what it is.

LOL

Now i'm encouraging it?

Ha!

Fact is I've barely posted on this issue this year apart from a bit of a spate the last few days and this section was filling up with NPT all on its own without my input

Its the people doing the posting who are "responsible" and I wont have my expression taken as a factor in that

Better to shut up and say nothing huh?

Well frankly: fuck that

No one HAS to say anything, I dont have to say anything, but I wont have it that my stating my POV is responsible for the behaviour of the Judy Woods or this world pouring their shite onto the net

She'd be doing it if I'd never said a peep about 9/11 (or anything else at all): be assured about THAT!