NEW 9/11 PAPER BY DR JUDY WOOD: Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt

In this new paper (still under construction) Dr Wood exposes the information Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins want kept hidden:


"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt"

janedoe0911.tripod.com...


Let Dr Wood walk you through the paper in these recent interviews:

23 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (second half of mp3)
on "The Dynamic Duo"
(image numbers have been updated since this program)
/2zhjjn

25 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Ambrose Lane
on "www.weourselves.org"
Listen: One 25 min segment (mp3)
www.frankferg.com...



My opinion: Dr Wood is onto something!

[edit on 30-5-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

I am truly bewildered by this thread. I understand you're a staunch advocate of Dr Wood's theory - and I have no firm view on way or the other - but starting a thread linking to what amounts to yet another 9/11 photo-library (an unfinished one at that) does nothing to help promote an understanding of her theory.

I believe a forum is where one is meant to pass comment upon assertions or claims either made or reported by the poster. If you bothered to look at the written comments on the photos or the remarks made about them by Dr Wood in her two interviews, you might find yourselves a wee bit less bewildered.

As well as providing a link to a photo-library of photos, some of which are puzzling enough to require explanations from people at ATS, CB_Brooklyn also provided two links to radio interviews where Dr Wood made definite assertions about what she thinks may be the reason for spreading soil over areas of Ground Zero, for why steel girders rusted so quickly and for the odd qualities in the fine dust hanging in the air shortly after 9/11. He was inviting you to comment. Now, if you are all too lazy to do the spade work or think Dr Wood's claims about the possible use of DEW in destroying the twin towers are so ridiculous that you cannot even bother to investigate her latest findings, let alone comment upon them, well, that's your business. But it is not in the spirit of ATS to ignore research merely because you think it is wrong or because you are too lazy to investigate what claims are being made for a series of photos. Rather, you ought to be explaining to CB_Brooklyn why you think Dr Wood is in error or why you find nothing significant or odd in her new photos. That is, of course, if you can....

Originally posted by micpsi
I believe a forum is where one is meant to pass comment upon assertions or claims either made or reported by the poster. If you bothered to look at the written comments on the photos or the remarks made about them by Dr Wood in her two interviews, you might find yourselves a wee bit less bewildered.

As well as providing a link to a photo-library of photos, some of which are puzzling enough to require explanations from people at ATS, CB_Brooklyn also provided two links to radio interviews where Dr Wood made definite assertions about what she thinks may be the reason for spreading soil over areas of Ground Zero, for why steel girders rusted so quickly and for the odd qualities in the fine dust hanging in the air shortly after 9/11. He was inviting you to comment. Now, if you are all too lazy to do the spade work or think Dr Wood's claims about the possible use of DEW in destroying the twin towers are so ridiculous that you cannot even bother to investigate her latest findings, let alone comment upon them, well, that's your business. But it is not in the spirit of ATS to ignore research merely because you think it is wrong or because you are too lazy to investigate what claims are being made for a series of photos. Rather, you ought to be explaining to CB_Brooklyn why you think Dr Wood is in error or why you find nothing significant or odd in her new photos. That is, of course, if you can....

micpsi, thanks for your comments! Judy asked me to tell you that she's a fan of yours because you promote thinking as opposed to arguing an opinion.

My opinion: Dr. Wood has ZERO proof to go along with her theory. You can twist pictures around to fit any agenda, especially when they're used in an ambiguous and undefined way.

Energy weapons used to bring down the twin towers? Show me some scientific proof, please, not just pick-and-choose armchair science. Notice the "critics corner" link on her janedoe website is inactive? Maybe, just maybe, it's because she is simply looking at pictures and making hair-brained assumptions.

"Mist coming up off of the streets"?! What the hell is she talking about?!

With all due respect, her theory is just as valid as any other baseless conspiracy theory, but how can she use phrases like "smoking gun" when she is simply looking at pictures and making assumptions? I listened to both radio interviews and reviewed her site... I am very sorry, but if you have half of a brain, it is very easy to see that this diatribe is nothing except wild paranoia.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by PartChimp]

Originally posted by PartChimp
My opinion: Dr. Wood has ZERO proof to go along with her theory. You can twist pictures around to fit any agenda, especially when they're used in an ambiguous and undefined way.

Energy weapons used to bring down the twin towers? Show me some scientific proof, please, not just pick-and-choose armchair science. Notice the "critics corner" link on her janedoe website is inactive? Maybe, just maybe, it's because she is simply looking at pictures and making hair-brained assumptions.

"Mist coming up off of the streets"?! What the hell is she talking about?!

With all due respect, her theory is just as valid as any other baseless conspiracy theory, but how can she use phrases like "smoking gun" when she is simply looking at pictures and making assumptions? I listened to both radio interviews and reviewed her site... I am very sorry, but if you have half of a brain, it is very easy to see that this diatribe is nothing except wild paranoia.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by PartChimp]

it's called scientific analysis. Too bad you're not capable of it. Energy weapons were used. The evidence is crystal clear.

Patience, it is incomplete at this stage (she seems to be updating as I peruse the site).

The photographic evidence is overwhelming indeed, but to what explanation precisely? She neglects to say specifically where she's going with this, yet seems to be taking it somewhere interesting... Does her knowledge of moire interferometry contribute at all to her analysis?