01-04-2011, 11:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2011, 01:09 AM by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez.)
Neither Mr. White nor Mr. Orling are addressing the subject matter of the thread, which is Dr. Wood's book. Why is that?
This thread is to discuss the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's book,
"Where Did the Towers Go?"
I commented in my initial post about how a previous thread about the book, started in January, was derailed for 67 pages. It looks like the same thing is happening here. The subsequent posts in this thread have been about speculation of hypothetical guesses of imaginings of..speculations.
Remember,
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein
That is, Mr. Orling's has clearly shown his credibility with this statement:
It also illuminates the fact that Mr. Orling has no interest in the truth of what happened on 9/11. In other words, Mr. Orling is choosing not to read a book that is literally FULL of well-referenced physical evidence because of his pre-conceived opinion of the book and it's author.
[size=12]I have already given my personal opinion on the book many times, including in the first post of this thread.
[/SIZE]
The moment of truth is here. The difference between those who want to expose the truth and those who want to cover up the truth is made abundantly clear.
Best wishes,
-Abe
This thread is to discuss the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's book,
"Where Did the Towers Go?"
I commented in my initial post about how a previous thread about the book, started in January, was derailed for 67 pages. It looks like the same thing is happening here. The subsequent posts in this thread have been about speculation of hypothetical guesses of imaginings of..speculations.
Remember,
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein
That is, Mr. Orling's has clearly shown his credibility with this statement:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I personally wouldn't spend $50 to read Wood's book which if I understand correctly presents a DEW or some other form of energy which was used to "dustify" the towers. I reject that thesis for the reasons stated above.
It also illuminates the fact that Mr. Orling has no interest in the truth of what happened on 9/11. In other words, Mr. Orling is choosing not to read a book that is literally FULL of well-referenced physical evidence because of his pre-conceived opinion of the book and it's author.
[size=12]I have already given my personal opinion on the book many times, including in the first post of this thread.
[/SIZE]
The moment of truth is here. The difference between those who want to expose the truth and those who want to cover up the truth is made abundantly clear.
Best wishes,
-Abe
9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com