02-04-2011, 10:09 PM
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd Wrote:Jack White. You stated "I doubt that there is anything in the book
that would be new to me. I CAN afford the book, but feel I do
not need it. The people who need it are the uninformed. I am
informed." You are "presuming" without reading the book by the use of "doubt" that the "Where Did the Towers Go" = Dr. Wood's webpage. This is a totally False premise and foundation for a discussion. Then you proceed to "feel" [have a belief or impression, esp. without an identifiable reason] qualifies you to have a meaningful discussion based upon some sort foundation that the "Book" = "website", wherein you admit you have never read the book. You have impeached yourself and any logic that could be attributed to a discussion to admit that you are informed about what is contained within the Book without ever reading the Book. I will not take the time to reinvent (recast) Dr. Wood's book to you, which I can't anyway.
And further, you have in reality insulted Dr. Wood's integrity and intellect with the hundreds of hours or probably closer to thousands of hours she has invested in her new book as being of no value as it is already presented in her website.
I spent many hours on Dr. Wood's website prior to her new book, wherein I did this checking out her evidence to make up my mind that this was not a PsyOps site and that she had real empirical evidence, which I can affirmatively state without any DOUBT, she IS NOT of PsyOps world and she had real empirical evidence. I can further state that the presentation in her new Book not only contains new information, but as you should hopefully know, but Books provide information in a logically format, wherein Dr. Wood's book is presented in a textbook type format totally different from a website.
I have first hand knowledge of both the website and her new Book and you are totally wrong. Sorry, no Cigar.
Your "standing" (credibility) is even beyond the realm of the ilk of "hearsay evidence", so I find this may be useful to your misapprehensions. I have first-hand knowledge of both the Book and the website. This is from Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 276, 277[page number 277](1913) quoting "Queen [1813]", to wit:
Queen v. Hepburn (1813) 7 Cranch, 290, 295, 3 L. ed. 348, 349, was a suit in which the petitioners claimed freedom, and certain depositions were rejected by the trial court as hearsay. This court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, said: 'These several opinions of the court [meaning the trial court] depend on one general principle, the decision of which determines them all. It is this: that hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any specific fact, which fact is in its nature susceptible of being proved by witnesses who speak from their own knowledge. . . . It was very justly observed by a great judge [FN4] that 'all questions upon the rules of evidence are of vast importance to all orders and degrees of men; our lives, our liberty, and our property are all concerned in the support of these rules, which have been matured by the wisdom of ages, and are no revered from their antiquity and the good sense in which they are founded.' One of these rules is that 'hearsay' evidence is in its own nature inadmissible. That this species of testimony supposes some better testimony which might be adduced in the particular case is not the sole ground of its exclusion. It intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practised under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inaddmissible. . . . The danger of admitting hearsay evidence is sufficient to admonish courts of justice against lightly yielding to the *277 introduction of fresh exceptions to an old and well-established rule, the value of which is felt and acknowledged by all. If the circumstance that the eyewitnesses of any fact be dead should justify the introduction of testimony to establish that fact from hearsay, no man could feel safe in any property, a claim to which might be supported by proof so easily obtained. . . . This court is not inclined to extend the exceptions further than they have already been carried.'"
You are going to have to read the book available at http://wheredidthetowersgo.com or your ipse dixit pontifications are valueless.
The party is over. 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 will be made abundantly clear.
Ralph
You are attacking the wrong person. Go attack someone who believes
the official conspiracy theory. I do not have 50 bucks in loose change to
spend reading about something I already agree with. Nobody yet has
written of any NEW information in the book that is not on Judy's website.
If someone want me to read the book, please send me a free copy, and
I will gladly do so. If not, quit annoying me. You are wasting your time
attacking me. I was one of the original 911 researchers in 2001. Visit
my website to learn what I think. I assume you have not.
http://www.911studies.com/
I do not respond to any messages from horse's posteriors, even if well
intentioned.
Jack