WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D

[Kyle Burnett]

Wood clearly presents theories as theories. Orling presents theories as facts.

Again, neither are presenting theories in the scientific sense, just hypotheses. As for Wood, I've yet to see her present anything with clarity, and rather have found she generally resorts to making her arguments by begging the question. However, I've also seen her state her "theories" as if they were facts, for example, in her Request for Correction to NIST, she cites as evidence:

The "holes" that are only adequately explained based on unusual energy effects, consistent with the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

So, where's an example of a directed energy device producing holes like those in WTC 6? Wood, like Orling, has no actual theory, just lame hypotheses which they can't even attempt to put to the test of experimental confirmation.

...did you ever answer Kyle's question about how the towers defied Newton's Third Law?

Please note that's not quite what I suggested. The towers, being physical objects, adhered perfectly to the laws of physics, while it's only false explanations of there destruction which doesn't, Bazant's explanation flagrantly violating Newton's third law being one notable example. But no, Jeffery is either unable of comprehending that fact, or simply unwilling to acknowledge as much.