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

[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:

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

[Jeffrey Orling]

I certainly am interested in the truth and if Dr. Wood has some interesting evidence, perhaps you can present it. I am not going to spend $50 to find out what she thinks the evidence is.

Is there something about this evidence that she has discovered which can only be learned by reading her book? Perhaps you can lend it to me?

How can you deduce I have no interest in the truth from the statement you quoted?

[Jack White]

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:

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

Abe...you are not paying attention. I am one of Judy Woods'
biggest fans and supporters. I resent being lumped with a
misinformation character like Orling.

I cannot comment on her book because I do not have a copy.
After I tell you that on my income tax we listed more than
$20,000 in uninsured medical expenses last year, perhaps
you will understand my frugality.

Jack

[Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd]

Yes, actually there is something I would like to say about the "book" precluding theories. The book isn't about theories. It is the ONLY comprehensive forensic investigation of the "what" and "how" of 911 in existence today -- Period.
When I attended school, you were required to read the book prior to having an open discussion of the issues and facts within the book in class. I am not here to tutor anyone specifically point by point of the empirical evidence, which is contained within the book Where Did the Towers Go.

Anyone that states they can't afford the book, I would take issue with. I live on a meager SS check way below the poverty level and I still found a way to get the book within my budget.

If someone has a specific point or fact that they would like to discuss or challenge the empirical evidence or don't understand from within the Book, then present it. We can both learn along with others on this list. Otherwise, a better use of my time would be talking to the Bald eagles in Alaska that fly by my place every day paying no heed to my comments, but at least I can enjoy the beauty and truth of the experience.

If you are seeking the "Truth", then purchase the Book.
The Best,
Ralph

[Jack White]

Yes, actually there is something I would like to say about the "book" precluding theories. The book isn't about theories. It is the ONLY comprehensive forensic investigation of the "what" and "how" of 911 in existence today -- Period.
When I attended school, you were required to read the book prior to having an open discussion of the issues and facts within the book in class. I am not here to tutor anyone specifically point by point of the empirical evidence, which is contained within the book Where Did the Towers Go.

Anyone that states they can't afford the book, I would take issue with. I live on a meager SS check way below the poverty level and I still found a way to get the book within my budget.

If someone has a specific point or fact that they would like to discuss or challenge the empirical evidence or don't understand from within the Book, then present it. We can both learn along with others on this list. Otherwise, a better use of my time would be talking to the Bald eagles in Alaska that fly by my place every day paying no heed to my comments, but at least I can enjoy the beauty and truth of the experience.

If you are seeking the "Truth", then purchase the Book.
The Best,
Ralph

Ralph...I have read Judy's website dozens of times, and always
find something new. 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.

Jack

[Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd]

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

[Jack White]

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

[Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd]

Jack White, you stated earlier that "I CAN afford the book, but feel I do not need it." Now, you post "I do not have 50 buck in loose change to spend reading something I agree with." How can you agree with Dr. Wood's book, when you have not read it? Amazing accomplishment, i.e., book review or affirmation.

Great the conundrum is resolved. Then it is a true statement of yours that you agree with each and every empirical fact in Dr. Wood's Book and can be quoted that this true - right? Great.
And further, but more importantly you stand behind Dr. Wood's empirical evidence contained with her new book without reservation. GREAT!

Ballgame over.
We can't have a discussion if we agree on all issues, facts and empirical within her Book.
Wishing you the best and Welcome Aboard - you are the first to endorse Dr. Wood's book in the blog arena of the "911 Truthers (sic)."
I hope your approval isn't of the same ilk as Richard Gage's AE911 Truthers who attest to a "thermite/molten metal" document that was "peer reviewed" by Bentham Science Publishers that is attained with the ONLY standard being to send in a check for $800 as demonstrated and was exposed by a C.R.A.P. [Center for Research in Applied Phrenology] document that was accepted as being "peer reviewed" being a totally nonsensical document with consummation requiring a check to be sent to the United Arab Emirates. These folks proved their point and didn't pay the fee.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17...urnal.html
These folks didn't paid the fee, but they proved their point -- C.R.A.P. is that without the periods.
Ralph

[Charles Drago]

"Ralph,"

Please give us a heads-up when you're prepared to contribute anything of originality and merit to this discourse.

Jack White's contributions to the struggles for truth and justice in the JFK case and other deep political abominations are nearly unrivaled.

What we're getting from you are book blurbs and ad hominems.

You are fooling no one but the fools.

Charles Drago

[Jack White]

Thanks, Charles. I don't know why I even bother being
polite to assholes...beg pardon, I should have used the
more technically correct term sphincter...no matter which
side they are on. I hate it when clueless people like this
claim to be on the "right side"...they give us a bad name.

Hey...somebody give me the book and I will certainly
read it before donating it to UTA with all my other research
materials. But I do not intend to buy it just to give away.

Jack