Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:KISS was really the Beatles--that's why they wore make up.

IS TRUE

Balderdash!

Everyone knows the Beatles were Klaatu.

Which seems as good an excuse as any to post this video of the Carpenters covering the Klaatu song, Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WZvlCwkYjE&feature=related[/youtube]

site that posted youtube

These questions haven't gone away even 11 years later....

Kid what do you think of Dr. Judy Wood's claims re: WTC site?

ptk wrong link? there are no questions there.

Is there somewhere I can read a summary of Wood's work without buying her book? Hopefully one that doesn't smell like crazy...

Philly the Kid wrote:

site that posted youtube

These questions haven't gone away even 11 years later....

Tried to watch this and got a BSoD WHAT'S THE MAN TRYING TO HIDE FROM ME

it's a fact that their apostrophe misusage is appalling

that say's a lot about a person

phatj wrote:Is there somewhere I can read a summary of Wood's work without buying her book? Hopefully one that doesn't smell like crazy...

Never mind, she's crazy

http://www.journalof911studies.com/lett ... ourley.pdf

Woody wrote:Kid what do you think of Dr. Judy Wood's claims re: WTC site?

I think it's very powerful and thorough, and she's not very hyperbolic and seems to shy away from asserting theories about who and why, and just describes the science.

No offense, ptk, but anyone with even a tiny background in science would look at her work and think she's an idiot. Even if I put aside the preposterous claims, her methods and conclusions are shoddy to say the least. I have no idea how she got her PhD because she clearly doesn't understand how to do research. Seriously, she's a horrible scientist. Again, I'm just talking about the way she does her science, not any claims she's making.

Monkeyboy wrote:No offense, ptk, but anyone with even a tiny background in science would look at her work and think she's an idiot. Even if I put aside the preposterous claims, her methods and conclusions are shoddy to say the least. I have no idea how she got her PhD because she clearly doesn't understand how to do research. Seriously, she's a horrible scientist. Again, I'm just talking about the way she does her science, not any claims she's making.

Well, honestly I didn't know of her work til woody questioned me and so I looked her up. I found two recent youtubes of a lecture/preso she gave in the UK for two hours. It was less about her positing a "new theory" or "asserting a conspiracy" and demonstrating with some compelling force that the buildings sort of just turned to dust.

Maybe there are some other people out there who refute her preso and have counter-explanations but she asked a lot of hard questions. Talked about the weight of the buildings being 1.2mm tons and none of that debris existing? That the force of that weight would likely have ruptured a retaining wall that keeps part of the river out from downtown and have been recorded on seismic measuring instruments, she used a lot of live footage in slow-motion and photos, and diagrams and to a lay person like myself, it was pretty interesting. She refutes the nuke, bombs, thermite stuff too as she had a lot to say about heat, fire, temperatures that would have caused effects that didn't seem to occur. I doubt many will want to wade through 2 hours of lecture, it's slow, she's not a dynamic speaker - and she never proffered a "this is who did it" and I don't know much about the science she was inferring might have been involved -- but she used some good analogies to things that occur in nature that can cause some of these phenomena.

As always, these things are one-sided. Someone does a preso and it's not a panel of people with competing view points. But it was definitely some new ideas I had not known of before, and it piqued my interest.

The day 911 happened, my immediate first thought was "inside job". And as the days right after unfolded I was chewing on the bits and pieces of things that were popping up in the alternative media. I'm less certain about things I felt more certain of in 2001-2002-2003, today.

I do know, we have not been told the truth. That much I know. And that the event has been manipulated after the fact to achieve social and political ends, and several generations have been psychologically conditioned to have emotional reactions around this "uber-event".

I stumbled on the same old voices on a FB page the other day, and it was pretty much the same "24 facts" that have been repeated by that world for a long time. Just reminded me that I've never been satisfied with the explanations that are accepted by most. Judy Wood just added a lot of new questions for me. She also does not have the classic "over hyped" whack-job persona. She seems just like one of these mid-level scientists who just said, "something isn't adding up here" and dug in to and has at least put out some challenging information to chew on.

Maybe she's a front for some Lyndon Larouche type or some other agenda, or her science chops aren't for real. I don't have time to research her. I did run a fast search on her name and words like "nut job" and "debunked" and I couldn't find anything substantial refuting her analysis? Maybe one of you has a good link. I'd happily read it.

People get really angry around 911 and people who won't let it just "settle in" as a resolved matter, that we all know the story of. Planes crashed in by Bin Laden's men, the jet fuel exploding, melted the structure it collapsed. End of story.

Arguments like, it's too big -- too big of a story to be covered up at that level and by now 12 years later it would have to have been leaked. That line of reasoning has never held water for me. I no longer assert any specific theory. I don't know. I just know that it never sat right with me, way too many questions about way too many things to believe it was remotely as presented to the public.

It's telling that your first thought about 9/11 was inside job and not unspeakable tragedy. I always thought conspiracy theories were born from doubt in the explanation and not in the actual observation of the event.

I think we were lied to about a lot of 9/11, too, ptk. I just don't think this women offers any kind of real answers. She's selling books and making money doing lectures to a niche market.

The whole 9/11 thing has been deliberately conflated with Iraq and that whole agenda by the people in charge at the time. Trying to sift out the truth from their mass of lies trying to pin the job on someone else is a long-term job for historians, I guess. I think it's clear the Saudis were involved, if not directly then at least through funding.

Who are the leading suspects for the inside job posits? That the Bushies were so evil that they'd murder thousands of Americans as a prelude to war? Was it the jooz, being the WTC was owned by a billionaire Jewish dude? Did he do it for the insurance, or part of a conspiracy to get the US to kill alot of Arab Muslims? I'm not being sarcastic or smartassy, just curious about who is thought to be behind the conspiracy.

BTW, an example of an infamous thermite reaction is...

slugsrbad wrote:It's telling that your first thought about 9/11 was inside job and not unspeakable tragedy. I always thought conspiracy theories were born from doubt in the explanation and not in the actual observation of the event.

c'mon

it went without saying that I was shocked and horrified like everyone else that day. i just immediately was suspicious because I believe that MOST large scale world events of this nature are inside-jobs

i'm sure it says something about me, but it doesn't mean my instincts were wrong or warranted

yeah it does

Philly the Kid wrote: I believe that MOST large scale world events of this nature are inside-jobs

I believe the opposite, to keep such massive undertakings a secret is damn near impossible

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote: I believe that MOST large scale world events of this nature are inside-jobs

I believe the opposite, to keep such massive undertakings a secret is damn near impossible

I kinda think conspiracy theories make folks feel safer. After all, you can't crank up a big conspiracy easily so these big huge tragic things won't happen all that often. Much less often than say, some loner with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle killing the President of the United States.

It somehow makes folks feel safer to believe in Big Government/Cuban/Mafia conspiracies.

And yeah. Keeping massive undertakings a secret is pretty hard.