My question for Judy Wood, since February of this year, after having bought and read her book is this:
On the second page of the preface to her book, she states:
"It may surprise you to learn that there is no actual, verifiable evidence confirming that airplanes crashed at any of the four locations on 9/11/01. However, as Dr. Reynolds shows, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary."
To me, that implies that the television footage and pictures of the second plane going into the South Tower aren't verifiable evidence, which I actually agree with, but how can we take the photos in her book as being verifiable evidence when they were also shown to us by the same media that showed us the plane videos?
Also, she says that you first have to look at what happened, then how it happened and then who did it. She says she has done the first two and then filed a court case to find out from NIST who did it. Her case was thrown out, but that's no reason not to speculate on the who by herself, as plenty of evidence points to who was likely involved in it, with specific names, and in general.
5 comments:
Moderators, thank you for removing that obnoxious comment.
No, I am not being sarcastic. I really do thank you.
My question for Judy Wood, since February of this year, after having bought and read her book is this:
On the second page of the preface to her book, she states:
"It may surprise you to learn that there is no actual, verifiable evidence confirming that airplanes crashed at any of the four locations on 9/11/01. However, as Dr. Reynolds shows, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary."
To me, that implies that the television footage and pictures of the second plane going into the South Tower aren't verifiable evidence, which I actually agree with, but how can we take the photos in her book as being verifiable evidence when they were also shown to us by the same media that showed us the plane videos?
Also, she says that you first have to look at what happened, then how it happened and then who did it. She says she has done the first two and then filed a court case to find out from NIST who did it. Her case was thrown out, but that's no reason not to speculate on the who by herself, as plenty of evidence points to who was likely involved in it, with specific names, and in general.
Interesting
The swamp thing is a nasty human being and that is why most of us delete his shit.
Not because we think that what he writes is true or not. No! It's because his delivery is most vile.
People here are too smart for your BS Swamp so you should go troll some other place where the IQs are lower.
How more obvious can you be Man?
Post a Comment