"Real Scientists do not use words like “Ray Beam”, “Dustified”, “Fuzzyblobs”, “Fuzzball”, “Jellification”, “Transmutation”, “Cheetos”, “Snowball” when describing 9/11."

Real scientists are also human beings that use dumbed down language to interact efficiently with the less educated masses. It happens all the time in astrophysics/cosmology with the more public-facing figures like Neil Tyson and Brian Greene. I can't recall them using such fantastical terms, but they still use dumbed down language.

Maybe if you say it a 3rd time something will happen?

We will never know how exactly they brought the towers down. All of the photos/videos of the event are fake/doctored in some way. Clues forum did good work on this.

She's a strange bird. If you stay in her narrow perspective you can come away thinking she has a case. Once you wander beyond that perspective unanswerable questions do arise.

The single video she uses as evidence for the spire becoming dustified shows her flaws.

Very few "Real Scientist" have described 9/11. She filled the void and captured good hearted people who want the truth. She feels she can use these new terms because in her theory what's being observed hasn't been described in public. It doesn't take many questions to see her theory exists in a narrow confine.

Point stands? You're displaying the ability to turn off discussion. You don't attract bees with vinegar.

Agreed. We don't win arguments with ad hominems and attacks on credibility. She's either a scientist or she's not. So you move on and look at her work. Attack the work, not the person.

You might read my comments again and actually establish a reason to ask me these questions. You're coming across as combative and irrational.

What's more. Judy Wood has thousand of followers because she creates a compelling narrative. You're attacking anything that moves which makes you look weak.

1. No she thinks the dust is red herring.
2. She ignores it because it makes her story untrue.
3. Because she needs them to conform to her narrative.
4. Because it makes her story untrue.
5. Because Judy Woods is a disinformation specialist.
6. Because her narrative is less compelling.
   

Judy poisoned the well with her legal actions from the start. She made us all look like hostile kooks in the eyes of the people who may have wanted to investigate 9/11. I hadn't thought about her for the past yer until your post. Sad day.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Seems like a year. Go kiss Judy.

If your criteria for falsehood is the words she uses rather than her evidence, then you're not trying very hard, shill.

i smell a rat - create a flamewar

ignore it folks all theories are worthy of consideration not petty divisive bullshit

I've watched one of her presentations and thought it was pretty interesting. She could be disinfo I guess. How is the spire thing disinfo tho? What happened to it if it didn't turn to dust mid air? Also do you not find it extremely odd that one of the 'figure heads' for 9/11 truth is a guy who helped shut down the funding on cold fusion research?

I think you've made a great case here. If there were any merit to JW's work, then ae911truth would include it in their work. But there isn't evidence. They are evidence-based. The only thing that is very fishy and that JW has said that actually is a problem is the conservation of mass issue.

There was very little rubble at ground zero compared to the mass of the building. So the 'dustification' is actually a real thing, much of the mass quite literally went up in smoke. Now this can also be explained by ultra high temps in a controlled demolition, in other words, some of the steel itself appeared to have been evaporated, unless that video of the rubble was taken after FEMA had removed a lot of it. But as far as mass goes, it's only guessing by videographic and pictoral information--the mass of the rubble. The fact is that FEMA was quick to exfiltrate the rubble as fast as they damn well could, interfering with our assessment of the truth of the matter. In other words, because of their obvious crime cover up, we can't be sure how much mass was in the rubble.

edit:

Why does Judy Wood ignore the reports of Molten Steel? Why does she claim the pile was cold?

Yep that's when I abandoned this investigation into her work. Ground temps in some areas were over 2200F for 4 months. FOUR months

With all due respect. I just don't want to talk about it anymore. If you read that I'm a disciple of Judy Wood you are poor at reading comprehension. It was a controlled demolition.

the mass wasnt at groundzero cos it was all over new york as dust

cant upvote anything with her name attached, sorry

she's a flake

the mass wasnt at groundzero cos it was all over new york as dust