Monday, August 27, 2012

Don Fox

9/11, Judy Wood and DEWs

20 comments:

  1. I've posted my show notes on my blog. The evidence Jim and I covered on the show elimates the official government account, Steve Jones' thermite theory and Judy Wood's DEW non-theory. 9/11 was a nuclear event. Enough time has been wasted on thermite and DEWs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No way a nuclear device was used on WTC 1 & 2;

      Delete
  2. How about providing us evidence to eliminate Chuck Boldwyn's thermite + mini-nukes theory? Thermite is an indispensable part of Chuck's theory. Chuck also believes WTC7 was destroyed in the same way as the Towers, and says the core columns of WTC7 were "thinned" by thermate. In the case of the Towers, thermate first sliced through the main columns which were not displaced. Then the nukes took over, and the nukes could not have done the destruction without thermate's action first.

    Since plenty of thermate or nanothermite or whatever was judged to be found, then you have to fit it into your Downing Street Memo theory -- fixing the intelligence around the policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see that my comment was deleted. Thank you for telling me what I need to know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This September Clues link shows it was a media fakery event. Enough time has been wasted on all theories since no one saw the actual controlled demolition. Lower Manhattan was evacuated that morning in preparation for the 9/11 movie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. you are both total douche bags. that's all she ever says is that the evidence points a certain way. totally freakin moronic that you still spin this..... grow some.

    ReplyDelete
  7. i feel sorry for you.. the epitome of the jealous geek at the lunch table who can't believe the nerd chick sat at another table. you make me want to vomit! she's the closest of all the theories but your ego wont let you not be a dick. i'm done listening to your tired analysis of your own data.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gee whiz more bashing of Judy Wood by James Fetzer. Why dont you mention the harassment and threats you have made against Judy, James? Here's an example of when you ambushed her on a radio show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDxCazAQTU Absolutely disgusting

    ReplyDelete
  9. "plasmoids".................................. youre a dick.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "fission bombs"........................................ wow, your shit is so tight. you should write a book. "the tridium was there 3 days later" whatever. nice guest.

    How about several devices were used to take the down the towers, therefore several trails were left and sniffing your own farts wont help anyone but yourself especially if you like the way your own farts smell.

    I wish Kevin Ryan, (the only one that will still be nice to you) would punch you in the face.

    Judy's theory stinks the least. sorry but i can tell you know this, so instead of building on it you think it will be better to shit on it. that is so lame. have some dignity for f's sake.

    "focus!"n youre so full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The myth that I "threatened" Judy if she talked about her discoveries is absurd on its face, given I was PROMOTING her work and INVITING her to speak. The TRUTH came out in this exchange on Veterans Today:

    Cold Wind
    August 24, 2012 - 10:56 am(Edit)
    The dynamics and interchange between Judy Woods and the author of this article are, for me, irrelevant to the fact both have made huge contributions to my understanding of what may have happened on 9-11. I am grateful for this, but I also understand to some annoyance brilliant people are often damned quirky!
    Reply

    rugbyzhgt
    August 24, 2012 - 1:54 pm(Edit)
    Cold Wind, No, there is no interchange between Dr. Wood and the author of this page. Dr. Wood is not a part of this, although Mr. Fetzer is trying hard to convince readers she is. Mr. Fetzer is merely making good on his threat to Dr. Wood that he would destroy her reputation if she exposed the truth about what happened on 9/11. That threat has been documented:

    9/11 and The Hutchison Effect - Handling the Truth 7444
    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=60

    Mr. Fetzer has not presented any evidence whatsoever that Dr. Wood is "attacking him." He is merely "misinterpreting" events and falsely attributing various events to Dr. Wood. Earlier today claimed Dr. Wood was responsible for shutting down this website but has now edited his post to read differently. Using phrases such as "seems like" or "probably" leaves wiggle room for "plausible deniability" to work around the legal charges of defamation. Mr. Fetzer has a long history of this which has been well documented.

    http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

    Is there any question as to why Mr. Fetzer has posted this attack piece on Dr. Wood?
    Reply

    Gordon Duff
    August 24, 2012 - 10:38 pm(Edit)
    I have a broader background than either Woods or Fetzer. I find Fetzer sane and polite. I find Woods neither sane nor polite.
    As for her book...junk science...self published and blithering.
    You are wasting your time. Fetzer likes to pull her tail, I find her inane and a time waster.
    Get a hobby, buy a dog.
    Reply

    Jim Fetzer
    August 25, 2012 - 6:30 am(Edit)
    EXCELLENT! Here we have a perfect example of the paranoid mind-set that typifies Dr. Judy Wood and her minions. I had interviewed Judy and John during a program in 2008. He came across as flaky and superficial. I had already received reports, which even his supporters have confirmed, that videos that have been attributed to him were faked. Ace Baker had already shown how easy it was to fake them and had offered John $100,000 to let Ace and me come to his lab to verify his claims - an offer he refused!

    I was ADVISING and WARNING Judy that her association with John Hutchison entailed the risk that her own reputation might suffer. That is the OPPOSITE OF A THREAT. I was not suggesting that I or anyone else would HARM her reputation. I was suggesting how she might AVOID HARM TO HER REPUTATION. It is indicative of the dementia that seems to infuse the whole Judy movement that a case in which I was attempting to PROTECT HER FROM HARM has been spun into a THREAT OF HARM AGAINST HER.

    It demonstrates the insanity of Judy Wood and her tiny cult. That they could take my sincere advice as to how she could AVOID HARM TO HER REPUTATION and construe it as INTENDING HARM TO HER REPUTATION displays mental illness. I am glad that we have reached the heart of the matter. This is important enough that, had I appreciated its centrality to THE JUDY MYSTIQUE and her savage and unwarranted attacks upon me, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ARTICLE. So I want to thank rugbyzhgt for helping to expose the profound mental confusion of Dr. Judy Wood.
    Reply

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim you are probably the most derided researcher in both the JFK and 9/11 research communities and I can see why. Isn't it funny how you are always so innocent yet you use your show as a mouthpiece to bash other researchers like Jim Dieugenio and Judy Wood. When they retort to your mud-slinging you cry foul. i'm using this pseudonym as to protect myself from the harassment you directed at Judy Wood.

      It is known that you have also threatened physical harm on others including Anthony Marsh in the Education forum.

      You have lost my respect Jim and these standover tactics are not fitting of a Professor.

      Ive talked personally to Judy Wood and she just wants you to leave her alone. Your idea of defending her is do what i say or else. Thats like the scheming protection rackets where "we wont burn your store down if you pay us money"

      Jim think about the 9/11 movement and not your ego for a change

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Leave Judy Wood Alone said:

    "Jim you are probably the most derided researcher in both the JFK and 9/11 research communities and I can see why."

    People like you along with clowns like "stevie.t", can't "see" at all. Quit your childish insults and act like an intelligent adult. On second thought, just act like an adult and show some respect, since it's obvious you're devoid of intelligence.

    WLP

    ReplyDelete
  15. Don said:

    "9/11 was a nuclear event."

    I agree. So does Dimitri Khalezov and Jeff Prager. There is just no other explanation. Absolutely no other way such enormous skyscrapers be "dustified" the way they were.

    WLP

    ReplyDelete
  16. Using known technologies to explain unknown phenomenon's.. Sure nukes turn things to dust just like plane slide through buildings with no reactions and just like Santa is real.. None of these people care about the truth,

    Pretending you have the answer doesn't get you closer to it, No matter how bad you want it. its ok to know the answer.

    Nukes don't dustify anything.

    Anyone that wants to look at the evidence is considered Dr Woods Minions or part of a cult.. So does that make everyone who believes the offical story and does not want to look at the evidence one of James Fetzers Minions? Or part of James Fetzers ignore evidence cult?



    Discredit the researcher by insulting them to the public, while using there research to try and spin it in favor of there false beliefs. You think they would understand what explanatory power is. The fact is Dr Wood has not pretended to know what weapon was used. Like these fisher- price researchers. She looks at the evidence to figure out what happened. DEW is not a name for a single, specific weapon.. Dr Wood and the evidence both agree a directed energy weapon was used. These distractors choose to believe a kinetic energy weapon were used, name the exact weapon with no evidence to support it while claiming Dr Wood has proposed what weapon was used when she has only proposed the actual technology that was involved. The truth is none of us know the exact weapon was used. But thats ok for some of us. We don't need to pretend we know when we do not yet.. I do think its stupid to fight back and forth.. but that seems inevitable when most are running with their opinions and not the facts.

    ReplyDelete