"Part of the Club"
Sarah Sanders - you're our trolling hero, dropping a crumb trail, way to be part of the PLAN! ty.
Lawfags
Given ID: eaebc2 is shilling DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), Judy Wood, and Free Energy on the board on NUMEROUS occasions, it's starting to smell real fishy.
-
Also, the Anon posting this over and over, never answers any of the critical questions (seismic phenomena, etc.).
Can anyone explain the implications of Double Jeopardy in the case of 911 prosecution??
-
if the charges are wrong (e.g., it's NOT a DEW, but actually a NUKE, for example, used for each tower - in addition to NanoThermite), then what happens?
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/
snippet:
I’m not sure who to fault regarding the federal qui tam case of which Dr. Wood was a part. Was it her fault? Her co-claimants? Her lawyers? All of the above? I think all around they did a bad job. It would have been one thing to prove the science fraud of the NIST report, but the vacuum that this left they filled with things that they could not substantiate… on purpose. The lawyer should have known that they had no standing (e.g., from employment, involvement in creation of report) for even bringing their case up, so it was to be expected that it would get thrown out… and with it everything they presented.
I view the whole matter as a double-jeopardy ploy. By presenting a weak case that was easy to throw out, they prevented others — who might have had standing and better things to fill the created void — from ever making their case in court. Guilt by association, they also got a whole swath of valid evidence labeled essentially as “kooky, nutty, loony” by a court of law.
You write:
Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover the truth.
I amend this to be:
Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover nuggets of truth.
Her collection of 9/11 pictorial evidence, as well as the correlation of after-math photos to map locations is most impressive.
However, her book does have a few errors and omissions, with her tiny brush-off of nuclear suspicions being a glaring one. Her downplaying of hot-spots (and acceptance without challenge of a government report on satellite infrared hot-spots) might even be an example of blatant disinformation. She may bring hurricane Erin to our attention for the wrong reasons and misses the opportunity to expound upon its ramifications: the revealing of active media complicity and of the government’s ability to steer the weather.
-
in all her interviews she dismisses the claim that the fires took 100 days to extinguish , that goes against eye witness accounts and data.
-
Judy doesn't address the increase in cancer which has gone off the scale since 9/11.
(quote from Jeff Prager)
Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
-
Judy has no explanation for The concrete that was calcined. The Ph was as high as caustic drain cleaner (ph 12). Details like these are critically important. The calcined caustic concrete is a signature of nuclear demolition
-
Judy doesn't address the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form are a critical component in the dust analysis.