06 Sep 2013, 07:29
We have been hit with a series of posts extolling the virtues of Judy Wood but using my wife’s name as the email handle. This is a perfect example of the kind of shabby attack that has come from Judy Wood and the members of her cult. The point that you cannot solve a crime if you do not know what crime was committed–consider the police looking for suspect without knowing how a decedent died!–is itself impeccable. But the implication that we have not addressed HOW IT WAS DONE is obviously and completely absurd.
I know Judy very well and this post and the others–there are at least FIVE using my wife’s name–appears to me to have been written by JUDY WOOD HERSELF. She is very good at congratulating herself for her brilliance. But she had none nothing at all to explain away the USGS dust evidence, which reveals that this was a nuclear event. WE HAVE EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS DONE AND WHY THE NUCLEAR DEVICES MUST HAVE COME FROM ISRAEL. In all the time I have know her, she has never addressed WHO DID IT!
Personally, I find her actions and those of the members of her cult to be disgusting. And the term fits: they have core dogmas (DEWs did it!), a sacred text (WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?), a mystical leader (Judy Wood herself), and a praetorian guard (which viciously attacks anyone who would suggest that she might be wrong, even slightly). So when I posted my 5-star review of her work, I mentioned in passing that, while she had ruled out maxi nukes, she had not actually excluded mini or micro nukes.
Lest there be any doubt . . . .
For that, MY REVIEW has been subjected to MORE THAN 4,000 VERY NASTY ATTACKS from Andrew Johnson and Judy herself, not to mention lesser minions, some of whom actually use their real names. I posted the original BEFORE The Vancouver Hearings and, AFTER being besieged by some 2,000 attacks at the time, revised it and downgraded it to a 3-star review. This is how she, who claims to be a scientist, responds to evidence that disproves her theory–by attacking me again and again and again.
I am all for “free energy”, but Judy turns out to be a flake. She insists that SHE DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY when the cover of her book proclaims, “EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11″, as though that did not imply that her theory IS that free energy technology was used on 9/11. She also maintains the absurd position that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, which is simply absurd. Empirical evidence consists of physical things (such as steel beams, dead bodies and dust samples), which are not the sort of things that CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE. So EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ANY KIND OF TRUTH, much less THAT THEORY MUST MIMIC. If a theory (which consists of statements or propositions which CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE) were to “mimic” empirical evidence, since mimicry is a form of imitation or replication, THAT WOULD ONLY BE MORE EVIDENCE!
She has repeatedly claimed that she DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY, but without a theory, she can’t explain anything. And instead of sucking it up and attempting to explain away the USGS dust samples, here she is reaffirming a position we have already shown to be false (or at least hopelessly inadequate), BECAUSE SHE CANNOT COPE WITH THE USGS dust samples. And her definition of DEWs as forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed APPLIES TO MICRO OR MINI NUKES, which a forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed, as we have explained: This appears to have been done using shaped neutron bombs that can be directed upward! So given her vague definition of “DEWs”, OUR THEORY THAT IT WAS DONE USING SHAPED MICRO AND MINI NEUTRON BOMBS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, MEANS THAT IT WAS DONE USING DEWS, WHEN YOU CONSIDER HER DEFINITION. The situation is absurd.
Not only that, but in addition to featuring her 15 TIMES on my radio programs when no one had ever heard of her and publishing a chapter by her in the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, I gave her an unprecedented THREE HOURS TO SPEAK during the Madison conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11″. She drove from South Carolina to get here and brought along her two cats. She asked my wife to look after them, which was unexpected but which she graciously did (even though, at that time, we had three cats of our own). For the kindness we have extended to Judy Wood and for the generous fashion in which I have promoted her work in the past, she now abuses my wife by using her name as a false handle to attack me. This woman is not only a paragon of ingratitude but appears to me to display the symptoms of someone who is profoundly sick, not mentally well and even sadistic.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D."
20 Sep 2014, 17:32