Yes, it all makes perfect sense. An hour or two after the planes collided, "they" managed to bring down the buildings with an alien death ray (sorry, my bad "Directed Energy Weapon"icon_wink.gif. presumably, they needed to test this on real live people instead of in secret at some remote base.

Before this, I tended to the view that the Towers were brought down by long strings being pulled through the flat earth by the reptilian shapeshifters, but now the death ray sounds very much like the most likely explanation, so I don't need to buy the book.

To be fair to Judy Wood - the book wasn't published as popular science with a Reader's Digest serialization. It's an academic textbook - hence the colossal number of references, a proper bibliography etc.

When I finished at John Moores academic textbooks were running anywhere up to £50 each. By comparison Judy's book is very well priced.

[iTo be honest Dr Woods has never said who was responsible. I thought you were Science mad so this book should float your boat bigtime. She has presented a lot of researched evidence, with hundreds of unseen photographs which are bizarre and much of this has never been unreported anywhere else. She seems to be a serious and sincere scientific researcher who is suggesting that there are Tesla based weapons that were covertly used to bring down the towers...and offers a lot of evidence that points to this. Why is it that she is being dismissed by some sections of the truth movement baffles me

I have the book and have read it. I wonder how many people who dis her have actually examined her book?

She is intelligent enough to strategically avoid finger pointing (for fear of being labelled by the mainstream) as to who did it...she is simply looking at the evidence with a scientific approach.

Keep an open mind...or some of you are no better than the stubborn masses who still believe the ridiculous and absurd official story. No doubt you'll continue to cherry pick Science's that fits your CGI fetish.and won't accommodate any other science that doesn't.[/i

She's as bat loony as you. Well maybe not quite since maybe she's making a few bob from conning delusional anxious to buy into another mad delusion. It's risible and not worth a second more of my time.

So you are not going to read the book you've just criticised?

Another triple-smiley, wow, that IS impressive. But no, absolutely I'm not, life's too short to waste on that type of sensationalist drivel. I would view anyone who was prepared to consider as a possibility that the Towers were deliberately demolished by secret energy death ray weapons as a sandwich short of a picnic. It's self-evident battery of the highest order.

If you want to give patent and arrant nonsense an equal shot with reasonable debate that's your prerogative.

[i
While filming war criminal and mass murderer George Bush Sr's visit to NASA control , the camera man caught a screen with Actornaught and traitor Tim Peake being filmed in front of a green screen to fake another ISS scene. [url=https://youtu.be/AkkLO4oEQS4The ISS Fraud. Caught Red Handed[/url[/i

Few things wrong with your statement.

There is no green screen present. I'm presuming you mean a Chroma key, to help put in false backgrounds. Chroma keys have to be one single colour, which the screen behind Peake is not. It would also have to encompass the whole viewing area, which it doesn't.

The second thing wrong, is that the screen behind is a background measurement grid to track movement and accurately measure it.

The third thing is, Peake was doing this with a school in London about motion in space and was filmed by the BBC at the school's end.

You see, when critical and sound thinking is applied, rather than jumping to conclusions and ignoring the reality it isn't proof of anything. Although, the poster of the video and a number of super-excited but ultimately biased supporters have literally just ignored the obvious.

[i
Wrong again. As this video explains the chequered background. [url=https://youtu.be/KZ7zqHUsmCsTim Peakes the Actor.[/url

[/i=#FF0000[i Blue chequered screens provided by Orad Visual Set Technology Seen below.[/i

[iYou see, when critical and sound thinking is applied, rather than jumping to conclusions and ignoring the reality the truth is there in plain site[/i

So NASA go to all this trouble to fake the ISS, yet they don't have the intelligence to switch off the 'evidence' while the cameras are in? Come on Stan, admit you're on a wind up.

The problem you haven't looked at is that the grid system used by that particular company is nothing like the one in the ISS video. Orad use a complex series of grids superimposed over each other to provide reference points for tracking camera movement. Which is why it looks like a plain 'Tartan' type pattern. The grid on the ISS video plainly shows a simple piece of canvas with a square pattern on it. It simply isn't a grid for Chroma key use. If it was, it still wouldn't work because it's on such a small area within the image. The background and the fake image wouldn't marry-up. His T-Shirt is clearly the same colour as the canvas background as well, which wouldn't work for a SFX image.

I'm not trying to just oppose your standpoint, I'm just pointing out glaring problems with your conclusion. It's plainly not a chroma key background.

[iNonsense. Here's an [url=https://youtu.be/er5xxGyWs1YOrad[/url clip which is exactly what Tim Peake was stood in front of. You'll be telling me you've worked on a movie set next with your firearm whilst arguing with me on here..

[/i

Do you even watch the clips you post on here?

That clip shows exactly what I said. The grid is a multi-layered grid that forms a 'tartan' like pattern, not a square grid. Do you know why? It's because the multi-layered grid makes it easier for the software to plot where the camera is in three dimensions. The reason it isn't a plain cross-pattern grid is because it wouldn't allow the software to reference the camera position in three dimensions. It's not even in doubt that the canvas behind Peake has nothing to do with green-screen technology.

You've conveniently ignored the other facts that make the claim invalid I notice.

Why is NASA supposedly creating a fake within a fake?
Why is the canvas so small if it was to be a fake background?
Why is Peake's T-Shirt the same colour as the canvas background?

For someone who always claims to be the victim of personal attacks, all you have come back with is an Ad Hom?

If you want to prove something beyond doubt you need to cast doubts on your own evidence before you make any claim. If there's doubts or alternate explanations that can be shown to be valid then your 'proof' needs work.

What would be the purpose of faking the existence of the ISS? The only thing that comes to mind is that the massive budget for investment in NASA/ISS is covertly being used for something else.

Also, is it true that Flat Earthers believe that the ISS we can sometimes see in the sky is in fact a hologram projected from the North Pole?

Most modern flat-earthers are from the creationist christian camp, so they seek literal interpretation of the bible. This is fine but everything we've learned about reality, the bible has got spectacularly wrong. They have to stick to the basic tenets of their thinking that the earth is flat, so everything that may counter that argument has to be explained away in a way that best fits their own narrative. Anything in space is explained away in bizarre fashion, and space agencies around the world all have to be fakes. Satellites don't exist. The moon and sun are light sources and flat (Even though you can prove they're not) the list goes on and on. The lies and deliberate ignorance becomes staggering and they have no problem linking all these ridiculous ideas into one giant incoherent mess that they see as 'the truth' and the rest of us marvel at the lunacy.

I was replying to someone else, but I'm touched by your obsessive stalking. It wasn't me who brought up your flat earth belief it was you. Bandgeekmafia was asking about flat earthers as a group not Flat Stanley as an individual, and I replied to him referring to the group, not you. You could have replied to him about his question but resorted to more Ad Hom at me.

I'm sorry you feel so insecure.

Bandgeekmafia you can ignore Flat Stan, he is a true one off delusional and spends half his time trolling anyway. I did once ask him why, if the Earth is flat, the Moon looks upside down to a person in Australia. He still hasn't recovered from trying to figure that one out, but chooses to instead totally ignore such basic debunks, as they don't compute with his religious delusions.

If he wasn't trolling (the jury remains out) then he also seems to believe that there are no Sky / TV satellites, and that he receives all the full range of subscription Sky channels for free through his dish which according to him picks up some mysterious analogue terrestrial signals from somewhere. No dishes point to space, he says they all point to nearby towers. Yes, I know.



And there are no ISS and no satellites. Yes, I have pointed out that he can go out any clear night and watch hundreds of them for himself but he's scared to look as it wouldn't fit his delusions to see for himself.

Oh and yes, Antarctica doesn't exist, the edge of the Earth is bounded by a huge impenetrable ice wall, and flights claiming to fly that way never actually take off.

PS and indeed yes he does apparently believe that there is no ISS, it is a "holograph". This is transmitted in real time, from lord knows how many thousands of networked worldwide projectors that nobody has ever seen and all to fake a brightly glowing perfect image of the ISS 24/7 at any point on the Earth where its orbit happens to take it. Oh, and this here "holograph" is also a solid object in that when it crosses the face of the Sun or the Moon it's silhouette can be seen. Some holograph!

Poor Stan.

Hahahaha another obsessed Sheep. Baaaaa

"Defence"?? Against what? Stanley, the forum's very own Black Knight?


You know you eventually posted some utter nonsense about a lamp in a room, it was real headscratching drivel, when challenged on that particular gem, even you had no clue WTF you were saying. It did raise a good laugh, but was arrant nonsense.


See this is you trolling, N*O*B*O*D*Y would be as stupid as to believe you're being serious.

Wait ... you now claim that you get Channels via an internet server! Do you even know what you mean from one minute to the next? Stan, we can all watch pirated content over the internet if we want to, poor lad.


"Coastal"? So your "great ice wall" is in fact a "coast" that people can go on "trips" to? How does that work? How do these "private trips" get to Antarctica? You obviously know all about them, who runs them, and where do we book them?

It's encouraging, though, that today you do at least believe that there IS an Antarctica, and this is real progress Stan, unless you forget again later on.

Well done again for claiming that Byrd travelled "internally", you don't seem to grasp that he couldn't actually travel internally unless there was somewhere internal to travel to, but then I suppose it is hard to keep up with such grand delusions and you're bound to make such mistakes.

But, well done you for realising that when a person does venture into Antarctica, they'd be travelling "inland". As of course they would, seeing as it's at the south end of a globe. It would be good if you were somehow able to hang on to this moment of clarity.




Here's a trip photo for your consideration - a party of skiers arriving at the South Pole in 2009. CGI?





Amundsen-Scott permanent South Pole Base


Just for you, Stan, a map showing you where this really is:


To help you get your bearings, here's a view from space, courtesy of Apollo 17

Comedy gold Stan, comedy gold.

Are there White Walkers at this Ice Wall? I like a good conspiracy theory but the Flat Earth one just seems a bit far-fetched.

For a place no-one is allowed, it's a bit odd that you can even book a place on an expedition to ski to the South Pole itself. Here's a link, at the time of posting there is one place left. Cost US$128,000. www.icetrek.com/south-pole-new-r ... escription It must be hard to get people to pay that amount of money if there isn't a South Pole to actually go to. I mean, wouldn't the average customer be a tad pis[size=5=#FFFFFF.[/sizesed off about that?

For a place no-one is allowed, it's a bit odd that you can even book a place on an expedition to ski to the South Pole itself. Here's a link, at the time of posting there is one place left. Cost US$128,000. www.icetrek.com/south-pole-new-r ... escription It must be hard to get people to pay that amount of money if there isn't a South Pole to actually go to. I mean, wouldn't the average customer be a tad pis[size=5=#FFFFFF.[/sizesed off about that?

[i

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"icon_lol.gif
"Defence"?? Against what? Stanley, the forum's very own=#FF0000 Black Knight? You know you eventually posted some=#BF0000 utter nonsense about a lamp in a room, it was real headscratching=#BF0000 drivel, when challenged on that particular gem, =#BF0000even you had no clue WTF you were saying. It did raise a good laugh, but was=#400000 arrant nonsense. See this is you=#BF0000 trollingN*O*B*O*D*Y would be as=#BF0000 stupid as to believe you're being serious.
Wait ... you now claim that you get Channels via an internet server! Do you even know what you mean from one minute to the next? Stan, we can all watch pirated content over the internet if we want to, poor lad.

Well done again for claiming that Byrd travelled "internally", you don't seem to grasp that he couldn't actually travel internally unless there was somewhere internal to travel to, but then I suppose it is hard to keep up with such grand=#BF0000 delusions and you're bound to make such mistakes.

But, well done you for realising that when a person does venture into Antarctica, they'd be travelling "inland". As of course they would, seeing as it's at the south end of a globe. It would be good if you were somehow able to hang on to this moment of clarity.: Here's a trip photo for your consideration - a party of skiers arriving at the South Pole in 2009. CGI?

Amundsen-Scott permanent South Pole Base. Just for you, Stan,=#800000 a map showing you where this really is:To help you get your bearings, here's a view from space, courtesy of Apollo 17 '"

[/i
[iSee this clown cannot debate without vitriolic Ad Hom abuse.. See my pearls of answers really get your cognitive dissonance super charging hence the keyboard flex and vex. We've been over and over these arguments before so why are you trolling and instigating trouble with your rather embarrassingly tirades. Now the Moon analogy again i explained and your still don't/won't/can't grasp the perspective because you're so vexed and closed minded to even contemplate it just like Dr Judy Wood book you criticise blindly before outweighing factual evidence. Here's an idiots guide to [url=https://youtu.be/4TmklLn6U6wMoon Perspective[/url to make you understand...

With regards to my TV package, again you can't seem to grasp this fact. Theres hundreds of thousands of folk who have this subscription. Its not illegal and it certainly not piracy. Are you jealous your vexed reply suggests so. Satellites dishes are nothing more than an analogue glorified aerial period.

Antarctica... Nobody yes nobody is allowed at the supposed geographical South Pole, So they have an imitation glass sphere'd ball object at a private location which isn't the real so called geographical south pole. Theres only so far you can venture in. Treaty regulations. Hard luck.you should research a bit harder.

Now this what i find hilarious. CGI alert. The fake Blue Marble which is CGI, wheres the star constellations in the background....



No doubt you'll repeat more questions which i've proven before followed with more vitriol. [/i