9/11 The New Hiroshima

arthur two sheds jackson · Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:57 pm

Part 1

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &plindex=1

part 2

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &plindex=0

chek · Post by **chek** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:30 am

The non-committal, disconnected semi-theorising I was expecting, but there was only one actual new item (the freon recovery) after which I'm seriously doubting that woman's claim to be a 'scientist'.

Does "Dr." Wood seriously equate non-toxic with 'safe'?
Sure, why not allow 200,000lbs of freon loose and see how much oxygen it displaces in the subways. Or how much ozone damage it does as the chlorine leaches out into the upper atmosphere.

I've viewed her up until now as half-baked, but it seems I may have been over-estimating her.

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:45 am

chek wrote:The non-committal, disconnected semi-theorising I was expecting, but there was only one actual new item (the freon recovery) after which I'm seriously doubting that woman's claim to be a 'scientist'.

Does "Dr." Wood seriously equate non-toxic with 'safe'?
Sure, why not allow 200,000lbs of freon loose and see how much oxygen it displaces in the subways. Or how much ozone damage it does as the chlorine leaches out into the upper atmosphere.

I've viewed her up until now as half-baked, but it seems I may have been over-estimating her.

Yours is fake science isn't it?
Fails to recognise the self-regulatory mechanism and the real disruption that's going on

chek · Post by **chek** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:13 am

paul wright wrote:
chek wrote:The non-committal, disconnected semi-theorising I was expecting, but there was only one actual new item (the freon recovery) after which I'm seriously doubting that woman's claim to be a 'scientist'.

Does "Dr." Wood seriously equate non-toxic with 'safe'?
Sure, why not allow 200,000lbs of freon loose and see how much oxygen it displaces in the subways. Or how much ozone damage it does as the chlorine leaches out into the upper atmosphere.

I've viewed her up until now as half-baked, but it seems I may have been over-estimating her.
Yours is fake science isn't it?
Fails to recognise the self-regulatory mechanism and the real disruption that's going on

Fake how exactly?

Is heavier than air freon - the 'silent killer' not a possible danger near subway systems?
Is almost a hundred tons of any chemical material to be considered insignificant?
Does Ms Wood have anything - anything at all - to pin a theory on?
Oh wait, it's not even a theory so much as idle non-falsifiable speculation isn't it?

From another perpective, maybe I see the unregulated quacks and their unchallenged quackery as the main disruption.