Deanna Spingola

[Roy Hobs]

Deanna Spingola is one of only a few people that I think I can trust.  I have purchased her books (multiple) with the intent of handing them out.  I know many others here at TiU also respect Spingola.

However.........this is the second part to my other Post......................

Why does Spingola cover for Judy Wood?  

Anyone have any reasonable explanations?  I don't want to be suspicious of Spingola, but I have heard her several times run cover for Wood.

Why???

[Roy Hobs]

Hey Lindsay....

You seem to have a unique relationship with Deanna.  

Why do you think Deanna is covering for Judy Wood?  This is not a hostile question/topic.  I'm really just curious.  If she has a good explanation, I would like to hear it.  

If you know anything, I would appreciate it.  Sincerely.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Deanna Spingola is one of only a few people that I think I can trust.  I have purchased her books (multiple) with the intent of handing them out.  I know many others here at TiU also respect Spingola.

However.........this is the second part to my other Post......................

Why does Spingola cover for Judy Wood?  

Anyone have any reasonable explanations?  I don't want to be suspicious of Spingola, but I have heard her several times run cover for Wood.

Why???

Well, having looked over many areas of 9/11,  I am not convinced Judy Wood is a Jew unless somebody presents irrefutable evidence. There have been comments by a lot of people that she is a Jew but if you simply look at the name -- it is an old English name with numerous birth records registered in Catholic and Protestant churches all over England and Scotland.  

Dr. Wood's theory is basically hard for many in the 9/11 movement to "digest".  She also partnered with people that have far fewer credentials and skill such as Morgan Reynolds (no-planes) and Andrew Johnson (Space Aliens-UFO'er) who often unfortunately toss in their "crap" and call it all "gold".  

As for Deanna,  I can't speak for her, but maybe she read Judy Wood's book and was convinced.  Deanna is pretty good on noticing the subtlety of controversy around issues and I give her the benefit of the doubt.  Judy Wood did bring a lawsuit against a DEW weapons manufacturer for their role in 9/11 (i.e., the SAIC).  That's a hell of a lot more than her detractors have attempted.  

I'm a 90% believer in Dr. Wood's theory on 9/11. I hold the 10% only because new evidence can come up that could fully invalidate her theory -- but I doubt it at this point.

I do believe the following:

1.  A secret weapon was used on 9/11 -- a weapon of the caliber of a Hiroshima bombing on 8/6/1945.  The false flag couldn't fail with this "ringer" weapon so it was used.
2.  Billions of research dollars were spent on Top Secret "Star-Wars/Tesla type" weapons under the Reagan-Bush administrations. Many of these weapons are still top-secret.
3.  John Hutchinson's equipment was confiscated and turned over to the Canadian-American governments in 1997-98.
4.  Interferometry is most interesting in ways it can "wobble" casimir forces/van der waal forces (i.e., how atoms stick together and repel)  and even measure them. This was Dr. Wood's specialty:
http://www.casimir-network.com/IMG/pdf/Lamoreaux.pdf
http://atom.stanford.edu/KasevichThesis.pdf
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... -conundrum
5.  According to interviews, she has worked with John Hutchinson to replicate his anti-gravity devices in high rf fields. They both say they now have a device that just works as soon as it is turned on. Believe it if you want to.
6.  What's her personal stake in all of this? None. She has lost her job.  She has lost her lawsuit. She has been given very little attention.  She maybe bit of an "attention" seeker but I think her message on what she observes is stronger than any "attention seeking".
7.  From what I've seen, her book is pretty good. It doesn't use conventional Newtonian physics so conventional observations and explanations may not hold up.  This causes a lot of confusion and disbelief. But she sticks by her guns.  
8.  Conventional thermite-thermate/explosives could have been used during and after the towers fell (Twin-Building 7).  Didn't see a lot of burned up people on 9/11 from cutter charges though.  Most of the toilets were smashed into small bits which is uncanny if charges were used. Basically charges equal a lot more big "chunky" debris.  
9. Her early association with Morgan Reynolds (who is probably disinfo) has probably flawed her message to some extent. Just take Wood's and John Hutchinson's explanations for 9/11.
10. Currently there are 3 theories:  A. Conventional-Standard Theory - it happened as the media described it.  B. Cutter charges-Thermate high explosive charges for cutting beams busting up trusses -- secret demolitions.   C.  A non-nuke top secret super weapon that can disassociate material or "dustify" it as she calls it.
11. Books by researchers-poly maths like Miles Mathis put a lot of conventional physics to serious question.  The world of physics is not as it seems:
http://www.milesmathis.com
12. Her theory still allows for an "Israel Did 9/11" --  I think the Idiot NeoCon Jews pulled this weapon out of a secret skunkworks that they oversaw.
13. The secret super weapon preparation and testing probably went hand-in-hand with the Jew creation of military grade anthrax.  Highly skilled small teams likely did both.  
14. Most people have never heard of the "push theory of gravity".
15. Micro-nukes not used because the "Bathtub" to hold the Atlantic Ocean didn't shatter or crack which would have flooded the subway system (Fetzer's pet theory).

 
This is just a simple list so far but it has few points that I believe and that Deanna may agree with.
 

Keep this in mind for those calling Dr. Wood a "Jew" based solely on her last name (like ProThink et.al.). No, you need more "evidence":

Etymology

For the most part, the surname Wood originated as a topographic name used to describe a person who lived in, or worked in a wood or forest. This name is derived from the Middle English wode, meaning "wood" (from the Old English wudu).[1] An early occurrence of this surname (of a personal residing near a wood) is de la Wode, recorded in Hertfordshire, England, in 1242.[2] The locational name also appeared in early records Latinised as de Bosco[3] (from the Old French bois, meaning "wood").[4] Another derivation for the surname is from a nickname of an eccentric or violent person, derived from the Old English wōd,[2] wad,[1] and Middle English wod, wode, all meaning "frenzied" or "wild".[1][2] This derivation is considered to be much less common than the locational origin.[2] An early occurrence of the surname derived in this fashion (from a nickname) is le Wode, recorded in Worcestershire, England, in 1221.[1][2]


Popularity

In England, Wales and the Isle of Man it is the 26th most-common surname,[5] in Scotland it is the 53rd most-common surname[6] and in the United States the 78th.[7]

BTW, it looks like Fetzer has a "love-hate" relationship with her research:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/20 ... -the-ugly/

[Roy Hobs]

Thanks CSR.  Much information to sift over.

I don't discredit Wood for being a Jew.....if she really is one. Although it would make sense if she is one.

My problem with Wood is that I have heard her speak for over 4 hours and I have yet to hear her name a name.  She keeps talking about how the "Elite" would be exposed if we all would believe her theory.  

Who are the elite?  Why doesn't she include the "Jewish Question" in her research.  In my opinion, you can't talk about 911 without discussing the Jewish Question.

Professor Jones when asked about the "Who" says that he is a scientist and he doesn't get involved in the "who".  

I can accept this......even though I know it is a cop out.  But at least he is willing to even humor the topic.  

Judy Wood so far for me is just a distraction from the "who".  She is 100% about the "How".  Never the "Who".

Troubling..........in my opinion.  

So far I believe her purpose is to just create infighting.  

My concern has more to do with Spingola.  Why would she cover for Wood?  Why not just put Wood on the spot and ask her if she supports Bollyn's work.....as an example?  It is out of character for Spingola, which troubles me.    

 

Thanks again CSR.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Thanks CSR.  Much information to sift over.

I don't discredit Wood for being a Jew.....if she really is one. Although it would make sense if she is one.

My problem with Wood is that I have heard her speak for over 4 hours and I have yet to hear her name a name.  She keeps talking about how the "Elite" would be exposed if we all would believe her theory.  

Who are the elite?  Why doesn't she include the "Jewish Question" in her research.  In my opinion, you can't talk about 911 without discussing the Jewish Question.

Professor Jones when asked about the "Who" says that he is a scientist and he doesn't get involved in the "who".  

I can accept this......even though I know it is a cop out.  But at least he is willing to even humor the topic.  

Judy Wood so far for me is just a distraction from the "who".  She is 100% about the "How".  Never the "Who".

Troubling..........in my opinion.  

So far I believe her purpose is to just create infighting.  

My concern has more to do with Spingola.  Why would she cover for Wood?  Why not just put Wood on the spot and ask her if she supports Bollyn's work.....as an example?  It is out of character for Spingola, which troubles me.    

 

Thanks again CSR.

No Problem, Roy.   I had the same thoughts... "Why not just name the people?" -- let it ride.   I began to think about it a little more and realized she is concerned that it is a legal matter and can't name names because she could get a lawsuit leveled at her. Overall I don't think she is "clued-in" to anything related to ZCF's "Israel Did 9/11" page.  They might make her a target for a "hit" if she got them in focus at TIU's level.  

This does bring up the whole Fetzer-Engineers for 9/11-Judy Wood-Dr Jones-NIST-"YouTube posters with Science backgrounds" as an "Academic exercise".  They basically treat it all as an academic debate and leave the Anthrax-NeoCons-False Flags-WMD Lies-Nigerian Uranium-Assorted Mossad Hits and Murders out of it all.  If they keep it "safe" as an academic debate then the odds of them getting liquidated are much, much lower.  If they make it into a "Criminal Prosecution" and do a full sweep of the Military Grade Anthrax, NeoCon Lies, Jewish PNAC -- they could become a target for a "hit".  I don't think she'll go there out of naivete and will come up with some excuse like "that's not my job" or "I can only prove the 'How'".  It's too bad really.   I do believe always presenting the "Collapse" arguments paired with the Jew "Anthrax" can make a sharper sword and a harder strike across the lies.   When I tell people what I think about the Iraq war, I always combined the criminal conspiracy behind both -- that both were planned and executed by a small Jew led teams as false flags.  Using both arguments tends to hit people hard -- especially using the Jew Richard Spertzl with Military Anthrax and then PNAC's call for a false flag. Then throw in the Israeli Mossad captured in NY, NJ and in Mexico -- and people start getting real nervous... their preconceptions of "Arab Terrorism" starts to cave in.  Use only 9/11 and people can dismiss it with an assortment of arguments depending on their point of view.  We know 9/11 was for Afghanistan and the Anthrax was for Iraq -- both were instigated by Traitor Jews and Jew shills in Washington, DC working for Israel -- the intelligence failure was due to the Mossad's false flags and Jewish corruption of security systems.  The "Academics" want to just be "Academic" and not criminal investigators. They won't touch arguments that might compromise their standing -- just like most professors. Fetzer I think is the biggest craphead in the whole boat -- he should know better and should have the balls to go all out to layout the "who" but he wimps out even though he's an old man who could go out fighting if only he had balls but he doesn't... so he goes all out "pussy" and attacks Wood who wants nothing to do with him since he does not add anything really useful in terms of evidence. Micro-Nukes?  Okay Fetzer you critical whiny dumbass --  "PROVE IT and BUILD ONE" and then "BLOW SOMETHING UP"...  or at least get your own set of detailed "PICTURES SHOWING MICRONUKES".  He's his own vain-glorious dumbass shill. He doesn't treat it as a legal criminal investigation but more as an academic "debate" where he can just whine thoughout it all as if he's the "important topic" of discussion -- which is obnoxious and deceptive. I think Judy Wood does a bit more in the crime area but doesn't cross the line to name names so she stays "naive" -- I bet she's had death threats if she tried to go there or maybe she just doesn't care about it. While not a stellar speaker she dodges "stupid" criticism. A lot of the people interviewing her or John Hutchinson are not that bright and repeat the same questions over and over-- but there are exceptions.      

So, Judy Wood has done probably what she thinks is necessary to "prove" the truth about "how" 9/11 was done as an "Academic" of Interferometry.  She won't venture into the political questions of "who and why" because they are "legal" questions and not scientific ones. The sad thing is that until ZCF's paper, TIU's Anthrax research, choice 9/11 facts and Wood's research are combined into a detailed narrative-- the full ring of the False Flag "Elite" Jew Scam may not be clearly seen for what it is -- simply wars for Israel using the USA/UK as the Rabbi's idiot Golem.          

That's my 2 cents.  --CSR

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

This kind of sealed if for me in the "90%" Judy Wood's theory -- the guy told this before 9/11.  
This has a "UFO" angle but it could be easily transitioned to a DEW type weapon:

Boyd Bushman, a Senior Scientist of Lockheed Martin, on Anti-Gravity Technology
[youtube:135s3v5t]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeNesaRUoJo[/youtube]135s3v5t]

Boyd Bushman, a Senior Scientist of Lockheed Martin, on The Hutchison Effect
[youtube:135s3v5t]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ZKTA7nx8U[/youtube]135s3v5t]

[ada]

This all is a platitude!
Who said that you still have to use your brain.
If she failed with wood, so what!
That would not bother me at all, cause no one is perfect.
At least people who foul their  own nest.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Well, I don't care about the personalities, I just care about the evidence (as best it can be rationalized) and how far that can be carried.  Whether you like her or not, the future of the "criminal investigation" is on Dr. Judy Wood's side IMHO. (..and I'm not saying you got to like her).  -- CSR