DISINFO: “Space Beams”

DISINFO: “Space Beams”

“Dr. Judy Wood Has NEVER Discussed “Space Beams” or “Lasers From Space”
“Star Wars Beam” refers to the fact that the beam weapon was developed with money from the “Star Wars Defense Initiative.” ~ Judy Wood
————-

REBUTTAL

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds wrote an article about it titled, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)”.

“The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)”
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

This is why I call it Space beams! What else should I call it? Stars are in space and she uses the word Beam, hence the term “Space beams”

Dierbeck Solves ‘Space Beam’ And ‘No Plane’ 911 Disinfo
http://www.rense.com/general78/derk.htm
———-
Particle beam weapon – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_beam_weapon

“Some particle beam weapons are real and have potential practical applications for example as an anti-ballistic missile defense system for the United States and their Strategic Defense Initiative. The vast majority however, are science fiction and are among the most prolific weapons seen there. They have been known by a plethora of fantastic-sounding names: Particle Accelerator Guns, Ion Cannons, Proton Beams, Lightning Rays, Ray Guns etc.

The concept of particle beam weapons comes from sound scientific principles and experiments currently underway around the world. One process to damage the target is to simply =*=overheat the target=*= until it is no longer operational.”

“experiments currently underway”
———–

———–

CONCLUSION

I will continue to call Judy Wood’s hypothesis the “Space Beam” theory because Judy Wood claims that an energy beam from space was used in the destruction of the three WTC towers and everything else. There is no evidence to support this theory at all.

Real Scientists do not use words like “Ray Beam”, “Dustified”, “Fuzzyblobs”, “Fuzzball”, “Jellification”, “Transmutation”, “Cheetos”, “Snowball” when describing 9/11.

Never disrespect the “empirical evidence”.