Lisa Guliani said:
Joe, so the things I've observed over the years are just me being emotional, but the things Judy Wood has observed are just her observations?
That's not what Joe said. He just said that you are "a bit more emotionally involved" and that can color your view. And that is true of everyone which is why when I know I am upset by someone or have a negative view of them, I ask for input.
Lisa Guliani said:
I would like to think that I am also capable of making an objective observation about someone's behavior based upon what I see them do with my own eyes over an extended period of time.
Objective observations of behavior are one thing but saying that one's observations of a body of work are objective requires looking at that work.
For example, I have read the work of Vinnie and Jay along with having an interaction with them. And have relied mostly on other people to evaluate their work because I know that I see everything about them in a dim light.
I also read tons of material by authors that I KNOW have an agenda to conceal or mislead. If you shut out all of this kind of stuff you'll never find anything. I've found you can learn as much about what is real by what they avoid or twist as if they had actually come out and given the data and truth.
Lisa Guliani said:
It's a little surprising to me that, as closely as the SOTT team has monitored the shenanigans going on within the 9/11 'truth' and 'research' circles that you would all be so unfamiliar with the shenanigans of Judy Wood after all this time.
But what do I know, I've only watched these people operate for years. Your points are well taken.
At this point, what is being said is that her book is useful but she's obviously a nutcase and a force to mislead. However, we need to "weed through" things as usual. Well, of course, one could go out and spend weeks or months collecting all the material together that she has - assuming it is still available - and do it over again, but since she did it (or her student did) just get her book if you want all that material to review, and then check sources and compare with other works.
I think the woman is a first-class nutzoid, but I like having all those photos and stuff together.
HOWEVER, having said that, we also need to remember that she included photos of "flood effects" as EM anomalies as mentioned above in the thread.
We've got probably every 9-11 book written, even by obvious disinfo types, and it is interesting to go through them and compare the approaches, what one includes and another leaves out, how one assesses the evidence, the theories created, etc.
In the same way, I've got multiple books about different historical incidents from different perspectives - some of them written by the "victors" who definitely wanted to white-wash stuff, and some written by the victims who had a very dim view of that white-wash. What the disinfo peeps write tells me a lot about the times and mainly what was seen to be important to conceal by the focus on what was designed to replace it or cover it.
This is why reading Marc Bloch's book on the Historian's Craft is so useful. He discusses in-depth how to use obvious fraudulent sources to tell you things that those sources actually wanted to conceal.
In an event as important as 9-11, I don't think that any of us want to limit our potential for understanding even one little thing if one dangling thread can lead us to something we would otherwise have missed.
Further, since the idea that someone else did a lot of the work on this book has been proposed, along with the fact that nearly all the material collected into it - as is true of about all 9-11 books - comes from varied sources, again, it is a very useful book, flaws and all. So if we can just acknowledge that while AT THE SAME TIME understanding that Judy Wood is likely a whacko personally and was USING 9-11 - like so many others - as her claim to fame, we can just settle down, have a look at the book, discuss it, find the flaws, check the sources, and move on.
Things are not black and white here - especially in discussing 9-11, a real event. VB and Weidner are in a different category because they write about delusions and the deluded and events that no one can objectively examine in any way. So there's a big difference there.
But as I said, you can tell as much about a real, historical event by the attempts to cover and deflect as you can by someone telling the truth about it which is not likely to happen in ANY historical context. That's just the nature of the beast.
I've read entire books by idiots out of which only one or two pieces of data checked out but those pieces were so valuable that it was worth the time because they led me to another work, and another, and another, and with all the pieces reassembled the picture began to clear.
