From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2013-09-08 09:56:38
www.youtube.com/watc… By playing “AlienScientist” clips (isn’t he even bothered who that guy is and why he uses that name) he clearly demonstrates he is not interested in court-submitted scientific research. www.youtube.com/watc… Not that Corbett hasn’t done this sort of thing before, of course: www.checktheevidence… James Corbett and Mark Gaffney: In this recent interview with James Corbett he remarks that Building 6 had a “huge creator right in the centre of it” (17.32) www.corbettreport.co… He states that (time ref 17:50)“early on the were photos” and that there was “very little debris of any kind” He states that there was another explosion in there and that it may have “been demolished during the collapse of building one or two and the dust cloud concealed it.” This makes me ask, how could a conventional demolition leave very little debris? When was the building wired for this demolition? For what purpose was building 6 demolished? I was disappointed to hear James Corbett dismiss Dr Judy’s work using the term “Space Beams” in a recent edition of the Corbett Report http://www.corbettreport.com/ episode-190-listener-feedback/ (about 20 mins in) I wrote to James questioning the accuracy of the term “Space Beam” given that its not a term that Dr Wood has used in her book, website or many lectures and radio interviews. Say no more!
