Strictly speaking, Dr. Judy Wood is not even a proponent of the NBB & TVF hypotheses. However, based on mechanical engineering materials strength & other science, Wood does state that a Boeing 767 could not have made the hole in WTC tower that we have all seen in the 9/11 pictures & videos.  If not, then what did?  Since Wood may be mistaken about this, John, if you disagree with this science, then please let us know the nature and substance of your scientific disagreements.

Despite your failure to challenge the science, John, why do you continue to say other things that are clearly not true?

For instance (only one example), why do you continue to say that Dr. Judy Wood is a proponent of "9/11 Mini-Nukes" when you know for sure that this is not true? 

Please give us a link to one example in which Dr. Wood has ever proposed or supported a 9/11 mini-nukes hypothesis.

You are not the only person who is spreading this untruth about Dr. Wood (despite the lack of any evidence for your assertions).  If others & you all have a common list of "Talking Points" for your attempts to discredit sincere, dedicated 9/11 researchers & scientists, would you please post your common "Talking Points Memo" in your response to this comment?

The last time that I asked you why you continued to associate Judy Wood with the 9/11 mini-nukes hypothesis (even thoiugh you knew that it was not true), you said that you were entitled to your opinion about this -- even if it isn't true.

John, if you continue to say things that are not true about sincere, decidated 9/11 researchers & scientists, then this may reflect worse on you than it does on those about whom you are telling these untruths.

You also say: "if Thomas Mattingly is as intellectual as he poses[,] his existence is a contradiction in terms in that he seems to appear to ignore the obvious attacks and junk science and pretends to want to debate this on some bullshit intellectual level that - yes - maybe we should CONSIDER that little green men did in fact attack the towers."

John, as you have seen many times in my comments posted elsewhere throught 911 Blogger, I also take "the other side" to task for name-calling, personal attacks, and bickering & squabbling.  However, "your side" appears to engage in such tactics much more frequently than "the other side."

If others & you continue to engage in such tactics, then you may only be helping the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.

You say: "[M]aybe we should CONSIDER that little green men did in fact attack the towers."

Tell me about it, John.  I'm listening... ;-)

John Albanese: you really need to get a handle on yourself and stop spreading disinfo about me and others.

1. I have NO AFFILIATION with Criminal Politics magazine, and have not even heard of it before now.
2. I am NOT a "key member" of ny911truth. In fact I haven't been to a meeting in quite a while.

Correct it.

Libel
2 a : a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt b : the publication of such a libel c : the crime or tort of publishing a libel —see also SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section —compare DEFAMATION, SLANDER
NOTE: Although libel is defined under state case law or statute, the U.S. Supreme Court has enumerated some First Amendment protections that apply to matters of public concern. In New York Times Company v. Sullivan, the Court held that in order to recover damages a public person (as a celebrity or politician) who alleges libel (as by a newspaper) has to prove that “the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” in order to recover damages. The Court has also held that the states cannot allow a private person to recover damages for libel against a media defendant without a showing of fault (as negligence) on the defendant's part. These protections do not apply to matters that are not of public concern (as an individual's credit report) and that are not published by a member of the mass media. A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages). The defendant may plead and establish the truth of the statements as a defense. Criminal libel may have additional elements, as in tending to provoke a breach of peace or in blackening the memory of someone who is dead, and may not have to be published to someone other than the person libeled.