The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion a polarizing figure in 9/11 research

545 comments

1. Debunking one of Judy Wood’s central claims
   One of Dr. Wood’s central claims has always been that the central core steel in the building “dustified.” She bases this belief on a well known video taken from a particular angle:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73wK2eoCQVs
   However, this is one angle from a rather low quality video. The angle is key. Have a look at this much higher quality footage of the same phenomenon, from a different angle.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&
   It is clear from this video that the steel spire is not turning to dust. It is falling, and in its wake, it’s shedding off some of the dust that has just coated it from the surrounding materials that have been “dustified” through the use of explosives.
   Craig, since you have the book: Does Wood still, today, insist that the spire was “dustified?” Or has she corrected this claim, publicly?
   I appreciate the fact that you’re doing this article, Craig. I, for one, do not believe in ANY censorship based on ideas. After being a battle hardened veteran of the online wars re the Pentagon attack, I have come to the firm conclusion that to ban discussion of any one 9/11 theory is the beginning of a slippery slope.

   1. Adam, I disagree that the video debunks Dr. Wood’s evidence. A few comments:
      I’ve looked once again at these videos (probably for the 100th time now) and they still look the same to me from every angle and resolution: To my eyes, the columns appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall away. They do not appear to be solid columns that have somehow accumulated inches worth of clingy dust on their vertical surfaces, which then releases and floats off into the air as they fall.
      The title of the video (WTC1 Spires Dropped–not vaporized) is misleading because it sets up a Straw Man. Dr. Wood has never suggested that the thick, steel central core columns (not spires) vaporized. In fact to the contrary, Dr. Wood presents evidence that demonstrates the lack of temperatures high enough to cause vaporization That evidence, along with many, many other important facts including seismic signatures, lack of mass in the rubble pile left behind, neat footprint, free-fall time frame, etc disproves not only the official fairy tale, but the explosive demolition and nuke theories also. Instead, Dr. Wood’s evidence clearly points to some other kind of process that can dissociate matter and convert it into millions of cubic yards of dust without high explosive, high kinetic, high temperature, vaporizing, pulverizing energy.
      Uncovering and understanding the kind of process that was (and was not) used to destroy the WTC buildings is essential , so I urge you and others who are not familiar with her work or have been put off by mis-characterizations to give Dr. Wood’s evidence a fair review, by either studying it at her website, or better yet to read her book cover to cover. Her book gives the clearest presentation of the evidence that directed free energy was employed. It is a serious, comprehensive forensic analysis. Links: http://www.drjudywood.com/ wheredidthetowersgo.com

      1. redpillreaction says:
         “I urge you and others who are not familiar with her work or have been put off by mis-characterizations to give Dr. Wood’s evidence a fair review, by either studying it at her website”
         Let me assure you that I have studied Dr. Wood’s website extensively.
         And let me ask you to refrain from the misuse of the term ‘straw-man argument”; in this instance you use the term in such a way as to describe what is better termed, “suggestion” in the sense of ‘leading the witness’ – this is NOT what a straw man argument is. A straw-man argument is arguing against ones ‘own interpretation’ of another’s argument rather than the argument an opponent has made.
         I do suggest that those who have not studied the rules and applications of argumentum, either make such a study, or refrain from attempting to use technical jargon and stick to layman’s terms.
         Now like many here, redpillreaction has thrown a lot of generalization on the table. The only thing specific said had to do with his “subjective view” as to what this second video offered by Adam shows. Having addressed this below in a comment to another poster, I won’t repeat it here.
         Let us at least attempt to avoid a rumble in the jumble, and try to be specific in the points we put forward.
         ww

      2. Great post!

         1. Thank you.

      3. Here is less ambiguous video showing steel in free-fall disintegrating into dust. http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/photo/slideshow?albumId=3488444:Album:46364

      4. Shallel says:
         “Here is less ambiguous video showing steel in free-fall disintegrating into dust.”
         Ah…”less ambiguous”?
         I see a lot of steel being blown laterally along with an explosion of dust, but I certainly don’t see any “disintegrating into dust.”.
         And as far as the clarity of the gif, it is terrible.
         Having seen clearer videos of this scene, I will say that there is nothing here showing steel disintegrating into dust. There are steel beams blowing out laterally in a churning cloud of dust, but they are clearly solid beams, and none of them are disintegrating.
         ww

   2. I will not respond directly to the sophistry and condescension contained in the various remarks I see posted around here by hybridrogue1. Instead, I’ll let his words speak for themselves. Discerning readers will be able to pick up on the difference between commenters who wish to discuss this topic in an open, respectful and troll-free environment, and those who do not.
      So far, nobody (including hybridrogue1) has refuted the actual evidence presented by Dr. Wood in her book (link: http://wheredidthetowersgo.com) directly point by point, or offered a reasonable alternative explanation that fits the specific phenomena that were measured, photographed and observed on 9/11/01.

      1. Eric Wachsman says:
         “I will not respond directly to the sophistry and condescension contained in the various remarks I see posted around here by hybridrogue1. Instead, I’ll let his words speak for themselves.”
         Thank you so much Eric, it is so kind of you to let my words speak for themselves. That was my intent when I wrote them actually.
         I see your lack of response is genuine in that you have simply made more empty assertions and wave “the book” under our noses again. I am getting the sense that this has become a “holy book” to Wood’s following, who seem a rather dogmatic lot.
         As far as whether any of Woods evidence is refuted or not is not your personal call Mr. Wachsman.
         If you have anything of substance to say, be my guest. If you would rather I didn’t address it…
         well tough luck, it is my prerogative to do so if I see fit.
         ww

      2. from redpillreaction – The title of the video (WTC1 Spires Dropped–not vaporized) is misleading because it sets up a Straw Man.
         from hybridrogue1 – A straw-man argument is arguing against ones ‘own interpretation’ of another’s argument rather than the argument an opponent has made.
         apart from being pedantic and unhelpful, how does the “setting up of a straw man” not play a part in a straw-man argument?
         i truly hope this will not be the quality of contributions in this most advantageous opportunity to question and share and learn, because it will quickly become anything but such a forum… there’s always at least one who has to find ways to belittle and denigrade others’ thoughts. which is a shame. because then people will turn away rather than have to endure the petty professor paradigm. but that may well be the end game…
         let thoughts come through, so we can all consider and learn. peace.

      3. I’m late to the party. I didn’t know about Dr. Judy Wood until Jan 2013 when I came across some of her video presentations, then her websites, and, of course, her book.
         From my fresh eyes it appears that the 911 Truth establishment has purposely ignored Dr. Wood’s evidence and, instead, attacked the messenger applying bully tactics, much like some posters on this page.
         Mini nukes without radiation (or sound)?
         Thermite without blinding light or tremendous heat?
         Could it be that the “leaders” of the 911 Truth Establishment had an interest in humiliating the one person who may have actually gotten much of it right? I listen to Dr. Wood and I see a person dedicated to finding the truth. Those that opposed her, not so much. Perhaps in the early days but with power comes corruption. I fear the 911 Truth movement is going nowhere as a result.
         To date I have not seen any viable theories of any known technologies that could produce the type and extent of damage as we saw at the WTC. The lack of rubble is, indeed, troubling. If you spend a couple of hours watching large buildings being imploded on youtube there is always a multi story rubble pile adjacent. Can anybody produce a photo or video of such a pile for WTC1 or WTC2? Based on the videos I would have expected a pile of 10 stories or so. Can you find another example of a giant skyscraper being destroyed from the top down? Can you explain the picture at the top of this page? Is that not solid material pouring out of the top of the building? Can you explain the complete destruction of the entire contents of both towers including all office material, furnishings, decorations, personal electronics, toilets, sinks, mirrors, or people? What happened to the main body of WTC4? Will you deny the evidence or will you provide a viable hypothesis to explain it? As I have arrived here so tardy I already have the answer to that question. Evidence is being denied. Viable hypotheses are not forthcoming.
         I don’t have to prove that Dr. Wood’s Directed Energy hypothesis is right. Neither did she and, in retrospect, it would have been far wiser had she held back on going public with it, at first, forcing the ‘community’ to focus on the evidence, or lack thereof. In so doing, she created a target which was exploited by people with an agenda and, perhaps, with unseen benefactors. It is enough to show that what happened that day was unexplainable by any traditional technology used in the ‘destruction business’ which includes the business of war. Lots of explosions. Not lots of buildings mysteriously turning to dust from the top down.
         It’s important to realize that somebody debuted some ‘kick ass’ technology that day and the number of somebodys with those resources and that amount of access is very limited.

      4. Dear Mr. Ditchner,
         You mention that you are late to the party, yet you post early as if you know you are the one who brings the beer and re-animates the party.
         I suggest that you read until the end before posting anything further, because I have hopes that you will learn something. I am, after all, Dr. Judy Wood´s biggest supporter here in this forum, even though I do it in left-handed and even back-handed manner. Unlike almost all other, I have read her book cover-to-cover and am probably most qualified in stating what is valid and what might be disinformation. Brain-dead support of her work won´t fly here, even though I think she is closest in much of her description than others. Still, until she comes up with version 2 of her textbook, I consider her wrong.
         Why? She doesn´t connect any of the (valid) concepts that she introduces, let alone connect any of them with 9-11. Worse, she doesn´t validate the sources of energy as compared to nuclear sources, and gives nuclear sources very short shrift and a bums rush.
         My views are clearly stated below, although they do morph a bit as I learn more. My true beliefs to date are stated at the following link.
         http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/neutron-nuclear-dew/
         Should you desire to pursue this discussion, the requirements are that (a) you read all comments here, (b) you read my part 1 and part 2 available at the link above, and (c) you post at the BOTTOM of this disuscussion. (When you post near the top, you do a disservice to lurker readers and unfairly put your ignorant spin on things for them too early in their assessment.)
         Indeed I believe that Dr. Wood has many nuggets of truth for honest truth seekers to digest, but also, she is not the lady madonna or holy grail. Be man enough to admit the disinfo that was purposely implanted in her work, yet preserve the nuggets of truth, and you will do well grass hopper.
         Further responses from me, due to a vacation out of the country, might be delayed until next week. But rest assured, I might have something to say.
         //

      5. Correction to my links.
         http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
         http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/

   3. Dear Mr. Syed, you wrote:

      One of Dr. Wood’s central claims has always been that the central core steel in the building “dustified.” She bases this belief on a well known video taken from a particular angle. … However, this is one angle from a rather low quality video. The angle is key. Have a look at this much higher quality footage of the same phenomenon, from a different angle. … It is clear from this video that the steel spire is not turning to dust. It is falling, and in its wake, it’s shedding off some of the dust that has just coated it from the surrounding materials that have been “dustified” through the use of explosives.

      Yes, you are correct. Of the many weaknesses I’ve found in Dr. Wood’s textbook, this was one of them: relying on a particular angle for the demise of the spire to base her analysis on. It leaves the impression that the steel in the spire was turning to dust. Yet, views of the spire from different angles ought to change that assessment.
      I agree with everything I’ve quoted from you except the last sentence, where you wrote:

      [The spire] is falling, and in its wake, it’s shedding off some of the dust that has just coated it from the surrounding materials that have been “dustified” through the use of explosives.

      Assuming your premise of the use of explosives for a moment, I don’t see how the spire could have gotten coated with dust from the surrounding materials in the quantities that we see. Turbulence in the destruction and resulting winds would have made it difficult for dust to settle.
      Assuming Dr. Wood’s premise of the use of directed energy weapons, I view the spire as the supporting structure for one of the top-level DEW devices, which were aimed away from it. By the time we see the spire, that DEW device has long since served its purpose and was disposed of.
      The way I understand and view this event, DEW devices would excite residual water molecules in material (e.g., concrete, drywall) instantly into steam, whose expanding volume pressure would “dustify” the material. What we see lingering in the air is the dust and steam from material that was moments before still attached to the spire and got zapped from below (I presume) by a clean-up beam.
      Similarly, when you view videos and images of the destruction, you’ll see major pieces falling but with trailing gray matter as if on fire. Only they weren’t on fire, and the trailing gray matter wasn’t smoke. I view it as being dust and steam. David Chandler does prove that some of that falling matter does have “energetic” properties that allowed it to change directions like fireworks. I’m not arguing for mutual exclusivity of demolition mechanisms, so don’t discount this in the least. However, most of the “steaming” falling pieces of debris lack other indications (e.g., flames) of a thermitic or incendiary process.

   4. Greetings Adam,
      and congratulations on being the first to post in reply to this thread!
      Your post does not, in my opinion, provide either an accurate interpretation of the visual information in the video clip you posted, let alone an adequate rebuttal of the treatment of the “dustification” issue presented, over a significant time period and in multiple contexts, by Dr. Wood. Further, your use of the video clip appears not to have taken into consideration the thoroughness of Dr. Wood’s analysis of the “spire” issue in the book under consideration; namely “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Dr. Judy Wood (WDTTG?).
      Her treatment of the spire issue is not at all limited to the video clip. It is laid out over several pages–133-139–in WDTTG? and includes several factors in confirmation of the evidence of dustification; see, e.g., pg. 135 and the graphic analysis of “Fall zone.”
      I indicated, above, that Dr. Wood’s treatment of the ‘dustification’ issue has been presented by Dr. Wood over a significant time period and in multiple contexts. One example of this is that Dr. Wood specifically raised the issue of “Dustification” with NIST, in a formal challenge to NIST’s slipshod presentation published in NCSTAR 1.
      Dr. Wood had formally challenged NIST’s assessment of the “initiation of collapse” of the Twin Towers in March, 2007. In her challenge to NIST, the following was stated:
      “…Degree of destruction of material that resulted in “Dustification” of the massive Twin Tower and WTC complex structures (other than WTC 7) that are, yet again, indicative of Unusual Energy effects that are Unexplained b NIST.”
      Source: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/%40doc/%40os/%40ocio/%40oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004678.pdf
      In a sense, Adam, you are a braver person than NIST was, in that you attempted a criticism of Dr. Wood’s dustification finding, as it related to the spire. NIST didn’t. Instead, NIST simply acknowledged they did not investigate the actual collapses of the WTC towers:
      “As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.”
      Source: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/%40doc/%40os/%40ocio/%40oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004161.pdf
      As NIST’s Congressional charge was to “determine why and how the Twin Towers collapsed,” I leave it to you and others to consider the implications of NIST’s response to Dr. Wood.
      More importantly, however, it is accurate to state that if one is to undertake to debunk Dr. Wood, then, in that event, one should show how they are at least ahead of NIST in having conducted an investigation. NIST, to its credit, did not undertake to engage in debunking because, as it acknowledged, it did not investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers.
      Dr. Wood did that.
      By simply posting an alternative video, I must say, Adam, that absent a greater showing of your analytical work, it does not appear to me that you have investigated the destruction of the Twin Towers either. You have not even stated why you consider the angle of your video clip to be superior to that used by Dr. Wood (which was done in conjunction with a number of additional factors in support of the information contained in the video she relied on). There are at least two visual obstructions occurring during the video clip you use. And, for what it’s worth, the video you use does not appear to show anything materially different from the other one. They both show dustification of the spire, as I see it.
      Mind you, I am not here interested in claims back and forth about what the videos show. Each person is free to come to their own conclusion about visual information and about what it shows.
      However, I stand firm on the proposition that merely putting forward your version of what a video clip shows does not constitute debunking. It constitutes an opinion.
      The issue is really deeper than is revealed here. In the main, it is essential to examine who did the actual work for NIST, leading to the slipshod NCSTAR 1. In other words, who received the $16million in funding that Congress appropriated? The two primary recants were:
      Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC); and
      Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA).
      It might interest you to know, it certainly interested Dr. Wood (she sued them), that SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture and development and testing (lethality effects and otherwise) of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Small wonder, then, NIST did not investigate the actual collapses as had they done so, it would have been outright fraud, instead of willful blindness, to have avoided the conclusion DEW destroyed those towers.

      1. jammonius says:
         “It might interest you to know, it certainly interested Dr. Wood (she sued them), that SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture and development and testing (lethality effects and otherwise) of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).”
         And it might interest you to know that many of the top tier scientist working on the NIST report are also involved in the development of nanothermates.
         It is also a fact that NIST’s admission that they only worked their modelling to the point of initiation came as a response to a letter from all the signers of a petition from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, plus letters attached from lawyers for some of the survivor families.
         This issue of NIST failing to fulfill the congressional mandate is and has been a well-known issue in the truth community for years. I am sure Adam is just as aware of it as you are.
         One would hope that you are as informed as to the issues countering Wood’s hypothesis as you are of that hypothesis. As there are other compelling features of the tower’s destruction that would counter such a hypothesis.
         So, unless you are another one-shot Wood supporter, stay engaged and make your case.
         ww

   5. How about removing the term “debunk” once and for all from 9/11 discussions. If it truly is “bunk”, then demonstrate it and let your audience decide for themselves.

   6. Hello Adam,
      You may have a point, your 2nd video does appear to dismiss the first.
      But you are misleading with the main point altogether. Dr. Wood’s central claim is : most of the buildings turn to dust. She bases this belief, NOT as you say ” on a well known video taken from a particular angle” but the many videos that show the buildings turning to dust.

   7. Except for a short intro and a few short statements by me I allowed Dr Judy Wood to do a full presentation of her powerpoint presentation called “Where Did The Towers Go?” on my cable access TV show called MEET THE TRUTH. Learn from the bes
      t qualified scientist about what happened at the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/2001. Dr Judy Wood explanes the empirical evidence with her forensic investigation of the World Trade Center complex. You can also read her over 500 page college-like text book titled “Where Did The Towers Go?”. Here’s the video: https://vimeo.com/45759814

2. I’m not quite sure why you stated this as one of your ground rules, “Some ground rules: There will be no insults or ridicule permitted unless they are based on facts and science.”
   My question is, “Why should there be insults and ricicule at all if this is a discussion?” Please explain why you would permit insults and ridicule based on facts and science.

   1. nausmr asks:
      “My question is, “Why should there be insults and ricicule at all if this is a discussion?” Please explain why you would permit insults and ridicule based on facts and science.”
      Ridicule is a response to the ridiculous Nausmr, not to reason, fact or science.
      It should be noted that ridicule has never been excluded from rational debate. Many who are unfamiliar with the ‘rules’ of debate mistake the term “ad hominem” [‘at the man’] as a ban on ridicule in rational debate. This is false. Ad hominem is not permitted as a replacement for reasoned argument – however, if something is ridiculous, impossible, or insane, and can be rationally argued to be so, it would be unreasonable to ban or discourage such argument.
      It should be made clear to all, that issues of controversy generate heat and emotion, and such should be kept under control – flame wars that are nothing but page after page of insults are worse than boring. But in balance, those with thin skin should beware of getting involved, or learn to understand that not all criticism is “insult” and “attack”.
      These comments are mine, and should not be construed as the official ground rules for this forum, which is Mr. McKee’s, and all moderation is at his discretion.
      ww

      1. Mr. Hybrid, or is it Jim Fetzer? The administrator here may have a twisted sense of humour but your only contributions so far have been pointless bullying with words and of no value to the subject. And to Mr. McKee I must ask, why are you allowing a serial pest to drive interested contributors away??

         1. Hybridrogue and Jim Fetzer are different people. In fact, they usually totally disagree with each other. A question to you, Patrick: what would you suggest I do, and how do you know interested contributors have been driven away?

3. Debunking Adam Syed
   Oh dear – Adam Syed cannot observe reality accurately. The 70 stories of steel does indeed turn to dust – as viewed from several different angles and in still images.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMjVXtNUec
   Also:
   1) lack of significant seismic signature
   2) lack of appropriate sound
   3) Lack of building
   All this and considerably more is covered in videos on this page:
   http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=60

   1. Andrew Johnson says:
      “Debunking Adam Syed.”
      Andrew should be very careful with his approach here. The forum and a candid world will decide when “debunking” is successful. Perhaps Mr. Johnson can refer to his replies as ‘counters’, or criticisms, rather than beginning – right off the bat, with such an arrogant stance…??
      *** He further claims these points prove something:
      1) “lack of significant seismic signature.”
      > There would only be a significant seismic signature if the material hit the ground as one single event – it is obvious that the event took place over a matter of many moments – thus momentum is dispersed and no seismic signature would be expected.
      2) “lack of appropriate sound”
      > One cannot judge what the “sound” would have been at varying distances, and varying recording devices. Many sensitive sound recorders have a built-in baffle to prevent overload. As both a videographer and field sound recordist, I have a lot of experience with such ‘drop outs’- especially while recording thunder storms.
      There is also the issue of distance from the event. Many videos are taken from quite a distance with telephoto lens. Expecting overwhelming volume in such an instance is ridiculous.
      There are in fact recordings that capture the awesome nature of the rumble and roar described by many on the scene that day.
      3) Lack of building.
      This is simply a myth based on the misinterpretation of the photo evidence. There was a huge amount of heavy debris left in the aftermath. Only about ten percent was left in the footprints of the towers, the rest covered the entire multi-acre complex.
      ww

      1. Hello Hybrid,
         This replies to your post of June 3, 9:37AM.
         It also takes into consideration your claim in a subsequent post to Andrew Johnson that you take “debunking” credit for the 9:37am post.
         I disagree that you have debunked anything at all. Yours is more in the nature of an opinion and is certainly not at all well reasoned or well substantiated enough to count as debunking, as I see it.
         In fact, you do the concept of debunking a disservice because you are making that claim on the basis of a unilateral declaration. Wasn’t it you who posted up something, somewhere in this thread about being both judge and jury?
         So it is with your debunking claim. And, in actually looking at it, all you seem to do is formulate a “no it isn’t” reply without anything at all in the way of either understanding of the initial claim, how it was substantiated (hint: read the book) or what it actually meant.
         I must say that at this point this thread appears to have served a very useful purpose, including, Hybrid, all of your posts. I note that we are now merely one week from the beginning of the Vancouver “Hearings” (not hearings, as it were). I think those who take on the task of commenting on Dr. Wood’s “Where Did the Towers Go?” at the hearings might be well advised to review this thread before doing so; most especially the link provided in Andrew Johnson’s post of June 7. That is to say, this link:
         http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=60
         As for me, I agree with Dr. Wood who is declining to attend the Vancouver hearings. However, I do think a conference featuring the book “Where Did the Towers Go?” properly organized and set up would be the best next step to take for all those who are interested in knowing what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11.
         Permit me to suggest taking seriously the idea of setting up such a conference.
         Best
         jammonius

      2. jammonius says:
         “I disagree that you have debunked anything at all. Yours is more in the nature of an opinion and is certainly not at all well reasoned or well substantiated enough to count as debunking, as I see it”
         And do you back this up with any reasoning or substance? No, again all you have to offer is “read the book”.
         My points as to Johnson’s:
         1) lack of significant seismic signature
         2) lack of appropriate sound
         3) Lack of building
         My counter points are specific enough that you may have attempted to address them here in your post of today.
         However, you chose the “read the book” mantra again. None of those points are exclusive to Wood’s hypothesis, and can be countered with the known facts of the 9/11 event as generally known.
         If you wish to address substance then do so. If you wish to address my “personality”, go into your garden or ashram and have a talk with your god of choice.
         ww

      3. Hybridrogue,
         i have been reading what should be a very interesting discussion only to be continually annoyed by your childish jibes at other contributors. Your reply to Andrews post makes me suspect you are what we call in my country a tugger.
         By your own inferences you should not take offence to my comment unless you are thin skinned of course.
         On another note i have only just found out about Dr Woods book and have been trying to buy a copy. It seems that it has been banned from Australia. i would appreciate it if anyone could advise me on how to obtain a copy.

4. I have read Dr Judy Wood’s book. She stresses at the outset that she is only addressing the evidence. Her book is indeed a text book written from the perspective of a highly accomplished materials scientist and teacher. The book is easy to read and understand with copious illustrations and diagrams. She pulls together many kinds of evidence about what happened on 9/11. To be frank, it would defeat logic not to accept her conclusion that most explanations offered to explain what happened don’t stand up to forensic materials science scrutiny. She raises the paramount issue of what could have caused the events if conventional explanations do not suffice and speculates about exploitation of the little-known Hutchison effect, the interaction of electricity and magnetism, research undertaken by Tesla e.g. the Tesla coil, and the curious behaviour of hurricane Erin. It is herd not to agree with her view that a secret technology was involved, one that demonstrated the phenomenal power of the USA’s ‘full dominance spectrum’ whilst also giving the sought for pretext to effect regional regime changes. I commend this book to everyone who is seriously concerned to understand and learn from 9/11.

   1. Reg Vernon says:
      “To be frank, it would defeat logic not to accept her conclusion that most explanations offered to explain what happened don’t stand up to forensic materials science scrutiny.”
      My reply:
      To be frank, one is going to have to make a much more specific argument here, one that does indeed stand up to logic and reason, rather than such general statements of opinion presented as fact.
      So Reg, why don’t you explain some of these issues of forensic material science for us?
      By the way, “the little-known Hutchison effect,” may be new to many, but it is hardly new to those of us who have studied the arcane and esoteric aspects of technology. Hutchison is in fact an extremely controversial figure. He is in fact considered a fraud in many quarters. It IS a fact that the instruments and equipment that he put together from electronic scrap yards had little to nothing to do with “the effect” – and it is posited by those who accept “the effect” that it was Hutchinson himself, and had to do with telekinesis – not physics technology.
      ww

      1. “one is going to have to make a much more specific argument here”:
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ULJ70LzTNc
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQchK4X8r0
         1i

5. I don’t agree that the second video demonstrates that the central steel spire was not dustified. I think that the video shows that although it was still standing and commenced a freefall descent, it dustifies before it disappears from view. I think that, on balance, the totality of the materials science arguments deployed by Dr Wood in her book amply justifies her description of dustification. It may be a little uncomfortable for people to bring themselves to accept that conventional causes do not explain the 9/11 event, but I think that she has adequately proved that they do not.

   1. “I don’t agree that the second video demonstrates that the central steel spire was not dustified. I think that the video shows that although it was still standing and commenced a freefall descent, it dustifies before it disappears from view.”~Reg Vernon
      I am sorry, but this is simply not a matter of subjective difference of opinion here. It is clear from this video that the tip of the spire in intact all the way until it falls out of frame. At no point does it “dustify”. This cannot be a matter of your lack of visual acuity, it is impossible – the view and angle are simply too clear to be denied, in other than delusional denial.
      Dealing with such stubborn denial of what is actually portrayed in these visuals is going to make it awfully hard to refrain from making due ridicule. But to put it as gentlemanly as possible, your statement above is clearly absurd.
      ww

      1. The fact that several firemen on the bottom four floors of stairwell B within the inner core survived the destruction of WTC-1 is a good indication that the building was dustified.

      2. Robert E. Salt says:
         “The fact that several firemen on the bottom four floors of stairwell B within the inner core survived the destruction of WTC-1 is a good indication that the building was dustified.”
         Really…and just what sort of reasoning do you put to that assertion?
         ww

         1. Survival is difficult when 100+ floors collapse on top of you.

      3. Are we still engaged Mr. Salt?
         http://911blogger.com/news/2006-03-31/stories-firemen-who-survived-north-tower-collapse-suggest-demolition
         A dozen firemen, a civilian, and a police officer, who were on Stairway B between floors 1 and 6, survived the collapse of the 110-floor north World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001.
         The strong upward winds described are indicative of the results of implosion. How it can be asserted that this somehow proves beam weapons takes a leap of logic beyond rationality.
         One would hope that at this late stage of the 9/11 discussion that all would have some familiarity with controlled demolition. And such knowledge of it that it would be understood that very often an implosion is the reaction of explosion, and as such are part of the ‘controlled’ aspect of demolition, in that the implosive force sucks together the inner structure to prevent excess ejections beyond the perimeter of the building being demolished.
         That this did not result to any appreciable degree during the destruction of the towers – considering the distance some of these ton weight projectiles achieve still does not mitigate the strong wind that would suck upward in the center during the destruction. If these people had been higher up in the building they would have been sucked into the middle of the eruption like so much kindling.
         ww

         1. Excuse me, I had to take a break from this nonsense to watch Dancing with the Stars……After the Weapon was used the dustification process continued as evidenced by the decomposition of the firemen’s boots and the rusting of steel. The Bankers Trust building was repaired but was later taken down as the process continued. Those who inhaled the dust had the process continue within their lungs. Doctors had never seen a condition like this before. For years truckloads of dirt went in and out of ground zero in an attempt to control the problem. The ridiculous square pools that now occupy the footprints of the Towers were put there to deal with this issue.

      4. Robert E. Salt says:
         “Excuse me, I had to take a break from this nonsense to watch Dancing with the Stars..”
         Among several other things that have nothing to do with his assertion:
         “The fact that several firemen on the bottom four floors of stairwell B within the inner core survived the destruction of WTC-1 is a good indication that the building was dustified.”
         If such a lack of focus on this subject, I suggest that Mr. Salt stick with Dancing with the Stars.
         ww

6. I too have no problem having the discussion about Judy Wood. It is in the spirit of free speech to do so. Although I have spent a good deal of time in the past debunking Wood those blogs are now gone so I will reluctantly agree to spend some time doing it again. To start with however I will post a short outline of some of the major issues with Wood that I sent to a friend a while back. I will be glad to expand on the points I made in that letter if anyone wants a clarification or more detail.
   “I have not read her book but I have studied her theories and conclusions. I have also debated this issue extensively with one of Wood’s staunchest supporters on-line. An anonymous blogger that goes by the name “WHO” which may actually be Wood herself I am not sure. At any rate I debated this exaustively with WHO down to the fine details and in the process learned a lot about directed energy weapons. One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam. In other words a beam fired from the side of the tower would destroy the closest side first and essentially burrow through the building until finally piercing the opposite side. If the beam were fired from space for example it must destroy the building from the top down with the top floor going first and progressively destroying the building floor by floor down. This damage pattern was not seen on 9/11. The buildings were destroyed symmetrically, from the inside out, starting from well below the top floor. A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded. Think of a DEW beam as a red hot sword swinging lightning fast through a tower made of butter. No matter how you slice it and no matter from what angle the blade comes in, it still MUST start slicing from one side to the other. The damage on the close side would be blasted inward and the damage on the far side would be outward. No way around that. What we see in the towers is explosives from inside blasting all four sides out simultaneously. This observation is fatal to Wood’s theory when you get right down to it.
   There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable. Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives. Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser. Impressive as hell yeah, but the power needed made it completely impractical. Wood’s theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out. Anyway I hope I explained this reasonably well. I will go into more detail about specifics if you want me to XXXX. Just let me know.

   1. Hi Adam,
      Coincidentally enough, the “spire” was discussed here recently
      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22059&view=findpost&p=10805234
      I’ve never entered the Wood debate. I’ve a lot of balls in the air at the minute so I’ll sit this one out and read for a change (apart from the following 2cents) 
      Although I will say that a lot of theories have been designed (whether intentionally or not) to make very valid observational evidence outwardly absurd and tainted.
      1. The videos where we see flashes as the aircrafts impact and the actual way in which the south tower was penetrated have been tainted by NPT.
      2. Those who point to the appendage on the aircraft which is seen to interact with the south tower have been crudely labelled “pod people”. Those who “took ownership” of this anomaly linked themselves to all sorts of other crap.
      3. The “dustification” of the “spire” is another example of what appears to be a section of the core falling through itself (discussed in the link above) and only government loyalist 9/11 physics acrobatics can even attempt to explain that anomaly. 
      The spire’s base was whipped from underneath itself. It fell at freefall speed. The dust that was “left hanging” showed how fast it fell.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&feature
      And it wasn’t a “spire”.
      http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/7083/wtc1spireraystubblebine.jpg
      How can a 60-70 story cold steel lattice structure that moments before was holding the building up fall through itself after the debris from the collapse had run its path?
      DEW is a distraction from this very important event IMO.

      1. Maybe that image was the wrong one to accompany the phrase “it isn’t a spire” lol.

      2. Craig, I recommend you finish reading her book and get yourself familiar with her research before you start a discussion about her research.

         1. Nausmr, the “discussion” involves anyone who wants to participate. It doesn’t depend on me having read the whole book. Why don’t you spend less time complaining about what I’m doing and more time making a strong case of Dr. Wood.

      3. Craig, why depend on me to to make a strong case for Dr Judy Wood. I would submit that the reader go right to source and get familiar with the research first before commenting on such a “controversial figure” as you so state in your title of this discussion. Maybe people like you wouldn’t think she was such a “controversial figure” if you familiarized yourself with her research by reading her entire book. Maybe others wouldn’t involve themselves in discussions about her work offering ill-informed comments if they did the work it takes to understand her research. I have been studying research on 9/11 for almost 7 years and became familiar with Dr Judy Wood’s research back in 2006. I still needed to read her book entirely to gain a better understanding of her research in 2011. I would hope people that are serious about 9/11 truth would make an effort to do thier own research and own so they are capable of making well-informed points about a particular 9/11 researcher.

         1. Nausmr,
            This is a forum where people on all sides can offer their views on Dr. Wood’s research. I’m not depending on your for anything. You don’t want to participate? Don’t.
            I think you don’t know the meaning of the word, “controversy.” You state that if I read her whole book I might not find her controversial. The controversy exists regardless of what I do. There is strong debate about the validity of what she says. No reasonable person can say there is no controversy concerning her work.
            And please drop the lecturing tone about how everybody must have read her entire book before opening their mouths. You don’t get to make that call.
            Just make your case and respond to others as you see fit. If you understand her research so well, you can help us all to understand it better no matter what we’ve read.

      4. hybridrogue1,A simple question with a simple yes or no answer. Did you read Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did The Towers Go” in its entirety?

   2. It appears that this thread was set up as part of a campaign to distort the image of Dr. Wood, beginning with the title of the thread. You may as well have labeled your article, “Let’s promote propaganda to convince people Dr. Wood is wrong.” If the comments do not address what is in Dr. Wood’s book, then they are nothing more than propaganda. In other words, propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work is insulting and is an attempt to distort the information she presents in her book.
      Mr. ruffadam, Dr. Wood does not discuss “space beams” or “space-based DEW” in her book. So your post is nothing more than propaganda. You are unfamiliar with the technology Dr. Wood describes in her book. Your post is a form of ad hominem. It would be no different than for me to say “Mr. ruffadam promotes the idea that little green men from outer space dropped fairy dust from outer space on the WTC and crushed it. I can show that the WTC wasn’t crushed, so that debunks Mr. ruffadam.”

      1. Nausmr,
         You have no basis for what you’re saying. A campaign to distort? Propaganda? How do you figure?
         This is not a campaign at all. If I wanted to trash Judy Wood, I’d just write an article trashing her. If you read my last article you’d know I’m not afraid to go after people when I think they deserve it. I have not done this here.
         The fact is I created this article and comment thread to have a serious discussion about her research. If this doesn’t succeed, then at least I tried. Oh, and the title? She is controversial and she is enigmatic. Neither description is a condemnation of her.
         Why don’t you devote some of your energy (no pun intended) to making a case for her and for her work? I’d be very interested to read it.

      2. nausmr says:
         “Mr. ruffadam, Dr. Wood does not discuss “space beams” or “space-based DEW” in her book. So your post is nothing more than propaganda. You are unfamiliar with the technology Dr. Wood describes in her book.”
         If this is so nausmr, then Wood’s website misrepresents her views on things terribly. If this is so, it means she is backing out of the assertions making up her lawsuit, which specifically asserts that beam weapons in orbit are what destroyed the towers.
         I have a feeling that Mr.nausmr is suffering from some miscomprehension as to what Wood is asserting. He also has developed quite an attitude in a very short while. I have to wonder at his vocabulary. To consider the term “enigma” as an insult is…well, downright weird.
         So if you are so informed as to the technology Wood describes in her book, let us see what you have to say about it.
         ww

      3. Yes and that explains the serial pest hybrid fetzer being able to waffle on about nothing for so long

   3. Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:

      A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.

      Not so fast and be more specific.
      If you want to rule out space-based DEW for the towers and WTC-7, I’ll probably be in agreement. But let’s not take it off the table too quickly for WTC-6, WTC-5, and WTC-4 that don’t have adequate explanations.
      In a similar vein, you frame ground-based DEW in a stilted fashion.
      The proper framing is multiple DEW devices and “spire-based DEW”.
      You write:

      There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable.

      I can find agreement with what you say. Sometimes her analysis is questionable. I have found errors (repeated in her book), but not to the extent that it discredits everything.
      You write:

      Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.

      I disagree with this strongly. It is the “specificity” of the destruction that rules out “pyroclastic flow generated by explosives” and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a “hot” (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
      Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)

      Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser.

      You are very much correct that DEW would require a massive energy source. This is why my modification to Dr. Wood’s “hinting” has been “nuclear-powered spire-based DEW”. A small nuclear reactor akin to what the US Navy uses seems to me would be easier to come by that trying to get “free-energy from Hurricane Erin”. Radiation was measured at ground zero; the govt did write up reports on those readings; Dr. Jones did comment on those readings and did a nifty slight-of-scientific hand by saying: “These don’t match three known nuclear weapons types, so no nukes were used.” [… and no further speculation was made into the source of such radiation.] First responder ailments also mirror that of Hiroshima survivors.

      Wood’s theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out.

      I’ll bite that Wood’s theories are full of holes. Of course, we don’t eat the holes from Swiss cheese, so let’s not get hung up on too many of the holes with Dr. Wood. Case in point, both a space-based and a ground-based DEW device could not get its beam to “skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out.” But gee, a spire-based DEW wouldn’t have to skip past outer walls; it’d be destroying the building from the inside out, as observed.

      1. Senior,
         This claim you make is typical of the errors Wood herself makes when analyzing photos:
         “It is the “specificity” of the destruction that rules out “pyroclastic flow generated by explosives” and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a “hot” (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.”
         Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed. In fact that is almost certainly what happened, and since photos capture only a single moment in time you cannot say different because you don’t know what happened before the photo was taken, or after. As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc . This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific. Show a specific photo and point out what you consider the anomalies to be and we can discuss it.
         One of the reasons space based DEW’s can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky. If you take a look at the orbit of the kind that travels around the earth you will discover how fast it has to move in order to stay in orbit. From the time of the first tower destruction event to the second such a satellite would literally be over another country. So for this type to explain the destruction there would have to be two of them in orbit at least. A stationary satellite has to be positioned at a VERY high altitude in order to escape Earth’s gravity. Hundreds of miles up in fact. So the DEW fired from such a platform would have to travel hundreds of miles to reach its target AFTER passing through the atmosphere. This type of platform cannot move in relation to the ground so it could only ever be used against NYC and surrounding area. Would the military want a weapon like that which they couldn’t use against anyone else ever?
         Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.
         A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim. Wood’s claims when you look closely at them are actually the claims NOT supported by the evidence. More later.

      2. Ruffadam,
         I made these points about ‘time’ and “instant” in photography before. I am glad you reiterated it again for us here. It was sitting on my back burner as well.
         Heat rises, paper floats above in such instances.
         We also must consider distance as far as the heated materials within this flow of plumes and gasses. It is only going to remain hot for a certain distance. And depending on terrain it will not be an even spreading. In the artificial canyons of Manhattan, the whole bloom and plume trajectory would have been extremely chaotic.
         Thanks for raising these points.
         ww

      3. Dear Mr. Adam wrote:

         Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed.

         Paper was scattered about from the plane impacts. Even more paper was scattered about after the first tower came down.
         As for the leaves, they were on the trees. The flags were on the flag poles.
         The point is, materials that were more easily combustible at lower temperatures (than paint on cars) were readily available and did not ignite.
         You write:

         As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc.

         Mr. OneSliceShort wrote:

         I read recently of an EMT who arrived on the scene at the WTC7 loading dock triage as the north tower collapsed and stated that as she was running away her hair and jacket caught fire.

         That would be Patricia Ondrovic.
         We don’t know exactly what lit her hair and parametric coat on fire. She left the impression with me that it was NOT the dust, but was the after-effects of a car exploding right next to her. If memory serves me, said in one of her interviews that the door of one car popped right off of its hinges and out and slammed her into a wall.
         You write:

         This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific.

         I’ll give you that Dr. Wood has been sloppy in some areas, but she had been very specific in others. She has at least two web pages full of fire damage to vehicles (but sloppy in regards to where they were when they got damaged). I’ve pointed out to you before the fires to vehicles along West Broadway next to the WTC-7 before it came down. If the pyroclastic flow was as hot as you claim and because we know this flow went around corners, we would have seen more fires in a more radial pattern from the source. That camera filming the news reporter should have picked up fire damage all over (e.g., on the cross-street), not just on West Broadway.
         Instead, my understanding is that much happened line-of-sight as if it snuck out through gaps in the debris and window slits.
         You write:

         One of the reasons space based DEW’s can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky.

         I’m okay with that.
         I guess I’m okay with space-based DEW being completely trashed, despite it being one of the things hinted at by Dr. Wood.
         The reason I’m okay with it is that it is not my position or belief (on the towers) for reasons of the destruction originating within albeit high up in the towers. Space-based DEW would have scorched it from the roof on down.
         You write:

         Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.

         I’m not earnestly arguing this point.
         You are correct in the HUGE power requirements. Dr. Wood makes reference to free Tesla energy and tapping into hurricane Erin.
         However, you should be aware that meeting the energy requirements of a space-based DEW isn’t so hard to come by. In the 1980’s when Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative were in full swing, one serious idea was to detonate a type of nuclear bomb in space and to channel its “useful” wavelengths (into targeting and destroying incoming missiles and whatnot) before the blast and heat waves obliviated the portions of the device doing that channeling.
         In such an event, Hurricane Erin could be useful in hiding that nuclear detonation in space from prying eyes on Earth.
         Again, it is not my intent to be arguing AGAINST you FOR space-based DEW. The purpose of this comment is to help you think out of the box.

         A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim.

         Sure, no evidence attributed to such devices exists in the public realm. As I’ve wrote before:

         Star Wars and SDI were not some sort of jobs creation programs for the overly educated with no expectations of ever producing anything useful to the Defense Department.

         How does the expression go? “We could fill libraries with the information the public doesn’t know.”

      4. Post a specific photo(s) and make your observations about what the photo shows and we will discuss it. Without a specific photo(s) to evaluate we cannot have a real discussion about the claims being made.

      5. Dear Señor Adam,
         I apologize in my previous post that was written initially with me thinking Señor Rogue and making references to our previous discussion. Before posting I managed to catch the error on who I was addressing and quoting, but not some of the internal references to, say, West Broadway vehicle destruction.
         You asked for specific photos. Because you are not Señor Rogue, it allows me to re-post passages from an earlier thread [2012-05-07] for analysis here.
         ++++++
         The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
         http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg
         http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg
         There’s a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn’t know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.

         “Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel… That gaping hole? That’s where one of the twin towers stood.”

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
         You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn’t flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter’s piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
         Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
         http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
         http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
         http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
         http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
         Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
         When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred (Image19swamp.jpg and Image20swamp.jpg) mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later (081swamp.jpg and 080.jpg) [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
         Ergo, WTF caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not light-of-sight (as shown by the reporter’s video)?

      6. Señor,
         Since you are reposting from the “Two Quit” thread, I shall as well:
         All I will say at this time Señor, is that moments of photography and video are captured throughout time.
         Especially in an event such as 9/11 scenes change their character quickly from moment to moment.
         A scene of burnt and burning cars may at one moment appear to be a scene where everything is in fire effect.
         Moments later paper held aloft prior to said shot, may begin drifting into the scene. At that point if, photographed with no clear sequence being noted – the scene will appear ‘anomalous’: “What could cause the cars to ignite that wouldn’t ignite paper???”
         >toasted/080 jpg: It is September in this shot – the trees would be full bloom – take a closer look Señor, the leaves ARE charred.
         >081 jpg: again a September scene, same thing, the trees are mostly stripped of leaves. And the area has obviously been attended to this is not a raw aftermath shot.
         ____________________NOW
         Now Señor,
         I mentioned back on that thread that I might be willing to go through all the other jpgs you offered. However, you are not the only one I am involved with today. And I am not going to pursue that project at this very moment.
         If things slow down here with our guests, I could have time to do just that…so be patient.
         I will note however – that so far, nothing you have offered as visual evidence has any definitive nature to it as far as evidence of a DEW weapon, or however this thing is supposed to be described. I feel that I am spinning my wheels chasing a wild goose following your leads.
         I will make this note as far as your observation of “selective” in these fire damages; anyone who has seen the aftermath of a tornado is always astonished how “selective” the damage appears to be. One house may be utterly destroyed, simply not there anymore, while the house just next to it, or across a street is untouched. This is the nature of these types of chaotic events, and taken as a whole, we are going to have to accept some of the seemingly ‘selective’ nature of the aftermath of 9/11.
         ww

      7. Dear Señor Rogue,
         Your re-posting of your words leaves out the fact that my re-posting was actually from two postings that bookended yours. My posting has the response to yours.
         Sure, no problem. I will accept your criticism of DEW below wholesale:

         [N]othing you have offered as visual evidence has any definitive nature to it as far as evidence of a DEW weapon, or however this thing is supposed to be described. I feel that I am spinning my wheels chasing a wild goose following your leads.

         … But with the caveat that the same can be said of super-duper nano-thermite (combined with a host of incendiaries) and their potential burning activation in the pyroclastic clouds. In fact, trying to attribute the vehicle damage to those mechanisms [which I assume is your agenda] comes up even shorter in terms of being a full deck. You know this. It has been repeated many times with nary an acknowledgment (or valid contradiction) from you.
         According to you, the CIT arguments somewhat recently got you into the CIT camp. Thus, your beliefs seem capable of being changed. I do not know why you resist acknowledging the failings in your 9/11 mechanism du-jour (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite combined with a host of indendiaries). It can’t account for the duration of under-rubble fires or the measured radiation. It also can’t account for the “specificity” in vehicle damage, as shown in Vince’s reporting. You are simply making things up or uncritically repeating nonsense [your agenda?] when you go with your “hot pyroclastic flow.” Gee, even Willy Rodriquez and a number of firemen were under a fire-truck much much closer to a tower than any of the vehicles on West Broadway, and they and their protective firetruck didn’t get toasted. Tons of evidence exists of things that should have been toasted and weren’t. And you have poor explanations for the anomalous toasting of some things and not others.
         Thus, when you feel as if your wheels are spinning chasing a wild goose, it is because your don’t have enough weight sitting on your bald drive tires to get sufficient friction to go up the slippery slope to the goose pond. Try putting a hefty book in your buggy’s boot, like one from Dr. Wood.

      8. I have only discovered this discussion thread, working my way through the past month and a half worth of dialogue, so this posting is on what is now rather old. Apologies, therefore, if what I state here has already been covered in subsequent discussion.
         Also, I am new to the wordpress forum system, so I don’t yet know how to do fancy quoting (and can’t find a guide to learn how it’s done). But that’s OK for now.
         [quote]hybridrogue1 says: June 3, 2012 at 9:21 pm
         nausmr says:
         “Mr. ruffadam, Dr. Wood does not discuss “space beams” or “space-based DEW” in her book. So your post is nothing more than propaganda. You are unfamiliar with the technology Dr. Wood describes in her book.”
         If this is so nausmr, then Wood’s website misrepresents her views on things terribly. If this is so, it means she is backing out of the assertions making up her lawsuit, which specifically asserts that beam weapons in orbit are what destroyed the towers.[/quote]
         I am very glad to know that the work of Dr Judy Wood is being talked about seriously, which was not always the case. I do not consider myself qualified to evaluate the technical details of her observations, or those made by others, except at a common sense or intuitive level. However, I do fancy myself to have a pretty good grasp of logic and fairness. My main goal in taking part in this conversation, assuming I continue to do so, is to try to make sure that what is stated about what Dr Wood and other researchers who disagree with her is as accurate as possible, so that the debate can be based upon the actual positions being taken, rather than characterisations that distort or misrepresent what Dr Wood and her critics actually claim.
         In the case above, I would like, therefore, to ask for an actual quote coming from Judy Wood’s lawsuit that gives evidence that she has made the sort of statement being attributed to her. I would be surprised to see such a thing, given what I have heard her say during various presentations, including the one she made in Madison, Wisconsin on 4 August 2007 (http://youtu.be/GGsuzNmfdOI (pt 1) and http://youtu.be/2EX45sQhIOI (pt 2)), and the one she made at St Annes on 24 October 2011 (http://youtu.be/ufWggCESyDg (pt 1) and http://youtu.be/M4XDN9sY3GI (pt 2) [audio improves after three minute intro]), and in various radio interviews. Dr Wood is quite careful to avoid stating any causal theory, let alone make claims about what actually produced the disintegration of the buildings about which she speaks. Therefore, if someone can actually quote a statement she has made, either in speaking or writing, where she does make such an assertion, I would be most interested in knowing about it. (She does make statements about what appears to be a disintegration of the building structure at a molecular level, and says things about how “directed energy weapons” could account for such effects, but I think she stops short of saying that she has evidence to prove such a claim, nor has she made that claim, to the best of my knowledge.)
         The web site put together and maintained by Andrew Johnson for Dr Judy Wood contains a description of the legal case she filed, at http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml (not all of the links on that page remain operational, however).

   4. ruffadam says:

      I have not read her book but I have studied her theories and conclusions.

      If one does read Dr Wood’s book or sees any of the presentations she has done (such as those referenced in the posting I made a short while ago), one will note that she has not developed or stated any theories or come to any conclusions. She simply presents evidence, and offers a possibility for what sort of energy or device might be able to produce the effects she points out. Dr Wood does not attempt to make or present a case that such a device, if it exists, is in fact responsible for the disintegration of the buildings on 9/11.
      I understand that it might be useful to think about the properties of a “directed energy weapon” which would have the capacity to produce the sort of damage and destruction observed at the World Trade Centre. However, I would prefer to see some discussion and debate about the evidence Judy Wood presents, whether the evidence is actually what she claims it to be, and, if it is accepted, how we might be able to account for it.
      Looking at one specific claim about the evidence Dr Wood presents, ruffadam says:

      Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.

      In order for this statement to be valid, it must be supported by experimental evidence. Can anyone site actual studies that demonstrate the various effects observed, including the “wilted” car doors, clean lines of demarcation between damaged and undamaged portions of vehicles, undamaged upholstery and plastic moulding around doors and cars that were completely inverted (“flipped upside down”)? Unless all of those effects can be produced under controlled conditions, I don’t think that such statements as the one cited above about pyroclastic flow can be accepted.

      1. Since posting the remarks immediately above, I’ve obtained a somewhat better understanding of what a pyroclastic flow really is. In fact, the root of the word (“pyro” – “φωτιά” being Greek for “fire”) is enough in itself to establish that a basic property of such a flow is that it is hot, which it has not been established that the thick billowing clouds observed during the destruction (what Judy Wood calls “dustification”) of the twin towers actually were. What basis do we have for knowing the temperature of those clouds? As has been observed earlier, were they actually hot, they would have scorched trees an produced serious burns on any animal life in the vicinity.
         Given the above, I herewith retract my question about experimental data concerning the effects of the capacity of pyroclastic flows to produce “toasted” cars (which is very dubious anyhow, given the various very strange effects observed mentioned in my previous posting). Since we have no reason for assuming there was any serious heat produced in these clouds, there is no point I can see in trying to establish that (real) pyroclastic flows can produce similar effects. Or can someone provide a basis for thinking that there was any substantial heat involved and find a way to deal with the unharmed trees and paper and people, etc.?

   5. “One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam.”
      The Hutchison Effect describes a field, not a beam. Judy Wood postulates that a directed energy weapon which demonstrates results similar to the Hutchison Effect was used on 9/11. She’s talking about field effects — again, NOT a beam, of any sort. Seriously, please, familiarize yourself with the research you’re critiquing.

      1. Dear Mr. Kayge,
         Thank you for highlighting this passage from Mr. AdamRuff:

         One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam.

         This passage puts some framing to DEW — directed energy weapons — that is appropriate for some devices classified as such, but not for all. DEW can also be implemented, like with Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 1 and Part 2) such that its energy is more-or-less cone shaped.
         Mr. Kayge writes:

         The Hutchison Effect describes a field, not a beam. Judy Wood postulates that a directed energy weapon which demonstrates results similar to the Hutchison Effect was used on 9/11. She’s talking about field effects — again, NOT a beam, of any sort. Seriously, please, familiarize yourself with the research you’re critiquing.

         Indeed, because a Neutron Nuclear DEW is a specialized version of a fission-triggered-fusion device designed to allow neutrons to escape (rather than bang about to create a large chain reaction), it would exhibit many of the side-effects of a nuclear bomb, including a muted EMP. (It is muted because it happens more or less within the confines of the steel framed towers.)
         9/11 Tretris: I believe that the targeted neutron energy (directed upwards) together with EMP from multiple Neutron Nuclear DEW with the WTC is essentially in agreement with Dr. Wood’s larger point about evidence of field effects.
         Hutchison Effects? Well, from what is presented in Dr. Wood’s textbook (that I have and have read cover-to-cover) and from what is available on the internet (that I have researched), so far Dr. Wood and Hutchison have not made a convincing case in my mind to believe exists, much less how it would have been weaponized and deployed on 9/11. If I’m convinced of anything, it might be that “Hutchison Effects” is the very bat-shit crazy that Dr. Wood inserted into her publications as a “get-out-of-assassination” card. Seems like a reasonable unsubstantiated speculation into the matter that also relates to the piss-pour manner in which Dr. Wood does (or really, does ~not~) do nuclear. She didn’t take nuclear research very far, accepts unchallenged certain govt reports on hot-spots, and misinterprets some evidence (some of which may be due to tainted imagery). Her dismal of anything nuclear was lame even before the holes were discovered.
         Don’t get me wrong! I highly recommend Dr. Wood’s textbook for the evidence that she presents — NUGGETS OF TRUTH —, but her analysis has some things inserted that I find to be dis.info including the Hutchison Effects. It would be a grave sin to discard her publications without first rescuing those nuggets of truth from the dis.info.
         //

7. I see three new faces already, good! Let’s hash it out. Regarding the spire Andrew I have studied that particular issue quite a bit and I can tell you from looking at full screen videos in the highest possible resolution that the spire is indeed falling and not turning to dust. Adam Syed is correct. If you want to you can also track the decent of the spire frame by frame. Remember though it picks up speed as it free falls. Just put a mark at the top of the spire after each frame and track it. You can see it fall my friend just look. The dust is shaken off the spire when it gets jolted down below by falling debris. That jolt is also what finished off the spire and started it falling.

   1. Dear Señor RuffAdam writes:

      Regarding the spire Andrew I have studied that particular issue quite a bit and I can tell you from looking at full screen videos in the highest possible resolution that the spire is indeed falling and not turning to dust.

      I agree, too.
      However, the standing spire has various amounts of concrete, drywall, and such still afixed to it and acts partially as “glue”, in addition to “piled” dust from other parts of the pulverized contents. IMHO something (probably from below) hit the spire with a DEW beam causing the residual water molecules in that left-over concrete/drywall/etc. to turn into steam and whose rapid volume expansion dustified it. The steam and dust linger in the air and no longer act as “glue” causing the steel to fall.

8. Dr. Wood has filed a case against NIST for their fraudulent 9/11 report. To the best of my knowledge no one else has done this. This is the first step in challenging the official story. It’s being kept out of court because she can prove her case.

   1. Robert E. Salt says:
      “It’s being kept out of court because she can prove her case.”
      I strongly disagree; it is being kept out of court because the charges are ludicrous and absurd.
      It is my opinion that Wood and her handler/promoter, Morgan Reynolds, made a preemptive strike on the Federal Court system with a clearly spurious quack driven case, to blunt any further possibilities of rational cases having a chance at getting a case to court.
      As far as a case against NIST for their fraudulent 9/11 report, that is a much simpler case to be made in that they failed in their mandate, to explain or even begin to explain the issue of global collapse of the towers – but ending their study at what they term; “Initiation”. The language of the congressional mandate is clear, that NIST was to discover and describe in forensic detail the global collapse.
      “Collapse” in this language means the means and cause of the destruction of the structures is must not be construed otherwise. That the towers were blown to smithereens is obvious from all visual evidence.
      Salt goes on to state; “This is the first step in challenging the official story.”
      Actually the first step is to determine the facts based on reason. To my mind, as per my investigations I don’t see any rational hypothesis in the Wood-Morgan camp. What I see is a well financed disinformation campaign.
      That Leer’s affidavit to the court clearly sabotaged his portion of the testimony is clear. And Leer is part of the inside cabal surrounding the Morgan faction.
      ww

   2. Regrettably, I champion Dr. Wood in a left- and back-handed manner.
      Dr. Wood could prove here case of the incompleteness and other errors from the govt reports. Yet, if she would have had her day in court [which she did not — and the way in which she was sidelined is par for the course, lest we forget Sibel Edmonds, April Gallop, etc.], Dr. Wood probably would have lost her case, because she was driving towards space-based DEW, free-energy from Hurricane Erin, and Hutchison Effects that she could NOT prove.
      It is as if the “crazy” were purposely put into her work (and court case) as a “get-out-of-assassination-free” card. If she discredits herself, she’ll live to endure the embarrassment. If she doesn’t, she won’t.
      “Double Jeopardy”, right? By presenting a wild-ass case and getting it thrown out, no one else can present a saner-case on the same topic, right?
      So, Señor Rogue, I agree with your assessment:

      Wood and her handler/promoter, Morgan Reynolds, made a preemptive strike on the Federal Court system with a clearly spurious quack driven case, to blunt any further possibilities of rational cases having a chance at getting a case to court.

      But I disagree with: “[a case against NIST for their fraudulent 9/11 report] is being kept out of court because the charges are ludicrous and absurd.”

      1. Señor,
         I don’t think anyone who really grasps the present system is going to have any faith in a fair hearing of any US court on the topic of 9/11.
         My point about the NIST report being clearly a fraud, provable by the fact that they didn’t even come near fulfilling their mandate to explain and describe the mechanism of ‘Global Collapse’, by simply ending their study at the “point of initiation” is clear enough for reasonable minds to reject the report as a white wash and cover-up.
         And this flows right into my critiques of the “Consensus Panel” trying to present a ‘safe’ case to be presented to….who? The court system? The mass of TVZombies who are enchanted and sleepwalking in a mythical paradigm?
         Like I have made clear before – my point in being involved is simply to find the truth, for the sake of truth. I have no illusions that the masses will wake up or that the system is capable of reforming itself.
         But tell me how it is that you agree to:
         ‘Wood and her handler/promoter, Morgan Reynolds, made a preemptive strike on the Federal Court system with a clearly spurious quack driven case, to blunt any further possibilities of rational cases having a chance at getting a case to court.’
         But you reject:
         “[a case against NIST for their fraudulent 9/11 report] is being kept out of court because the charges are ludicrous and absurd.”
         Are not “spurious quack driven case” and, “ludicrous and absurd”, essentially the same thing using different terms?
         ww

9. Dear Craig
   Thankyou for providing the photo at the beginning of your article. We should be under no illusion that a tremendous amount of technology was used to demolish the towers and certainly not conventional explosives.
   What has the “Military Industrial complex” managed to create; only God knows.
   Was the energy used innate or toxic? I think the number of people that have been made sick would suggest toxic… perhaps even nuclear.
   PS: The 9/11 debate is much richer for Dr Judy Wood’s contribution.

10. I would appreciate it if someone might explain what the significance of a hurricane some 200 miles off the coast could have to the events occurring in NY.
    Can the physics of how such a storm might be used to generate the effects in Manhattan be explained?
    As all hurricanes in each season are reported as per chances of landfall, Erin was tracked just as well. I think the assertion that there was a news blackout on this hurricane is unfounded. As it was closer to the eastern coast, the communities that might be effected were certainly kept abreast of the position of the storm.
    I lived near the Gulf Coast for around five years, the local news always kept abreast of storms that might have a chance of impact to the area. I in fact experience several hurricanes and the tornadoes that spin off from them in my time there.
    ww

    1. Dear Señor Rogue,
       You recently asked:

       I would appreciate it if someone might explain what the significance of a hurricane some 200 miles off the coast could have to the events occurring in NY.

       You asked the same thing on 2012-01-31. Here’s the snippet from my reply:

       Señor Rogue wrote:

       Is there no one capable of explaining in some actual rational manner what the significance of hurricane Erin being 200 miles to the east off the coast of NY?

       I can point out five points regarding the significance of hurricane Erin. I preface this by stating this is my speculation, but based on data points mined from both Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack.
       1) The primary purpose of hurricane Erin may have been as a last-resort back-up clean-up plan, should other 9/11 events not got off as expected or been too exhuberent in the energy of their execution. The perps could have suppressed media reports (and later re-written and re-broadcast them) while Erin was steered in to further “obscufate” the already mangled evidence.
       2) Mr. Shack (rather recently in these forums) suggested that “hurricanes suck” in the sense they would draw all clouds and present perfectly clear skies as the ideal backdrop for the media fakery they were going to deploy as part of their hoax.
       3) Dr. Wood brought up hurricane Erin in the context that it represents lots of energy. In the sense of Tesla and free energy, this storm could have been the energy source for either or both space-based and land-based DEW. (Ruling out space DEW for the towers does not rule it out for WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.) I do not discount the science potential, but I remain on the fence regarding its operational applicability to 9/11.
       4) Dr. Wood’s research into hurricane Erin, however, has the side-effect of supporting Mr. Shack’s views of how the media was controlled on 9/11 before any pixel hit any tower. Hurricane Erin still could have presented dangers in a storm surge and a hazard for cross-Atlantic flights; it could have changed direction naturally and hit New York, if not some other city along the East Coast. They were tracking it all week. Thus, it should have still been news as a top item for the cheery weathermen at least. Dr. Wood points out the lock-step media silence on the topic (with only one or two early exceptions).
       5) Lots of people have questioned the many stunning coincidences on 9/11 with regards to FEMA as well as the many simultaneous military exercises. If memory serves me, FEMA had set up on 9/10 (the day before) some sort of a command or emergency response center on a pier in preparation for their emergency exercises on 9/11. Why on pier, particularly if the news stations had been tracking a hurricane all week as it went up the coast? This exposes foreknowledge in a major way, because a hurricane could well have been the emergency FEMA was called to, yet being based on a pier right on the coast, their very preparations would have been wiped out in literally the first destructive waves of a hurricane. … Unless of course, they knew better and that the hurricane was a non-issue.
       6) The devil in these details is HAARP. Deploy HAARP to steer a hurricane, and FEMA can set up on a pier with no fear (unless things went horribly wrong), the media footage can be faked more easily, and the just-in-case clean-up surge is waiting in the wings. HAARP and weather control is one of those military secrets that the govt does not want to let the public know they have. This is a deep rabbit hole with much validity in some of the anomalous yet very destructive weather patterns (and earthquakes) experienced through out the world (including Japan) over the last decade at least.

       Here’s some more history from our discussions.
       2012-01-25

       Hurricane Erin? Its suppression on 9/11 in the media? I’m sure you’ve looked into HAARP. HAARP was probably steering Hurricane Erin. If things would have gone horribly wrong, they might have suppressed media coverage and called in Erin to help destroy and obfuscate the evidence. A connection I’m making is that FEMA was setting up a command center for their exercises on some pier the day before 9/11. They knew a hurricane was coming and could potentially hit NY (if left alone). The questions Dr. Griffin asked were why they were so omniscient to set up the day before 9/11 and the coincidences of their training exercise with the real-world events? The question I ask is why they set up on a damn pier if their tent base would be wiped out by the hurricane being tracking? If they didn’t know definitively that the hurricane wouldn’t hit unless it was called by HAARP, I doubt they would have chosen the pier.

       2012-03-13

       Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn pier, even though Hurricane Erin and its storm surge could have wiped it out and only makes sense if they knew they controlled it. Mr. Shack notes that hurricanes suck clouds away to make for better video manipulation backdrops. Hurricane Erin might have been stand-by, if not to clean up mistakes then to obscure the evidence further. HAARP’s weather controlling nature is one of those mechanisms that the govt would not want exposed. Why else would the MSM lock-stop shut-up about Hurricane Erin on 9/11?

       So in your recent posting, Señor Rogue, I think your framing and analysis is wrong:

       … Erin was tracked … I think the assertion that there was a news blackout on this hurricane is unfounded. As it was closer to the eastern coast, the communities that might be effected were certainly kept abreast of the position of the storm.

       Yes, Hurricane Erin was tracked. It was a major news item all week long.
       The issue is that Hurricane Erin suddenly and pre-maturely went into a new blackout on the morning 9/11 when it still could affect communities (and air travel) on the eastern coast.

       1. Señor El Once says, many things based on pure speculation, that one may accept or reject as they will. I see nothing fruitful in it so I will address the following only:
          “The issue is that Hurricane Erin suddenly and pre-maturely went into a new blackout on the morning 9/11 when it still could affect communities (and air travel) on the eastern coast.”
          Suddenly a “blackout”? When ALL EYES were on the events taking place in Manhattan that morning?
          Erin was 200 miles off the coast, if at any time it had turned and headed towards the eastern seaboard again, that would be the time to again push it forward in the news. The news was simply saturated with the “attacks” for close to a week. So most all other news was “blacked out” according to your criteria.
          ww

       2. Dear Señor Rogue,
          The blackout on Hurricane Erin started with the earliest news broadcasts on 9/11. Only a couple downplayed mentions of Hurricane Erin slipped out on major network weather reporting in the lead-up to the planned events.
          How were they to know on all major networks in all weather segments of all news broadcasts BEFORE, say, 8:50 a.m. that hurricane news would get overshadowed? Supposedly, they didn’t or shouldn’t have known. Evidently by what the producers chose to highlight and to suppress, they did.
          The news saturation with the “attacks” that then would bump Hurricane out of being hot newsworthy should have started with the first plane strike like around 9:10 a.m. (give or take 10 minutes).
          Considering the placement of hurricane weather news in the news reports leading up to 9/11, and considering the significance that a fickle hurricane could still play on that day to NYC with storm surges and air traffic, then this becomes something more than just another “rinky-dink coincidence.”

11. Craig McKee said: “You don’t think her science is sound? Tell me why. ”
    For what it’s worth, Craig:
    Professor Wood’s Gross Scientific Procedural Error
    I am not a trained scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but my understanding of the discipline is that the first rule for legitimate scientific investigation is that after proposed “evidence” to be used is collected, that it is essential to first double [and triple] check/verify and make absolutely sure that all of that proposed “evidence” collected and then to later be used to draw definitive conclusions from is real and authentic, and therefor completely trustworthy “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
    With regards to _all_ of the video and photographic evidence used by Prof. Wood to reach her WTC “collapse cause hypothesis” “definitive” conclusions to date, this imagery authenticity verification process has never been attempted.
    This procedural error [i.e. the automatic pre- assumption that all of the photographic imagery record for 911 is authentic and therefor trustworthy], is marginally excusable for laymen investigators, I suppose, [after all, I initially made the exact same assumption myself ], and is, in fact, “standard operating procedure” for nearly all who would call themselves “serious 9/11 investigators” or similar; for example we already have posts in this thread containing supposed “irrefutable”video evidence of mid-air “dustification” of steel columns [or not – it depends on which side you are on 🙂 ] , but for a supposedly trained scientist like Prof. Wood, this procedural error[ the automatic assumption of authenticity] is completely inexcusable, as far as I’m concerned.
    There is nothing on her site, nor in her book, to show that she has ever made _any_ extended, serious effort to initially firmly establish the authenticity of any/all network video footage or still photographs to be used to draw her conclusions from,” beyond a reasonable doubt”, and nowhere in her credentials is there listed any sort of skill/experience directly associated with photographic/video fakery analysis either.
    Ironically, the only person who has seriously , systematically, and thoroughly examined/compared ALL of the 911 video network footage record to date frame by frame, as well as all associated still photos derived from it, plus all associated alleged “amateur” footage, is not a “trained scientist” at all, but a lone, unpaid [as a 911 researcher, that is] professional race car photographer instead.
    His name ?- Simon Shack. His conclusions to date?:
    that all of the network footage allegedly broadcast “live” on the morning of 9/11, including _all_ of the building collapse footage [WTC’s1, 2 and 7 and any/all other WTC complex buildings] , is demonstrably fake, and was pre-assembled, pre-fabricated in its entirety on computers with imagery generating and manipulation software [CGI], months, or possibly years beforehand, and then broadcast as “live” that day.
    See “CGI Collapse Footage” : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=3792b6538121bd980cf0885645d50e33
    Bottom line?: there were no live, on-site video broadcasts at any time by any of the networks that day [meaning that all of the alleged WTC1 & 2 etc.collapse footage and associated imagery Prof. Wood has examined to date to reach her conclusions is most likely fraudulent ].
    Of course, this does not mean in the end that Prof. Wood’s collapse-cause hypothesis may _not_ necessarily be true – it only means that it is nothing more than an unprovable one way or the other hypothesis [some would say irrelevant], _not_ a definitive conclusion, since the majority [if not all] of the photographic evidence she has largely based her conclusions on appears to have been blatantly falsified on computers.
    So at best, if true, and considering her complete disregard for standard scientific rules of procedure, her hypothesis would be nothing more than a lucky guess on her part.
    See: “September Clues- full version here: http://www.septemberclues.info/
    and related thread “CGI Collapse Footage” here : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=3792b6538121bd980cf0885645d50e33
    By the way, Craig, the large still photo at the top of the page in this thread is also a fake, as is the smaller one to it’s left entitled “An Explosive Event”. See, posters “Equinox” and “Reel.Deal” in above link.
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Hohohohehehehahaha…EVERY SINGLE THREAD, aye Onebornfree???
       Good Gawd y’all.
       ww

12. ‘Scientists See WTC – Hutchison Effect Parallel’
    “On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect.”~by Andrew Johnson
    Personally, I see this as:
    Circular Argument /Appeal to Authority = a Circular Appeal to Authority.
    Just WHO are the “scientist” in this radio interview? Why none other than Wood and Hutchison.
    The title of this article can be said to be “false advertising” – as it is a self generated condoning of ones own works, while implying that ‘independent’ voices are condoning their works. Self congratulation is a common integer in this topic, as there seem to be few independent scientists who agree with Wood. And it should be stressed that Morgan Reynolds is not a scientist but a public relations specialist.
    I see this as the same sort of shady activities carried out by this group, and I will be giving more examples of such rhetorical trickery as this thread progresses.
    ww

13. http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/SJ/jones1.html
    Has anyone else here read this load of irrigated bullshit in the URL above?
    This attempt to make Jones look like juvenile is extremely telling as it has Professor Jones’ own email replies to Ace Baker. And the Wood contingent has the nerve to publish this???
    Clearly Jones has a contractual separation from the university that he wishes to to leave unnamed in anything he does in connection to 9/11 research. If Wood’s supporters cannot figure this out they are clearly using him as a punching bag and do not care one whit for the project of getting the videos released.
    ww

    1. WW,
       I held back on this comment because it had more name-calling than argument. This is really the road I don’t want to see this thread go down. I’m more concerned with what people think about her scientific claims, not as much whether her supporters are behaving badly towards others. It’s fair game to mention it, but if you’re going to call people morons and A-holes, the onus is on you to support that kind of language.

       1. Well Craig,
          I would think that the presentation of Ace Baker on that page would be a perfect support for my characterization of the man. In other words Baker makes my argument for me.
          But I have to admit I was steaming after reading that page, and will take a break before responding when I feel such ire. I’ll stick to the facts then…there is enough of them that the Wood school has twisted into Newspeak twine. And yes, you can say that is just my opinion.
          But I have to say, I haven’t seen an intelligent rebuttal to any of their detractors from those on the Wood side of things yet.
          Thanks,
          ww

       2. Buy the way,
          I think as a matter of fair play that I should be the one that points out that the Wood-Morgan faction has broken ties with Ace Baker. Presumably this was around the same time that Fetzer and her started butting heads.
          Nevertheless, anyone who has read the screeds of absolute liable against Prof. Jones by Wood and Morgan, will note that these were attacks against his person more than his science, because frankly neither one of them hold a candle to Jones as far as legitimate science is concerned.
          ww

    2. Professor Steven Jones doesn’t need any attempt to look juvenile by anyone because he did this himself back in the late 80’s when he attacked the research (cold fusion) of Pons & Fleischmann in a very unprofessional and juvenile way. Just read the book “Fire from Ice” by Eugene F Mallove who was murdered back in 2004. Reading well-written and researched books makes you a well-informed person.

       1. “Professor Steven Jones doesn’t need any attempt to look juvenile by anyone because he did this himself back in the late 80′s when he attacked the research (cold fusion) of Pons & Fleischmann in a very unprofessional and juvenile way.”~nausmr
          That is naked Woodsian propaganda, and a load of bantersnatch. I have studied the whole ordeal which is greatly mischaracterized by Wood and Reynolds.
          Jones was studying cold fusion years before the Pons & Fleischmann experiments. And it wasn’t Jones that debunked them but the whole society of scientists involved in such research. Your one stop venue for information is creating an unpleasant bias, that you are putting on display here.
          I lay out the whole story with cited history of the affair on ’36 Leaders’ thread on this blog. You should read the commentary there, you will see most of the issues you are addressing have already been spoken to there.
          And for your information I have been on the 9/11 case from the very morning it happened, and have read every development as it came up. As far as reading, I have been studying the national security state since the late 60s. I am adept at intelligence analysis, deconstruction of language and frames, well versed in epistemology, sociopolitical issues, cultural anthropology, mass psychology, and deep history. I am also knowledgeable in theoretical and applied physics. So your advice on becoming a “well informed person” comes a bit late, I’ve been there done that and keep up with it.
          ww

       2. hybridrogue1, I see you haven’t answered one simple question I asked. Since all the researchers are mentioned by their real names I will mention mine (Matthew Naus) and now may I ask, who is the real (as in real name) hybridrogue1 that is so knowledgeable about all things pertaining to 9/11.

       3. Matthew Naus,
          My real name is Willy Whitten, I am a retired special effects artist for cinema, professionally, and a child prodigy artist, and autodidact polymath.
          ww

14. For those, including Craig McKee, who are newer to the movement and were not around to observe the first round of Dr. Wood’s prominence (late 2006-early 2007), I think you will find it enlightening to watch Dr. Wood in 2007 being interviewed by Dr. Greg Jenkins. Upon watching this video, I find Greg’s questions to be lucid, reasonable and level-headed. Judy comes across as dodgy, evasive, and simply not even knowing what the heck she is talking about.
    Now, just to pre-empt: I can predict that some Dr. Wood supporters will jump in and try and insist that this was an “ambush interview” on Greg’s part.
    Full video on Google Video
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
    YouTube embeds into 3 parts:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEGXojifyD4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY9HpE6QHCY
    At 5:37 on the second embed, she blatantly misrepresents a photo of the South Tower during its demolition. She insists that above the “snowball,” we are seeing the building (the black stuff) in the process being eviscerated by an energy weapon and hence “going poof” into the “upper atmosphere.” (At a certain point in the interview, she does indeed claim that this DEW made the building “go poof.”) This is nonsense. The black stuff to which she refers is the oxygen-starved fire that was there before the “collapse,” and it is not going “up” and expanding outwards, it is coming toward the camera, so hence the diameter of the smoke image will be much wider at the top of the photograph.
    She then makes the even more incredible claim that ALL of the building is going “up” and that debris is not falling down (and outwards). If you’re time strapped, fast forward to 9:03 on the second video.

    GJ: So, what’s going down? Is there any debris falling?
    JW: I don’t see anything that’s really falling there.
    GJ: You don’t see any debris falling from the building?
    JW: I see a round snowball. I call this a snowball.
    GJ: Okay, so there’s no debris falling in that picture.
    JW: I didn’t say no debris.
    GJ: How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?
    JW: I see some… I don’t have a magnifying glass. Sorry!
    GJ: Oh, it’s that small you can’t tell what’s falling from the picture?
    JW: Below this point here (points to bottom of the snowball). I don’t see much difference. It looks like the building is in good health. There’s a little bit of cloud of haze there, but… I don’t see any major material and the building is still completely intact from this point down, at that moment, below the snowball.
    GJ: So you really don’t see any falling debris there?
    JW: Are you asking these questions for sincere, honest purposes?
    GJ: I really am. This is sincere. I see falling debris in that picture and I’m wondering, I can’t fathom why you don’t see falling debris in that picture. It’s hard for me to understand.
    JW: Maybe…
    GJ: Because maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
    JW: I’m not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some, like, pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it’s not a significant volume of material.

    1. Another perspective of this interview: http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html

       1. Great link, Mr. Nausmr.

       2. Great link, Mr. Nausmr!
          Cheers

       3. Yes, I agree with the others Matthew Naus, this other perspective is great. That is if one appreciates clever rhetorical apologia and reframing by Andrew Johnson – whom I have encountered more that a few times on blogs.
          I have appreciated deconstructing several of Johnson’s PR gambits in the past.
          He makes several assertions in this piece that cannot be backed up in anyway, such as the ‘reasons’ that Jenkins and his people were ushered out of the room. It may simply have been because the room needed to become available to parties that had reserved it.
          I see this as nothing but an elaborate excuse for what were clearly simply goofy answers to his questions by Ms. Wood. What? Are we to assume that Jenkins hypnotized her and gave her subliminal suggestions as the interview was happening?
          _________________________
          “How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?”~Jenkins
          “Why is he asking this question so many times? What is the purpose?”~Johnson
          _________________________
          Why is Jenkins asking so many times?? Because she won’t give a straight answer to the question. Because there IS debris falling and she has disputed the debris…what could be clearer?
          Again, as the FEMA Debris map shows – as we see clearly in every video and photograph of the exploding towers, heavy debris is being ejected parallel for hundreds of feet, and ended up covering the entire 13 acre complex.
          This is why Jenkins quizzed her on her calculations on Kingdome, and if you read his paper critiquing Wood on this you would understand what he is getting at.
          And Johnson is so amazed that Jenkins would be familiar with his subject…WTF?
          “Jeeze he must have been spying on her website”
          ‘Snowball’? “Pennies from Heaven”? “Dustification”???…this is ‘science’?
          Well if this apologia mollifies anyone, you are welcome to it.
          ww

       4. Dear Señor Rogue,
          When you go off half-cocked, it isn’t a pretty picture. For example, you write:

          [Johnson] makes several assertions in this piece that cannot be backed up in anyway, such as the ‘reasons’ that Jenkins and his people were ushered out of the room. It may simply have been because the room needed to become available to parties that had reserved it.

          Dr. Jenkin’s surprise interview of Dr. Wood happened at around 11 p.m. Pretty late, wouldn’t you say? It was AFTER the scheduled event that Dr. Wood was attending.
          Other than the prospect of Dr. Jenkins and his camera crews with professional cameras and lighting spoiling the preparations in the room for a scheduled event potentially the next morning, Dr. Jenkins and his camera crews did not pay for usage of the room, so had no right to be there. They were free-loaders.
          Like your reliance on Dr. Legge before, when are you going to realize that basing all your arguments on Dr. Jenkins [with many known issues and an agenda] isn’t helping you get at nuggets of truth?
          Bought time you ponied up some cash and got some fresh ink to smell… from the crack of Dr. Wood’s textbook.

       5. Señor El Once,
          I gave you the titles of Jenkins’ papers – read them.
          You won’t have to “pony up’ a dime, just a bit of your time.
          I’m not here to paint “pretty pictures” Señor, I’m looking for truth not a plate of whacknoodles.
          As far as CIT, my original take on the Pentagon event was no plane crash. I toyed with the other information for a good while, but never quite bought it. I was dubious from the get-go with Legge’s papers, and told him so. I looked as deeply as I could and came out totally convinced his whole trip is BS.
          I think he is a mole slipped in to replace Fetzer after that blow-up, and I think Legge took his sweet time poisoning the pond before “coming out” as it were.
          Whatever you think of Jenkins, he has good reasoning and science to back it up. And truth in reporting as can be seen in his expose’ of the jabberwack about the cars being toasted on FDR Drive.
          He may have caught up with Wood as he could, but when he did, she’s the one who sunk her own ship. And I won’t characterize what I really think of her as it is off bounds on this thread. But I am not falling for any of this crap, and you can give it up as far as putting it to me directly anymore.
          ww

    2. When I watched Dr. Jenkins conduct this interview I assumed his expertise was journalism or philosophy. How could he not know that smoke rises from fires? Evidently he was using the old Columbo (Peter Falk) strategy. Play dumb, annoy your opponent, make her feel overconfident hoping she’ll blunder. Had he worn a beat up raincoat I might have been on to this ruse from the start.

       1. As to your comments above Mr. Salt, it is obvious that all Dr. Jenkins did was ask questions and allow Wood to get her own foot in her mouth, and continued until she had swallowed both legs.
          How “unfair” of him to let herself prove her own scientific inadequacies…{grin}
          \\][//

15. This is only a topic I have digged into briefly over the years. I was initially turned off when Dr Wood’s website was dismissing the huge post-collapse underground temperatures as a myth. That made my bullshit antenna start twitching right away.
    Just some points I would like to make.
    1. There is no rule that the destruction of the towers was only allowed to use one type of technology. There were undoubtedly conventional explosions in the towers and they, in themselves, prove the official story incorrect.
    2. There were some bizarre, hard to explain, events. When I was looking into this, I once documented cars catching fire that were further away from the towers than WTC7. They weren’t on fire as the first tower came down – they were on fire after the dustcloud cleared. Almost as if the dust cloud itself was reacting with the metal of the car. This corresponds with witness accounts of cars bursting into flames as they ran from the collapse of the tower.
    3. The large hole in WTC6. This has been documented as not being there after both towers came down and prior to WTC7’s collapse. It was there on 9/12.

    1. I like your point that we could be looking at a combination of technologies. I’m still waiting to hear a reasonable explanation for the melted cars. Richard Gage chalks it up to thermite in the dust cloud setting things on fire. Then there’s the flipped over cars.
       I didn’t know that the holes in WTC 6 showed up after the two towers came down. Do you have any more info on this?

       1. Ask Richard Gage to explain why all the people caught up in the dust cloud didn’t catch on fire or the 14 people that survived in stairwell B.

       2. nausmr says:
          “Ask Richard Gage to explain why all the people caught up in the dust cloud didn’t catch on fire or the 14 people that survived in stairwell B.”
          Who is to say that there were no people who died of burns from the dust cloud? Or crushed by debris? There were many casualties in the triage centers other than those who had actually been in the towers.
          The people in stairwell B were lucky to be in a sheltered area from the falling debris which was mainly ejected outward. They were in a lucky spot…such things happen in chaotic events.
          And how any of this can supposedly be explained by directed energy beams is beyond me…if they were capable of disintegrating steel beams and concrete as it is posited, surely they would melt human beings. You defeat your own arguments here with such anomalous conjecture.
          I see you have it out for Gage as well. As I have noted, this team put together by Morgan Reynolds is mainly involved in defaming the ‘leading figures’ of the movement and sowing dissension. The job they played on Jones is despicable.
          ww

          1. I approved this one on my phone, but for some reason that doesn’t always work.

          2. If most of the falling debris was ejected outward how could most of it have ended up in the basement?

       3. Hey Craig,
          It was once the subject of a thread but I can’t remember which forum it was on. Basically it was an analysis of photos from the afternoon of 9/11 compared to the photos from the next day – the huge crater in WTC6 was not there in the afternoon of 9/11. I’ll take a step back in time and try to locate the thread.
          KP

       4. Hi Craig,
          I found the original thread. The first 2 pages need your attention before the thread degenerates.
          http://letsrollforums.com/wtc6-damage-analysis-originally-t20520.html
          Easier for you to visit the link than to post all the photos here. In order to work out the photos, you have to take some time to work out the relationship between the buildings so you know what you are looking at.
          KP

    2. “3. The large hole in WTC6. This has been documented as not being there after both towers came down and prior to WTC7′s collapse. It was there on 9/12.”
       KP,
       I cannot find any verification that the hole on top of WTC6 was not damage from the debris of the towers, and was known of that day.
       The photos taken by satellite were taken by a weather satellite the 12th and Landsat 5 satellite acquired this image of New York City on Sept. 13. Just because these photo documents were made those days later is not evidence that the holes weren’t there before. From above the damage looks very much like that inflicted by a large rectangular portion of the tower that was just above it.
       It was discussed that there were raging fires in bldg.6 and ground shots of the building seem to show the same caved in roofline that remained until it was pulled during clean-up.
       If there are photo’s from the aftermath of the eleventh that do NOT show the holes by the time of number 7’s collapse, I would be most interested in seeing them. I am dubious.
       Craig, I am going to address the toasted cars in just a bit.
       ww

    3. Metal is a conductor. Perhaps energy absorbed into the cars alloys and was trapped there.

       1. Josh says:
          “Metal is a conductor. Perhaps energy absorbed into the cars alloys and was trapped there.”
          Yes, and perhaps the turbulent hot pyroclastic clouds scorched these vehicles.
          Who put out the call Josh? You are the 9th Wood supporter to show up today? That indicates a pretty well organized group.
          Of course coincidence does happen from time to time…{grin}
          ww

16. 911 was REMOTE VIEWED in great detail back in Feb 2001. The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology was documented with the Military. This info became part of the well established Military “PLAN” _________________ Unconditional Surrender Only Option
    I am a graduate of…http://www.trvuniversity.com/ and strongly support Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson.

17. I think an energy weapon is plausible. There were melted cars in and around ground zero. If metal is a conductor, perhaps the energy cloud or charge or whatever was concentrated and trapped in the alloys surrounding it. This would explain the firefighters who witnessed the molten metal and claimed “it was like a foundry.”

18. “Figure 7. WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the “rubble pile” remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was take before noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance.”
    Here we have a photo of WTC6, right on Wood’s own web site, clearly a casualty of the debris from the towers – and smoking right where the upper hole seen from above is located.
    So, as per KPs memory is mistaken: “3. The large hole in WTC6. This has been documented as not being there after both towers came down and prior to WTC7′s collapse. It was there on 9/12.”
    ww

    1. “So, as per KPs memory is mistaken: “3. The large hole in WTC6. This has been documented as not being there after both towers came down and prior to WTC7′s collapse. It was there on 9/12.” ”
       See my response higher up the page. I am talking about the WTC6 “crater” specifically not being present after the towers collapsed.

       1. KP says:
          “I am talking about the WTC6 “crater” specifically not being present after the towers collapsed.”
          That is what I am talking about too. I have seen no reliable evidence that it wasn’t there just after the collapses.
          Do you have any? Is there an overhead shot of the WTC complex after the collapses that shows number 6 without said crater?
          Note, if you look at this from various angles it is NOT a round hole as it seems from some shots, it is angular and looks like a rectangular block came down upon it.
          At any rate, what are the suppositions as to it’s appearance on the 12th? What would this mean? Some unmentioned event would have to be the case. [???]
          ww

19. She claims the collapse of the buildings caused no seismic disturbances?
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

    1. Note that the last 3 graphs which represent the destruction of the 3 buildings aren’t much more pronounced than the first 2 which represent the initial explosions to the Towers.

20. Dear Mr. McKee and the readers of this thread,
    Just back from a Yellowstone vacation, but not at the point where I can comment yet on all that has transpired so far. I have a book report waiting in the wings for tomorrow or the near future. I might address some of the other comments first when I get a chance.
    I appreciate the participants taking this seriously.
    To Mr. Syed,
    Some of your debunking material I support, meaning I find valid. My own research and analysis has proven wrong a contention or two of Dr. Wood. In fact, the very discussion with Dr. Jenkins where Dr. Jenkins presents her with a satellite image of things going into space and she explains that’s the missing content… Well, one of the nuggets of truth I obtained before being banned from September Clues forums was that this very image has artifacts of digital manipulation. It is a fake.
    At any rate, Mr. Syed, my real point in writing this brief posting was that although the things debunking Dr. Wood deserve to be studied, they are low hanging fruit, particularly for you. Way too easy, maybe even lazy.
    A much harder and more valuable assignment for you is to acknowledge the evidence that she presents and that few in the 911TM address. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with her analysis of said evidence. I’m just trying to get it on the table.
    I hope that by Tuesday morning, I’ll be all caught up at work and with comments I have to people so far in this thread.

    1. Welcome back Señor,
       I hope you had a pleasant vacation.
       Looking forward to your input here.
       ww

21. I have reviewed Dr. Wood’s book at:
    webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q0LQQxfyKMQJ:beforeitsnews.com/story/729/258/An_Essay-Review_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D._Part_One.html+before+it’s+news+stahl+wood&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
    and
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1115/182/An_Essay-Review_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D..html?currentSplittedPage=0

    1. politicstahl,
       I wanted to reply to you so that you don’t feel you have been totally ignored here. I read your article on beforeitsnews.
       You might be interested in reading the story on this blog a few topics back:
       ‘Two quit in protest after Zarembka dumped from Consensus 9/11 Panel’
       The issues discussed there touch upon your views of “unity” and “making nice” and “putting differences aside”, etc.
       Whether ‘consensus’ or the hard core, pure unmitigated truth are the most important, is what is hashed out on that thread more than any other on this blog.
       ww

    2. Hi politicstahl,
       i’m in complete agreement with your observations regarding the disintegration of the two inner core steel column structures and steel column ‘spires’ from WCT1 and WCT2, you so lucid and eloquently describe on the second page in your review above.
       Interesting that both ‘Legge’ and ‘AE9/11truth’ only concentrate on a singular ‘spire’ structure, when in fact we see two different ‘spires’ and steel column structures in the various video clips available.
       Both of them should have been analysed with equal scrutiny of course!!
       Cheers

22. Señor El Once says:
    “Dr. Jenkins presents her with a satellite image of things going into space and she explains that’s the missing content… Well, one of the nuggets of truth I obtained before being banned from September Clues forums was that this very image has artifacts of digital manipulation. It is a fake.”
    Now you know Señor, you are going to have to prove this contention, and direct us to the so called evidence that Shack has presented. As you know, I haven’t found a single one of his assessments to be close to accurate, he does not possess the technical knowledge to do this sort of work. His assumptions are false to begin with, then his visual acuity and lack of technical savvy compound into absolute absurdity.
    And on top of that I doubt your judgment on such matters as well. So lets vet this thing out in the open here.
    Until then, ww

    1. Dear Señor Rogue,
       I made the statement: “one of the nuggets of truth I obtained before being banned from September Clues forums was that this very image has artifacts of digital manipulation.”
       You replied: “Now you know Señor, you are going to have to prove this contention, and direct us to the so called evidence that Shack has presented.”
       For point of reference, it wasn’t Mr. Shack who pointed out the errors in the image. Here is the image in question:
       http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
       AngelDust replied on 2012-02-21:
       http://gickr.com/results3/anim_782da81b-8a11-46d4-f911-41c0835759d6.gif
       He points out how the images of the boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on the zoom-in.

       1. “He points out how the images of the boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on the zoom-in.”
          Señor, The whole river scene in this gif are square-ish pixels when zoomed in.
          And so just what is the significance of this? Supposing the boats were pasted into the scene…which I would dispute, but just supposing they were – what does this mean to you?
          ww

       2. Dear Señor Rogue,
          Before I answer your question, let’s back up. I’ve been doing what I can to apply due-diligence to my beliefs. I’m not afraid of considering that which other sources label negatively to see if any merit exists to the label or the source. I’m also not afraid of changing my beliefs when the foundation upon which it is based changes, (ala NPT).

          The whole river scene in this gif are square-ish pixels when zoomed in. And so just what is the significance of this?

          http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
          http://gickr.com/results3/anim_782da81b-8a11-46d4-f911-41c0835759d6.gif
          You are the expert. You tell me.
          My humble knowledge suggests that the rectangular-ish pixels with orientation parallel to the edges of a rectangular image are obvious artifacts of copy & paste digital image manipulation using common software tools.
          It was known that many boats were pulled into play on 9/11 to ferry stranded people to the other side of the Hudson. A satellite image without boats would indicate it wasn’t from 9/11.

          Supposing the boats were pasted into the scene… which I would dispute, …

          Why would your knowledge and skill in the digital visual arts dispute this? Are square-ish outlines common on at zoom-in of high resolution digital images that are deemed authentic?

          Supposing the boats were pasted into the scene… what does this mean to you?

          It has several points of significance.
          Point 1: Tainted imagery of 9/11 — even satellite imagery — exists.
          Point 2: Tainted imagery made it into the published works of Dr. Wood. It helps lead her astray. She concludes with words to the effect: “See how the missing material volume from the WTC is pulverized so small that it goes up very high into the sky and is registered as a big streak.”
          Point 3: [I could be wrong but] didn’t Dr. Jenkins give this image to Dr. Wood in that ambush interview? Thus, we must ask how Dr. Jenkins came upon this tainted image and why did he seed it to Dr. Wood?
          It was truly a pity that I couldn’t get the Clues Gang to go through and thrash all images on Dr. Wood’s website. It would have been a relief to say: “See? It all really was tainted images that led Dr. Wood to wrong conclusions.” But NO-ooooo! They didn’t want to take Dr. Wood down legitimately by actually proving all instances of tainting.

       3. Señor,
          The point with pixels is that they are what makes up all digital imagery. You surely already know that.
          The point with these pictures you are seeing on the net, they are all compressed files. Every image on the web is a gif a tiff or a jpg. each protocol has different compression algorithms to size them for publication on electronic media.
          As simple a thing as translating a jpg to a gif, or any combination of such things can leave artifacts. If you blow up any image large enough you will see digital artifacts…this can even happen with hightech very large [pixel ratio] images.
          This is one of the main points I made on my criticisms of Shack on that first page of discussion, while he was present. As he says in his presentations: “all of these images show evidence of digital manipulation” – well OF COURSE THEY DO, they have all been compressed to jpgs or even worse the giff animations, which compresses the image resolution to hell.
          One simply cannot do reliable forensic examination on these images without dealing with full size, preferably original images that have not been compressed beyond the schema used in the device that recorded them.
          I have some very large format images form 9/11 Manhattan, that would be candidates for such examination. They are compressed in the original media format of the device and published as full size digital copies. So they would work. These are aerial views of the huge plumes covering lower Manhattan.
          I have looked at quite a few blown up to pixelation…there are no anomalous artifacts in anything I have so far looked at.
          Anyway, I hope this helps.
          ww

23. Craig, I posted this here because it relates to Dr Judy Woods and I also posted it on the previous article because it relates to Cognitive Infiltration.
    http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/conspiracy_theory_exploring_the_outer_limits_with_damon_crowe
    “Conspiracy theory – exploring the outer limits with Damon Crowe”
    In this week’s show we plunge into murky waters with Damon Crowe, as we look at some fringe conspiracies, analyse breaking news and speculate on the outer limits of deception. We take a fresh look at the concept of “cognitive infiltration”, a term coined by Obama advisor Cass Sunstein, to describe ways in which government might use deceptive techniques to infiltrate and influence anti-government activist groups and conspiracy theorists. News covered in tonight’s show includes the ongoing extradition saga of Julian Assange and BBC hoax coverage of the Syrian conflict.
    Please enjoy this interview with owner of 911oz and Truth News Radio Australia, Hereward Fenton, and awesome Australian 9/11 Truth Activist, Damon Crowe, concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement. Please note this interview is much more relaxed than the usual format.
    The discussion regarding cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement starts in Hour 2 as follows:
    4:00 – “John Bursill is an agent” briefly mentioned.
    7:40 – Discussion concerning cognitive infiltration of the Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.
    9:40 to 10.40 – Discussion concerning Cosmos the Fake.
    26:45 onwards – Dr Judy Wood, Dimitri Khalezov (“The Third Truth”), nano-thermite, problems with peer reviews, John Bursill, cognitive infiltration.
    Response from John Bursill (aka The Great Defamer):
    My statement regarding the accusations and comments made by Damon Crowe:
    “Very disappointed that I have been accused of being an agent of the state on a regular podcast/radio program I appear on, Truth News Radio Australia. One of the shows sponsors, Damon Crowe has decided this is evident by my dedication to sticking to the facts and rejecting theories that he and others hold as true based on their beliefs or “gut feelings”?
    Everyone who knows me, knows that I care deeply about Truth and Justice. Having devoted many years now to the campaign to expose the lies of 9/11 and the War on Terror has cost me much indeed; including the break up of my family, over 50,000 spent (I earned doing overtime nightshifts), great damage to my career and literally tens of thousands of hours of my time.
    The fact that someone who considers “his gut instinct” a good basis for his accusations might give you an idea of the sort of paranoid thinking we are dealing with here. Damon, please consider the damage this does to my reputation and the fact that it will lead to a further fracturing of the truth movement, which you say is the aim of “leaders” like myself?
    I will be getting legal advice on the matter…”

24. Craig McKee said: “The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research”
    Craig, I have to say , I disagree with your characterization of Prof. Wood as being” the most controversial figure in 9/11 research” 🙂 .
    I would suggest that Simon Shack’s research is _far_ more controversial within the 9/11 “truth movement”; even more so outside of it.
    He is universally and equally despised by almost the entirety of the “movement” , including practically all posters on this blog. 🙂
    Why? Because his research appears [to most researchers that is] ]to directly undermine the credibility of their so-called “irrefutable” conclusions reached to date, in as much as those “irrefutable” conclusions were/are based on examination of US TV network and associated “live” imagery.
    Almost every untrained 9/11 researcher, as well as every “trained scientist”, whether it is Judy Wood or Steven Jones, [or even Jim Fetzer, who although not a scientist per se, has a degree in scientific philosophy/methodology] , has largely based their conclusions to date on the examination of video and photographic evidence on the unforgivable [methodologically speaking] assumption , and without further investigation, that it was/is all genuine ; video and photographic evidence that Mr Shack has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated to be completely untrustworthy, as nearly every original network or private example closely examined to date by him and others at his site shows very obvious signs of digital manipulation and/or outright forgery.
    So if you are looking for the real “black sheep” of 9/11 research, I submit it would be Simon Shack, _not_ Judy Wood.
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Hi onebornfree,
       wonder if your faith in Mr. Simon Shack and his friends might not be a bit too exaggerated!!
       http://youtu.be/GTSzHmHnR78
       There’s no doubt that they get things right from time to time, but in equal measure or more, they also get things terrible wrong.
       I suppose it’s all par for the cause over there, for they make no bones about it that their aim is to consider absolutely everything ‘fake’, up to the point where the opposite can be proven to their complete satisfaction.
       This will obviously lead them to many “dead-ends”, and which we have noticed happening on many occasions!
       One of the things they got right, i observed in a previous post of yours, onebornfree.
       It was in the previous thread were you on 26/5-12 linked to the ‘cluesforum’ under the header,
       “Extensive analysis of the alleged ‘live’ imagery can be viewed here”:
       Further down the thread you linked to, Simon Shack shows us two comparative screen shots of the WTC1 mast, were the ‘Etienne Sauret clip’ shows the mast falling to the left, whereas the clip from the ‘MSNBC’, of the exact same moment in time, shows the mast falling to the right!
       Obviously the ‘MSNBC’ video must have been faked for some reason …..better known to ‘msnbc’ themselves, supposedly!
       unintentionally i’m sure, mr. hybridroque got it “right” in his reply post to yours, where he writes:
       “You mean anal y sis …..
       hilarious, uproarious, pandubious nonsense”
       But of course not “right” when he further down in same post to you, rather nasty and flippantly finished off with:
       “Do you have cataracts my man”
       Cheers

       1. Tamborine man says:

          “Further down the thread you linked to, Simon Shack shows us two comparative screen shots of the WTC1 mast, were the ‘Etienne Sauret clip’ shows the mast falling to the left, whereas the clip from the ‘MSNBC’, of the exact same moment in time, shows the mast falling to the right!
          Obviously the ‘MSNBC’ video must have been faked for some reason …..better known to ‘msnbc’ themselves, supposedly!
          unintentionally i’m sure, mr. hybridroque got it “right” in his reply post to yours, where he writes:
          “You mean anal y sis …..
          hilarious, uproarious, pandubious nonsense”

          Of course Tamborine man is unaware that this very issue was addressed by myself several threads back.
          I shall reproduce those comments here:
          Concerning the drop of the mast atop WTC1:
          Etienne Sauret WTC1 v MSNBC is right and a bit higher than the Sauret video.
          The difference in appearance is due to the different angles of the two videos. The distance is flattened in zoom as well, so the difference of the closer camera would have less of this flattening effect – it appears that this is the MSNBC shot that is physically closer, and the Sauret shot is farther away using a larger Zoom app. What is happening in both shots is the antenna is falling backward. Being slightly to the L or R of that would give the appearance of an angle in one direction or the other. From the L it would appear falling slightly leftward – and from the R slightly to the right. It would only take a couple of degrees of camera angle to put this appearance to effect.
          So “backward” in this instance needs to be defined. And what that is, is a point in relation to the two POVs we have under discussion, the antenna mast falls straight back from the split difference of the two shots. If the scene was from the opposite side the antenna would fall forward. But this was obviously obscured by smoke from the other side. From above the piece is falling towards and into the thickest plume of smoke.
          A more sophisticated approach of analyzing these shots would involve locating some key points of the structure of the building and creating a 3D perspective matrix to find the true angle of the face of the building which is ‘almost’ straight on’ – but isn’t exactly. From there it could be calculated to what degree the angles of the camera’s vary. Because of the flattening of the Z-point [depth], it might be impossible to say which camera was closer or further away. As I have said, intuitively I think the MSNBC shot is physically closer, but I can’t even guess by how far.
          END of previous remarks.
          Now, it would be easy to demonstrate what I am talking about here if we were sitting chatting in person, but I will try to describe a simple little demonstration to prove my points as per perspective.
          If you hold a pencil out directly in front of your nose and rock it back and forth the top away and back towards you, and then move your head from one side to the other while being careful to keep your hand at the same point and the pencil rocking directly back and directly forward you will see the effect I speak to; when your view is from the left slightly the pencil appears to rock to the left, and visa versa.
          Of course the difficulty some will have in accepting this simple explanation is in that the scenes look so very similar – as if both cameras must be side by side. But this is due to the flattening effect of the use of telephoto lenses.
          ww

          1. Jenkins must have used this technique just before he saw all the heavy debris in the photo.

       2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
          Of all the programs that Mr. Richard D. Hall has created, I have only seen two (or maybe three). The first was his analysis of the “orb”, and it was really LOL funny when the other shoe dropped late in the piece to have him conclude that it was an advanced technology device, not a plane, etc.
          The second piece (that I’m still watching) is the one you post above. Great that Mr. Hall eats humble pie on that faulty “orb” analysis with precisely the same type of detailed flight path analysis of the various clips that had me recently eat humble pie on NPT. But then the other shoe drops. He briefly claims that the military radar data was from a cloaked drone that was projecting a holographic image of the plane to the 1400 feet left that amateur videos caught on film. Again, LOL funny. Then he says (with a cameo from Dr. Wood) that toward facade damage out to the wingtips could have been produced by DEW (e.g., from the drone or some land-based system.)
          The issue is that the civilian radar data is based on “radar ping returns.” In other words, if we can trust the civilian radar data, then something physical was flying in the air to generate the radar ping returns. A holograph couldn’t do that.
          I don’t know what the significance is of the military radar data being so grossly but consistently [1400 feet to the side] in error from the civilian radar data as well as from the recorded & correlated video footage.
          As Mr. Johnson says in the video when he derides September Clues and other instances of “limited hangouts,” they give 90% truth and then dupe us with 10% disinformation. I enjoyed how Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson got on Mr. Shack’s and September Clues’ case for the stilted way in which they concluded things and their inability to look into the cause of the destruction (other than conventional controlled demolition.)
          Thanks for posting the video. Like the orb video before it, good for a laugh. Alas, it doesn’t give me confidence in the correctness or reliability of their views.

       3. I found the video between Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson on Rich Planet TV useful. I particularly was persuaded by the critique of TV Fakery, namely, that the videos we see on TV screens and in videos correspond to the official flight path.
          I was not convinced by the next part of the video which reports the military’s report of the flight path as being different by 2000 feet from the official flight path. The reason for my skepticism of the military’s version is simply not knowing its authenticity, i.e., that it itself was not faked.
          The following stage was then to claim that a hologram from military object (a stealth plane) on the military’s version of the flight path created an image that was seen on TV and private videos. Actually, I know nothing about holograms but I haven’t reach that stage in the argument.
          Any help on either side of the argument would be welcome.

       4. Paul Zarembka at June 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm, asked about the possibility of holograms being used in NY for the plane crashes.
          Mr. Once investigated this with an open mind when he was trying to help out Fetzer with his argument for the hologram theory. After some searching and investigation he came back and said that there is nothing to Fetzer’s claims and provided links to back up his findings.
          Perhaps Senor will read this and lend a hand in providing those here or a link to that thread’s location time marks.
          ww

       5. @Paul Zarembka
          Richard Hall did not “claim” the second path projected a hologram, he simply asked if it could be a possible explanation. It is meant as collaborative research. He was merely posing a question.

       6. Dear Dr. Zarembka,
          My research into holograms has not produced anything akin to being able to “project them.” In fact, they are dependent on the holographic film or plate where the image is etched. The image appears “in front of” the film as sort of an optical illusion.
          If we speculate on a drone involvement carrying such an etched plate, it has several issue:
          – The etched plate would have to be on an entire hemisphere (or globe) in order to create the plane hologram that is visible from all angles.
          – The hemisphre or globe would somehow need to fly (as well as cloak itself). Remember, it flew in speeds in excess of what true 757/767 can fly at low altitudes.
          – Both the civilian and military radar data is based on radar ping returns, meaning something solid with a surface that doesn’t “absorb” radar pings must reflect it back. Why would the two systems pick up radar returns with a 1400 foot discrepancy?
          Dr. Fetzer was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the use of holograms, and my research came up short as well.
          Thus, Rich Hall may end up eating humble pie on this as well.

25. A lot came out on this thread yesterday…and frankly I cannot find anything from any of the Wood supporters that is even the slightest bit compelling.
    Although about ten people showed up for curtain call, they seemed at odds even within themselves.
    Are we talking to “beam weapons”?
    We get this, “don’t you say ‘space beams'” from them…
    Well, WTF? As I pointed out that is exactly the contention of the Wood lawsuit as the court understood. This “Star Wars space beams” is a topic heading right on the Wood web site…now today, au current.
    Not one response to the question of how the presence of a hurricane some 200 miles out to sea might have anything to do with the destruction of the WTC towers in NY City.
    There is no acknowledgment that it is proven that the “toasted cars” on FDR Drive were towed there from the WTC complex area. Nor any compelling proofs that the scorching could not have just as readily been caused by hot chemical reactions in the pyroclastic flows that are well documented.
    So far I see a big ZERO from the Wood camp. Is there anyone among them that can step up to the plate with something – ANYTHING of substance?
    Needless to say. I am dubious.
    ww

    1. WW,
       The thing about Hurricane Erin that intrigues me is not how it could be used to aid in the destruction of the towers (I have no idea how this could be done), but how it changed course and why it seems to have been ignored in weather reports.
       Two hundred miles off shore (if that’s correct) is very close when one is talking about a hurricane. It would hardly be ignored, especially given that it headed straight for Manhattan for several days. The lack of media reporting on this is a major red flag. We should all know this given how almost everything that’s wrong with the 9/11 official story has been kept out of the mainstream media in similar fashion.
       So this under-reported hurricane is heading straight for NY, which would really get in the way of the 9/11 shock-and-awe show. Instead it makes a very sharp turn just in the nick of time. And no one seems surprised in the slightest.
       It raises questions in my mind. I think it should raise questions for a lot of people. Can hurricanes be pushed back artificially using HAARP, for example? I’m not sure, but brushing the question aside without considering it doesn’t seem very “truthy” to me.
       Please explain to me why these questions should not be asked.

       1. Craig, you say:
          “Please explain to me why these questions should not be asked.”
          Any questions anyone has should be asked, I have no qualms about reasonable questioning.
          The Hurricane Erin was NOT headed towards NY. It was stalled out at sea. In the days preceding 9/11 it had come from the south following the trench off the coast, never making landfall. By the time it was parallel with NY it had simply stalled. Yes, at this point it COULD HAVE gone in any direction. But it wasn’t – it was stalled at sea. This is not a big news situation Craig.
          I have still yet to hear any reasonable explanation beyond rumination as to what this hurricane was supposed to represent. As Señor has postulated many ideas to this, anyone is free to chose one or a combination as their opinion sees fit. For myself I find none of the compelling, but merely suppositions.
          The world is full of speculation. I like science fiction…a lot, my major career was inspired by it. However when it comes to sociopolitical and scientific concerns, I prefer facts, as many as possible to draw my conclusions from. As I see it, the events at the WTC can be explained, and are more successfully explained by other scientists and thinkers, as opposed to what I see as pseudo-scientific assertions from the Wood, and Shack schools.
          ww

          1. WW,
             Please explain how you know the hurricane was not headed towards New York. Based on the path that I have seen, that’s exactly what it was doing. It was not following the coast but heading straight for it. According to the satellite images on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F87vtgZjjc&feature=related the edges of the hurricane were actually over land. Rain was being reported in some coastal areas. And its path was pretty much perpendicular to the coast.
             Why do you say it was stalled? It wasn’t stalled before the 11th. But on that day it began a very sharp right turn away from the coast. Certainly its forward motion would have to stop for it to make such a turn, but that’s not the same as saying it was stalled “out at sea.”
             So, none of this is “compelling.” Just supposition? Don’t we arrive at an understanding of events by questioning something prior to reaching conclusions and then investigating it? People talk about speculation as being the worst thing you can do. But often it is speculation that leads us to pursue a question. Speculation shouldn’t be the end result, but it can be a good beginning. Your pooh-poohing of speculation reminds me of what so many supporters of the official story do.
             Finally, you bind questions about Erin to Wood and Shack, as if their reputations are enough to discredit questions about the hurricane. I’m not quoting what they’ve written – I’m not even mentioning them. I’m asking for explanations for things that have not been explained to my satisfaction.

       2. Craig,
          I did not link the hurricane thoughts with Wood nor Shack.
          I brought them up in my ruminations about speculation.
          As far as the hurricane goes, you may be right that it was nearer the coast on the tenth.
          I am not going to speak to this item again. I just don’t buy that there is any connection between the hurricane and the events in NY.
          If someone comes up with something solid on this head, I will acknowledge it. Until then, I have no interest in pursuing it.
          As far as speculation, as I have said, I am good at speculation. I am well versed in it and it is driven by my darling muse…my one true love. But I have my own criteria of what is plausible speculation and what is for toying with fantasies.
          It is simply the case that nothing has even begun to cause a curiosity as to the concept of the Wood position. Nothing has grabbed me as a “maybe” on this topic.
          So let me say this as far as speculation:
          “Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most  conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.”~wiki
          And this “significant advantage” would certainly apply to tall sealed skyscrapers as well. Aye?
          Like dispersing the fog through the AC and having ignition points at locations sequenced to go off in a downward cycle…
          These are the types of bombs used as ‘bunker busters’ – “fuel-air bombs” [such as MOAB] explosions rivaling nuclear weapons in the larger designs.
          As a poster at P4T911 writes:
          “Physics just doesn’t account for all the energy required to collapse the building while turning each story into dust while falling, plus the upward momentum and outward momentum of the debris, making it look like a fountain. I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into official use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.
          The explosives in the WTC towers were controlled from a control center in WTC-7. Then, after that was sucessful, the control center (WTC-7) had to be destroyed to destroy the evidence. As far as WTC 7 goes, more conventional explosives were used for it’s demolition.
          I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.
          It would certainly cut down on the need to ‘wire’ the entire building. Even though I do believe cutter charges were used to control the sequence and timing, to get the building to fall down the way they wanted it to.
          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t19619.html
          http://www.bing.com/search?srch=106&FORM=AS6&q=thermobaric+weapons
          ___________________
          But I also think that we are dealing with sol-gel explosive technology as well.
          Sol-Gel science and technology. The way of making materials in any form including fibers, films, particles and monolithic solids starting with liquids and molecular…
          A Nano-thermite or “super-thermite” is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 1 micrometre. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
          What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and proceed much more quickly. {see: sol-gel by browser}
          There are many possible thermodynamically stable fuel-oxidizer combinations. Even the new RDX using nano milling and sol-gel technology is greatly enhanced in speed to pressure formulations.
          ww

26. A minivan fire in a K-Mart parking lot illustrates several pertinent points common to
    vehicle fires:
    • The pavement underneath the minivan is ablaze.
    • The car in the immediate vicinity of the minivan catches fire demonstrating how
    an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together,
    as is the case in NYC, can burn serially.
    • The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off.
    • The driver-side door handle is missing.
    • The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at
    ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood.
    Many of the above characteristics are claimed as proof of DEW-demolition, but are
    common in vehicle fires.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58
    The idea that vehicles which have been smashed and then moved is vividly illustrated by
    the analysis done by ‘totovader’ showing the Ladder 3 fire-truck crushed by debris at
    ground zero (and shown below).ii However, Dr. Wood on her website asks “Why would
    the front of this fire truck wilt?” implying that it was not crushed by debris and moved to
    a new location. The videos were released last year, yet the obvious misinterpretation
    remains on her website among a litany of other discredited items.
    Apart from the direct photographic evidence from GZ showing serial-type burning
    illustrated by the police cruiser and minivan, evidence suggests that many cars in parking
    lots were set ablaze by this mechanism. If one or two vehicles are ignited, then many
    more vehicles may burn.
    One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in
    the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is
    well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing
    towers which could easily ignite flammable material.
    The characteristic pattern for serial-type burning is illustrated by the clustering of burned
    vehicles in the Vesey/West Street parking lot. A row of 16 vehicles has burned, and
    another cluster of about 7 vehicles. Firemen put out the flames arresting further serialtype
    burning from occurring in the parking lot. Certainly, serial-type burning could easily
    describe nearly all the burned vehicles. The manner in which the initial one or two
    vehicles ignited is unknown. However, not knowing what ignited one or two vehicles
    should not be confused with proof of a DEW, no more so than the K-Mart parking lot
    video.
    ~Jenkins
    ww

    1. Dear Señor Rogue,
       Please use <blockquote> {what you’re quoting} </blockquote> more diligently. I was wondering about the funny formatting of your posting and it wasn’t clear until your “~Jenkins” that it wasn’t you writing it. How come no link to the source PDF file (I assume)?
       Dr. Jenkins gets it right by faulting Dr. Wood for her analysis of vehicles that were towed to new locations, like the police car at the bridge. However, he makes like of the damage to the vehicles.
       No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occurred to a degree.
       Dr. Jenkins speculates:

       One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing towers which could easily ignite flammable material.

       If such ejaculations of hot metal and glass happened, the issues are: (a) Remnants of such items would have been present on the targets. They weren’t, except for dust in cases. (b) The targets wouldn’t have been just vehicles but would have been trees, leaves, paper, and humans.
       The testimony of Patricia Ondrovic is worthy of considering:

       As I was running up Vesley, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vesley and the West Side Highway. … I ended up running through this park, and I couldn’t even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North [through North Park]… As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren’t near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn’t gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.

       1. Señor El Once asks:
          “How come no link to the source PDF file (I assume)?”
          Yes PDF. I didn’t post a link because I have it saved to file, and that address will link you to nowhere.
          Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics
          DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
          By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
          A suppliment to:
          Dr. Greg Jenkins, “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 8 (February, 2007)
          I would urge you and all to read them both.
          ww

       2. “…cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.”~Patricia Ondrovic
          Okay…so? I mean what are you imagining is taking place here? A beam weapon just haphazardly spraying the streets of Manhattan? Some residual reflected wave/particles?
          What?
          I don’t follow you as having any hypothesis that is tethered together in any cohesive manner.
          There is obviously weird goins on in the old town that morning, but I don’t see you, or anyone here tying this all together into anything substantial.
          We have this hurricane…what does it mean? Regardless of going out to sea, stalled or potentially headed inland – all you have is what is to me wild speculation as to its significance.
          And then the cars blowing up…well, how? What mechanism? If you can picture this in your mind then type it out; what does it mean, how would this work?
          ww

       3. Dear Señor Rogue,
          I speculate that the hurricane was plan B to really obscure things in NYC should 9/11 have gone horribly wrong. They didn’t, so it wasn’t called it. The hurricane is also a smoking gun in the sense that authorities knew it was there and did things like setting up command centers on a pier despite the dangers that a storm surge or direction change could cause. It hints at weather control, a military objective for many decades. The silence of the weathermen on the topic exposes another chink of foreknowledge, so the main media message of the “attacks” wouldn’t be diluted or distracted.
          You ask:

          [W]hat are you imagining is taking place [from Patricia Ondrovic’s statement: Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.]? A beam weapon just haphazardly spraying the streets of Manhattan? Some residual reflected wave/particles?

          Not haphazardly.
          I speculate that multiple DEW devices were in each tower. [I’ll need help in speculating on the number and type of nuclear energy sources.]
          The DEW’s beams were aimed within the confines of the tower and such that they would not take out its own supporting structure (later known as a spire) or be aimed beyond the inner-side of the outer walls. The beams were probably focused in a broad fashion like a pulsed-cone. Opportunities for such beams to slip out unintentionally line-of-sight could exist via gaps in falling debris and window slits.

27. Robert E. Salt says, June 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm:
    “If most of the falling debris was ejected outward how could most of it have ended up in the basement?”
    No more than ten percent of the heavy debris remained within the footprint of either tower.
    See: FEMA Debris Map.
    Perhaps Mr. Salt, you could draw your eyes away from your “Bible” long enough to do some general studies into the facts of the WTC event.
    ww

    1. How is it that no one saw 90% of the heavy debris of which you speak including Jenkins?

       1. Robert E. Sallt says:
          “How is it that no one saw 90% of the heavy debris of which you speak including Jenkins?”
          What are you talking about?
          There are hundreds of images of the aftermath showing the debris that has been thrown throughout and beyond the complex – even destroying large portions of buildings across the streets surrounding the WTC acreage.
          It took weeks and months to haul this debris away – to the dismay of everyone concerned about the evidence, including the editors of ‘Fire and Engineering Magazine’ – who complained bitterly about a crime scene being unlawfully corrupted by the very authorities that were bound by law to maintain and diligently investigate.
          I have no idea how you can assert; “including Jenkins”.
          Ya know Salt, it sometimes appears as if some of you people are living in an alternate universe. And I suppose this is true in a psychological sense.
          ww

       2. I saw the display of debris at the end of the Jenkins interview. You can get the same effect by placing a camera on the ground alongside an ant hill and snapping a picture. The ant hill will resemble Mount Everest.

       3. Robert E. Salt says:
          June 6, 2012 at 8:55 am
          “I saw the display of debris at the end of the Jenkins interview. You can get the same effect by placing a camera on the ground alongside an ant hill and snapping a picture. The ant hill will resemble Mount Everest”
          Lol, are you telling me that this is your only encounter with photographic evidence of the amount of debris at WTC?….Hilarium Ludicranium Deluxe…with secret sauce.
          ww

28. I have just read http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ This is a book of evidence. I REMOTE VIEWED 911 in great detail back in Feb 2001 and agree with Dr Judy Woods evidence.
    Mind Control & Full Spectrum Dominance along with limited hang-out / left gate keeping are no comparison/competition for “eight-martini effect” What, then, is an “eight-martini” result? Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone realities.
    The Story of PSI TECH and Technical Remote Viewing
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JZgITCsjAt4#!
    PSI TECH Technical Remote Viewing Demonstration
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXUmhm0P2Z0&sns=fb
    The truth of DEW are being exposed world wide along with the truth of “Where did the towers go” Please try to understand that there will be mass arrests soon.

    1. Michael John Wegrzyn says:
       “Please try to understand that there will be mass arrests soon.”
       Really?? How exciting…ahh…who will be arresting whom, pray tell?
       ww

       1. Imminent Televised Event Mass Arrests of 10,000 Global Cabal Members – 2012
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMJ3illOIJo&feature=share
          MASS ARRESTS
          Multiple insider sources, each of whom have been “vetted out” for their credibility and trustworthiness, have now confirmed that mass arrests of thousands of key conspirators in this vast cabal are about to occur.
          A highly secretive, highly coordinated operation — working for the good of humanity — is about to make its move.
          The Pentagon “good guys” are now in full political and logistical cooperation with a remarkable 134-nation alliance — to bring the perpetrators to justice and free our planet.
          The security around this enormous operation has been vast. Even those who will be affected by it — and arrested — have no idea of the staggering scope of what is about to be revealed before the eyes of the public.

          1. What the hell? Is this a joke? Not that I wouldn’t love to see it happen, but… By the way, what does it have to do with Judy Wood?

    2. Trillions of dollars missing, 30 years of development for SDI. The fact that there hasn’t been a demonstration of the technology developed on such a grand scale and that no other methods previously seen explain all the anomolies certainly make one open to a new concept. Truthers don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was used, they simply have to make others aware that the official answer is ridiculous. JFK, the moon hoax, 9/11 were all well executed conspiracies that deserve our admiration. What a shame such efforts can’t be used for good.

29. Dear Mr. McKee,
    Please consider this my position statement that might be on the lengthy side. Sorry.
    +++++++++++++++
    The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites – as well as other activist groups – which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government.
    When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn’t happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being “crazy, loony, nutty” and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.
    Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as “crazy, loony, nutty” and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood’s work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood’s research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for “separation and containment” [e.g., under this very article.]
    Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, “Where Did The Towers Go?”. It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.
    Paraphrased from Hamlet: “Me thinketh thou doth protest too much.”
    Last year in a pay-it-forward fashion to get various 9/11 leaders or worthy debate opponents over “kooky, loony, nutty” mental obstacles that otherwise prevented them from acquiring Dr. Wood’s textbook, Señor El Once offered to purchase them a copy in exchange for a fair and objective reading and “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” Little did he know that the very act of accepting or declining such an offer would prove to be an early test of their objectivity and a hint of their agenda.
    – Mr. Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll Forums: “I decline your gracious offer… It’s a moral thing. And based on principles.”
    – Mr. Simon Shack of September Clues: “I will respectfully decline your offer – out of intellectual honesty.”
    – Mr. LeftWright of 9/11 Blogger was sent the book, but after confirming receipt has communicated to the gift-giver not a single word, let alone a good, bad, and ugly assessment, despite pings every other month for about half a year: “How’s the book report coming?”
    – Mr. David Chandler upon receiving the book gave these first impressions: “Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.” He goes on to say: “There’s not a whole lot I agree with. I haven’t gotten that far yet.” Six months later when prodded for a more detailed good, bad, and ugly review, he admits that he started but didn’t finish the book because he had “better things to do with his time” [e.g., the anti-CIT paper co-authored with Frank Legge.]
    – Mr. Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth wrote FAQ #3: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? that did not reference anything from Dr. Wood’s textbook [which the authors probably don’t have], misrepresents and misframes her work, and consumes half its space promoting nano-thermite [that has its own crippling issues.] The closest Señor El Once was able to come to contacting these authors directly was Mr. Cole relaying through his gatekeeper (Mr. Chandler): “Don’t even waste time responding.” Mr. Chandler elaborated: “Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further.”
    For the sake of brevity, many other data points clustering around the above trend line are not provided. The trend line is, however, that Dr. Wood and her work should be avoided and need to be marginalized before and to prevent others from objectively reviewing its content and from judging independently what is applicable and what is not.
    Do not let the tenor of the article give you the wrong impression. Dr. Wood’s work (website and textbook) are not without error and most assuredly do contain disinformation. The damning question for her detractors is: “Specifically where?” The reason it is so damning is the remainder, that portion that can’t be definitely pegged as disinfo and is in fact true or simply evidence that no other conspiracy-theory-du-jour has addressed.
    [Disclaimer: Neither Mr. McKee nor Señor El Once have any association with Dr. Wood or her textbook, and receive no financial benefit.]
    What is Señor El Once’s assessment of Dr. Wood’s textbook?

    The text and analysis of the first half are solid. Great new ways to debunk the official govt conspiracy theory with physics. Throughout the book, its 500 color images in the larger (7″x10″) format with tables and maps to correlate the views of destruction alone secure the value of this book in your 9/11 library even before reading the text. They put into perspective the totality of the destruction for those of us who have never been to NYC.
    Before I was half way through, I was recommending the book reasoning that if the second half unraveled into sweet-as-honey distracting disinformation, we’ll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandchildren how our generation was manipulated and played.
    The books strengths are also its weaknesses: each chapter stands (or falls) pretty much on its own. The book presents concepts and very few hypotheses regarding applicability of concepts to 9/11. No concluding or summary chapters tie the individual chapters together or define a definitive hypothesis about “This was how they pulled off 9/11.”
    After my first reading, other than a few tiny errors carried over from her website and many broken URL references [that she has no control over], I found no major issues or disinfo flags except my own disappointment that this crafty work had no definitive 9/11 conclusions.
    Having had a year to digest Dr. Wood’s textbook, I can more readily see the major hurdles for both supporters and detractors. Hurdle one is validity of a concept, which is a high one for detractors to overcome and to prove invalid or bogus science. Hurdle two is applicability of a concept to 9/11, which ends up being a high one for supporters.
    [Unfounded speculation:] The inclusion of one or two of the concepts have more the appearance of a “get out of assassination free” card, ala “include these chapters that make you look bat-shit crazy, or else.” So life-loving Dr. Wood’s publishes them, but in a crafty trick (a) doesn’t draw conclusions and (b) emphasizes the true importance of her book: evidence.

    If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
    ~ Dr. Judy Wood

    Indeed, much of her evidence is under-represented and largely unexplained by other 9/11 theories including the official one. In addition, before dismissing a concept as being scientifically valid but likely inapplicable to 9/11, remember to consider the totality of the WTC destruction and that what might seem inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7 might not be so farfetched as contributing to the demise of other individual WTC buildings.

    Should a prerequisite for the discussion be that the participant has the “Where Did The Towers Go?” textbook from Dr. Wood? Many reasons could be cited for considering this requirement, such as:
    – If we’re going to evaluate Dr. Wood’s work, it should be her latest efforts.
    – Dr. Wood’s textbook pulls in the essential points from her website, presents it more clearly, and also has concepts that are not on her website.
    – The pictures, maps, and tables that correlate pictures to views marked on the maps is worth the $44 price of the textbook by itself; it is not a wasted purchase for any serious researcher of 9/11.
    – Nothing is more obnoxious than the book report by the wanna-be book reviewer who has never even peered into the crack of Dr. Wood’s textbook.
    Acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook (purchasing or borrowing from your public library) could thus be considered a test of your objectivity.
    It is not being made a requirement but with this caveat: those attempting to give dismissive book reviews without having read the book and/or by using material pre-dating her book (e.g., Dr. Jenkins) can expect Señor El Once’s copy to come thunking down upon their heads ruthlessly.
    Three of the reasons for not making possession of the book a requirement are that:
    (1) The truly relevant information (e.g., pictorial evidence, massive energy requirements of pulverization, other mechanisms of destruction) is available from her website.
    (2) Objective reviewers will see aspects of her work that can be built upon and taken new directions, as well as aspects of her work that may be an irrelevant distraction (e.g., Hutchison Effect, free energy from space.)
    (3) The book and website will have served their purpose by getting readers to consider how her evidence might better fit into other theories and think outside the “consensus” box on what caused the destruction of the WTC complex.

30. Craig McKee said: “Can hurricanes be pushed back artificially using HAARP, for example? ”
    Craig, there was no need to do that [assuming that it could have been achieved in real life] .
    The hurricane was already headed out to sea; another, far bigger and more powerful natural weather phenomenon having forced it to turn back out to sea at around 2am on the morning of 9/11 [and not at the 8 am claimed by Prof. Wood in her radio interviews].
    Massive Cold Front
    Meteorological records show that it was pushed further back out to sea by a massive North to South cold front that had swept West to East, across the entire continent , from Canada down to the Gulf.
    Anyone who lives on the East coast of the US is well aware of the effect that a large, fast moving cold front, traveling West to East and covering most of the continent, will always have on a hurricane off the East coast headed approximately in the opposite direction [ i.e. towards the East coast- more accurately in this case, N.N.W.].
    That inevitable result being:
    The hurricane must always “lose out” and is _always_ deflected away from the bigger, stronger, faster moving phenomena [i.e. a massive cold front ] and pushed further out to sea away from the coast.
    This is basically an unwritten law of hurricane watching/meteorology , as far as I am aware.
    Long time US East Coast residents are acutely aware of this fact of life [their survival might depend on it], as is, presumably, the entire professional weather forecasting community, who would have known at least 24 hours earlier, what was going to almost inevitably happen to Erin in a very short while, given the speed and size of that cold front.
    Although very little about weather predictions is in the real world actually predictable, one thing that remains almost entirely predictable is the behavior of a hurricane in the presence of a mass of cold air opposing its advance by traveling in the opposite direction. The hurricane “runs away”, and reverses course, or is deflected away at the very least.
    In a 3 part series of blog articles I wrote in my “Onebornfree’s Mythbusters” blog October 2008, titled ” Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11″ , I demonstrate the movement of the huge cold front in question, [complete with accompanying national weather maps for the preceding days that track the fronts progress], and examined Dr Wood’s [mistaken] assertion during a radio interview with Andrew Johnson that Erin turned seaward around 8 am on the morning of 9/11, when the meteorological record she relied on itself actually quite clearly shows that to have not been the case , and that in fact Erin’s turn seaward actually happened 4 hours earlier, at around 2am that morning.
    Bottom line:
    Hurricane Erin was deflected away from New York City by completely natural [and much larger, faster moving] weather/climate phenomenon : that is, a massive cold front that had traveled West to East across the entire continent in a matter of days.
    Erin was turned away from the New York coastline at approximately 2am that morning [9/11] having reached its closest proximity to NYC of around 200 miles offshore.
    “Nothing But Blue Skies”
    The incredibly clear blue skies experienced up and down the East coast on the morning of 9/11 were a direct result of the passing out to sea of that massive block of cold air.
    “Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11” parts 1 &2: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-dr-judy-wood-is-probably-mistaken.html
    “Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11” part 3 :
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-dr-judy-wood-is-probably-mistaken_25.html
    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree,
       Please help me understand the lack of TV coverage of this hurricane as it headed for New York. And maybe you can also explain why some members of the Truth movement – who are used to seeing media not reporting or distorting the truth – aren’t the least bit suspicious about an event like this being ignored on the very morning 9/11 is planned.
       And if you can point me to examples of past hurricanes that have taken sudden sharp turns as they were heading straight for land, I’d appreciate that, too.

31. Craig McKee said: “Please help me understand the lack of TV coverage of this hurricane as it headed for New York. ……..And if you can point me to examples of past hurricanes that have taken sudden sharp turns as they were heading straight for land, I’d appreciate that, too ”
    Craig, I don’t believe that Erin was ever seen as a serious threat to the East coast by the professional meteorology community, given the presence of the truly massive fast moving cold front I talked about, as well as earlier cold fronts that had already somewhat deflected it. That’s probably why it was not an issue.
    You are probably not aware that Erin had already be knocked off course at least once by smaller, successive, preceding cold fronts [ slowing it and turning it more northward] and that those earlier fronts were effectively just a set up for the inevitable “knockout punch”,that is, an even bigger West to East mass of cold air following close behind on the earlier one’s “heels”.
    All in all a fairly typical weather pattern for fall on the East coast of the US, no more.
    To see just how large the main front was, please see my weather map illustration from the NOAA archives dated Sept. 10 2001, in the blog entry titled: “Why Dr Judy Wood Is Probably Mistaken About Hurricane Erin and 9/11″ part 3 :
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-dr-judy-wood-is-probably-mistaken_25.html , or, you could search the NOAA archives yourself by typing in that date here:
    http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa_main.html
    If you are unaware of the effect that these fronts inevitably have on hurricanes which try to oppose them, then you would have to check with a meteorologist I suppose, or better yet, someone whose opinion you trust who has lived on the East coast of the US for 10 years or more, rather than take my word for it [I’ve lived on the S.East coast for 20 + years] .
    Any fairly intelligent , east coast-based , close observer of weather phenomena such as seasonal hurricanes will tell you the same thing: westward-moving hurricanes [i.e. concentrated low pressure areas] _always_ get deflected away from the East coast by large, fast moving masses of cold air [i.e. high pressure] coming from the West and headed East – its just a fact of life on the East coast.
    To check my assertion, you could check the path/history of any hurricane [take your pick!] tracked by NOAA that you saw was deflected away from the US coast , and then go look up the related , preceding days national NOAA weather maps that show the movement of cold air masses etc.
    US hurricane tracking archives are available here: http://weather.terrapin.com/hurricane/index.jsp
    ….and NOAA national weather archive maps showing cold/warm fronts etc. are available here: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa_main.html
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. I was aware it had been knocked off course at least once. I’m also aware that it increased in intensity after this happened.
       Tell me, is it usual when a category 3 hurricane is heading straight for land that it is dismissed by the media because a cold front will “probably” blow it away from land? That’s not my experience with media. I can’t imagine TV weather not reporting a hurricane heading for land on the basis that the “meteorological community” doesn’t see it as a threat. How ridiculous would they look if the storm did hit land after all? And they didn’t mention it? Not very believable.
       But I will look at other examples, as you suggest. I don’t seem to have the necessary program to view the paths on the site you gave me. I get the raw data, but I’m not sure how to read it.

       1. Craig just go to the NOAA site, and chose any hurricane any year, browse around awhile.
          After living on the Gulf Coast for five years, I learned a lot about hurricanes…having to deal with them and their potentials. I am afraid that I have to agree with Onebornfree on this issue, as far as the meteorological info as he has stated it.
          But by the same token, I don’t know the specifics on Erin, other than one NOAA tracking chart.
          And like I said, it looked to me like it was following the fault about 200 miles out from the coast, which is something hurricanes will do…follow the trench…Tornadoes do this as well, lay-lines, trenches.rivers, roads, etc…
          Of course these are secondary integers compared to the weather fronts and air currents.
          I have been convinced of a couple of HAARP led hurricanes, I think Katrina was one of these, but overall, I think the “HAARP did it” card is overplayed. I think HAARP induced earthquakes are more often produced. There are a lot less variables involved to achieve expected results.
          ww

          1. This is an intriguing comment. You believe HAARP-led hurricanes have happened, but not on 9/11. I don’t know if the card is overplayed, but this seems like an occasion when it would have been very useful for the perps. To have something mess up the impact of this false flag operation would seem to be a great reason to redirect a hurricane – if that’s possible to do.

       2. Well Craig,
          If HAARP was used on 9/11, it would seem it was used to push it out to sea and stall it. As that is indeed what happened. Perhaps for the blue skies for their ‘magic show’ in Manhattan.
          If there is some serious theory that explains the use of this hurricane, I would be glad to hear it.
          So far all I have gotten is from Senor, and that is a pick and choose potpourri, that doesn’t really move me.
          ww

          1. WW, you said: “If HAARP was used on 9/11, it would seem it was used to push it out to sea and stall it. As that is indeed what happened. Perhaps for the blue skies for their ‘magic show’ in Manhattan.”
             This is what I’m considering as a possibility. Obviously I have no proof that this is what happened, but it would explain a lot. And there’s a lot that needs explaining.

    2. Read Dr Judy Wood’s book Chapters 18 & 19 to get the facts straight about Hurricane Erin and the high pressure cold front which moved into the area just as Hurricane Erin arrived in the area. The atmospheric pressure at JFK Airport reached its highest point at almost exactly 10:00 am (page 424 figure 435 Where Did The Towers Go?) “The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.”

       1. Well Mr. Naus,
          At least you have pointed out some actual practical information contained in Wood’s book.
          Of course the atmospheric pressure’s highest point doesn’t mean that the effect of the cold front hadn’t been pushing the storm out to sea long before 10:00 am. And this also lends to the probability that the whole thing can be ascribed to natural meteorological conditions.
          ww

32. Where are all of our busy little Wood workers?
    Mr. Salt is the only one to show up today, after quite a flood yesterday.
    I don’t know…seems a bit odd to me.
    Although in every experience with Andrew Johnson, I have never known him to answer back after one of his comments are critiqued.
    ww

    1. Maybe they feel you are too slow a learner to waste their time with.

       1. Robert E. Sallt says:
          “Maybe they feel you are too slow a learner to waste their time with.”
          Perhaps Mr. Sallt {two “L”s is it?}…but then again, that would be giving me the benefit of being the only one on this thread worth countering. Is that your proposition Mr. Sallt?
          To be perfectly frank, I feel that your position is so ridiculous that it should be simply laughed off, and that it is a waste of my time to deal with such obvious bullshit. However, as this theory of Wood’s has gained such traction among the naive and gullible, I have been willing to address it.
          I will also note that when I give a critique of any of your assertions, you have little but weak responses to those, if any at all. Such as your characterization of the debris field of the aftermath. The issue is so thoroughly documented that your assertions to it seem simply and embarrassingly stupid. And yet being so frank and upfront to use such language is the very thing which causes accusations of “ad hominem”. But as Forrest Gump would say: “stupid is as stupid does Mr. Sallt.”
          ww

          1. Calm down! You’re more likely to see things as they are if you put yourself in a relaxed state. Everyone who lived and worked near ground zero asked the same question “Where did the Towers go?” Each Tower was 110 stories, each floor nearly one acre in size. Yet the debris didn’t amount to much more than a few twisted pieces of metal. George Stephanopoulis was there and tried to explain it but saying it must have fallen into the basement. Ridiculous!

       2. “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”~ Thomas Jefferson
          ww

       3. Robert E. Sallt says:
          “Calm down!”
          I am as calm as an azure lake at spring time Mr. Sallt.
          That your assertions that the WTC aftermath site are absurd are clear from the visual record. the whole site was a scene of twisted metal covering 13 acres and beyond.
          The FEMA Debris Map shows the pattern of destruction. As little at ten percent remained in the footprint. That this issue is beyond controversy is a settled matter to any sane individual aware of the facts.
          ww

33. 2cents time…
    On the claim that people weren’t burned, I read recently of an EMT who arrived on the scene at the WTC7 loading dock triage as the north tower collapsed and stated that as she was running away her hair and jacket caught fire. I’ll have to hunt out the link.
    What intrigues me about the dust and vehicle fires that followed is that you have to compare the percentage of the towers that were actually on fire compared to the lower and upper sections that were essentially unaffected. 5%? Less?
    Then take into consideration the pulverization of the concrete in the towers as they fell. The layman in me says that the hotter dust at the upper levels would have drifted, yet vehicles immediately below caught fire.
    Here’s the dispersion of dust after the south tower collapse.
    14:05mins
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903#
    http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7451/imagedzfn.jpg
    http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8580/imagewlr.jpg
    http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9792/imagejzi.jpg
    http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4171/imagewih.jpg
    Genuine questions.
    Which dust (powder more like) has landed and which is floating? The “hotter” or the “cooler”?
    The closest I’ve come to simulating it (from memory) is emptying the (still warm) ashes of  my chimney into the metal recipticle in my garden. The warm ashes drift away and the cooler ash mainly falls.
    Now scale this experiment to a greater height. Isn’t the majority of colder ash going to reach the ground first? And the hotter ash dispersed more widely?
    Might be an oversimplification but food for thought.
    As for the “spire”, what stood out to me most of all regarding the dust that was seen hanging in mid-air after it fell through its own path, was that it could only have occurred if the concrete between the lattice of steel beams was freed from the immediate desintegration of this lattice before or as it started to fall. 
    The “spire” is a microcosm of how the inner core was brought down. And the dust is a clue to the mechanism. In my opinion.

    1. onesliceshort says:
       “Now scale this experiment to a greater height. Isn’t the majority of colder ash going to reach the ground first? And the hotter ash dispersed more widely?”
       As a general concept you are correct – however there is the issue of each level blown being newly ignited materials, and these would be flowing through the chaotic corridors of the buildings and streets. This would be coupled with a mixing of the falling cooled ash and particulates.
       Look into the dynamics of volcano eruptions as far as pyroclastic flow mechanics. Also the pyroclastic flows undersea during earthquakes and deep sandbar failures.
       ww

    2. “What intrigues me about the dust and vehicle fires that followed is that you have to compare the percentage of the towers that were actually on fire compared to the lower and upper sections that were essentially unaffected. 5%? Less?”~OSS
       Yes – but that is the jet fuel/office furniture fires. The pyroclastic flows we are concerned with were generated by explosives, so the original fires have no bearing on speculation as to the churning plumes of particulates effecting the aftermath.
       ww

       1. Thanks Willy. Will do.
          My analogy was more about comparing the official narrative on collapse to what we observe regarding the behaviour and effects of the dust. Baby steps, ya know?
          I liked the write-up on sol gels and I came across one such theory which pointed to a chemical used in rocket fuel and pyrotechnics. Ammonium Perchlorate.
          http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html

          “Ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, is a colorless, odorless, compound that is stable at room temperature. However, when heated to above 300 °C, or subjected to friction or impact, it becomes violently reactive. In fact, ammonium perchlorate is a much-used ingredient in explosives, pyrothechnics and solid propellants such as those used in the space shuttle booster rockets….
          Ammonium Perchlorate (AP) is SOLID ROCKET FUEL!
          The decomposition reactions of ammonium perchlorate are complex and variable: Cl2, HCl, NH3, N2O, NO, N2, H2O and O2 have been observed as the major products and are all gasses!. The AP decomposition reaction is highly exothermic, releasing about 2 MJ/kg of heat energy, and is accompanied by the production of about 800 liters/kg of gases including oxygen. The combustion of ammonium perchlorate in oxygen-rich atmospheres produces a diffusion flame at about 3200 °C.
          [….]
          The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
          It should be noted that the specific selection of areas for insulation upgrading would have made on the basis of the need to apply fire protection material to areas that were known to be vulnerable to fire damage because of poor coverage of the original coating. However, in an “AP-conspiracy” theory, the sprayed-on fire protector was, in fact, an AP-based fire accelerent or pyrotechnic agent. Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. Building 7 could also have been “pre-conditioned” with accelerent coatings during the OEM diesel generator upgrades of 1999.

          Keep in mind that the following video shows 100s of gallons of the stuff being burned. Imagine that it was finely sprayed on the core and beams. Look at the behaviour of the smoke and dust.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWrvDvYOyk
          On a slightly different note, did you know that one of the more obvious squibs seen during the north tower descent was exactly where the “spire” appeared?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64rlnaCqY8

       2. Great stuff OSS,
          “Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. Building 7 could also have been “pre-conditioned” with accelerent coatings during the OEM diesel generator upgrades of 1999.”
          Yes, and there are those elevator upgrades that are duly authenticated, and yet staunchly denied by the Port Authority.
          It seems to me obvious that all of these “upgrades” were in fact preparations being made for the explosive events of 9/11.
          Good work OSS, this is all fitting together nicely.
          ww

       3. OSS,
          This device was brought to my attention by none other than Señor El Once:
          Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete
          Abstract
          A plasma arc can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like. The concrete structure can be demolished by melting a surface of the concrete structure by generating a plasma arc from a plasma torch (15) of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder (T) with a supply gas (Gc) for the plasma torch (15), directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in response to the operation of the plasma arc, including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction, and melting the surface of the concrete structure. The plasma generator (1) can be provided with a feeder (20) for mixing the thermite powder (T) with the supply gas (Gc), and controller (30) for controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) or for stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T).
          ——————————————————————————–
          Inventors: Murakami; Taku (Hiratsuka, JP)
          Assignee: Kabushiki Kaisha Komatsu Seisakusho (Tokyo, JP)
          Appl. No.: 08/297,610
          Filed: August 29, 1994
          ww

34. onesliceshort said: “As for the “spire”, what stood out to me most of all regarding the dust that was seen hanging in mid-air after it fell through its own path, was that it could only have occurred if the concrete between the lattice of steel beams was freed from the immediate desintegration of this lattice before or as it started to fall. The “spire” is a microcosm of how the inner core was brought down.”
    The “spire” is nothing but disintegrating and re-blending pixel patterns. In real life there never was such a “spire”.The entire video is fake from start to finish.
    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Hahahahaha…yea Onebornfree…”the entire video is fake from start to finish”…
       Ya know my man…after your posts on meteorology, I am certain you are a lucid human being capable of critical thought and scientific concepts – which leaves me more convinced that you know better, that your “idiot side” is a put on.
       I don’t believe you believe this crap Onebornfree. I just don’t. The whole thing is a bowl of fruitloops and I think you know this very well.
       ww

35. Craig McKee said: ” …is it usual when a category 3 hurricane is heading straight for land that it is dismissed by the media because a cold front will “probably” blow it away from land? That’s not my experience with media. I can’t imagine TV weather not reporting a hurricane heading for land on the basis that the “meteorological community” doesn’t see it as a threat. How ridiculous would they look if the storm did hit land after all? And they didn’t mention it? Not very believable.
    It was not just one solitary cold front, Craig. The biggest was merely the last [and biggest] of the 2 or 3 that succeeded in pushing Erin away from the East coast . There was, at the time [early Sept. ’01] a recurring [fall] pattern of high pressure ridges caused by cold Arctic air dropping down from the Canada and the Rockies and then spilling over into the central US plains, before traveling rapidly eastward. Any meteorologist worth his salt knew that this sort of repetitive weather pattern was bound to deflect any potential hurricane that at first appeared to threaten the Eastern seaboard. Heck , even the average East coast layman[me] understood this. As long as that weather pattern persisted, the East coast was safe from hurricanes.
    Craig McKee said: “But I will look at other examples, as you suggest. I don’t seem to have the necessary program to view the paths on the site you gave me. I get the raw data, but I’m not sure how to read it.”
    Sorry about that, it seems that site [which used to be excellent for tracing the paths of previous hurricanes in an animated map form] has changed its code/format for whatever reason.
    Here is a link to a different site that shows a map of all named Atlantic storms for the year 2001, including Erin: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at2001.asp . I have not searched the entire site, but it might even contain a solo plot of Erin or another 2001 storm’s path- who knows?
    Another way to go would be to reverse the process and look at Hurricanes that _did_ make landfall in the US. [For example, Katrina], and then check the NOAA national charts to see what type of cold front activity was present just prior to their landfall.
    If a large cold front was present and still moving steadily Eastward, and yet still situated to Katrina’s left on the map at time of its landfall, then that would disprove my assertions, but I’m guessing that whatever cold front activity there was prior to its [Katrina’s] landfall had already headed away up [North] , and that Katrina snuck in behind that front, if it in fact existed. But I have not checked on this, just an educated guess.
    regards, onebornfree

36. There was no ‘reply’ link on an earlier post from hybridroque, so i’m quoting from his post here.
    He write:

    “…..
    I see this as nothing but an elaborate excuse for what were clearly simply goofy answers to his questions by Ms. Wood. What? Are we to assume that Jenkins hypnotized her and gave her subliminal suggestions as the interview was happening?
    _________________________
    “How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?”~Jenkins
    “Why is he asking this question so many times? What is the purpose?”~Johnson
    _________________________
    Why is Jenkins asking so many times?? Because she won’t give a straight answer to the question. Because there IS debris falling and she has disputed the debris…what could be clearer?
    …..”

    It’s really quite incredible that mr. roque completely fails to grasp that Jenkins is here asking an insidious question to which the answer is of the “bleeding obvious” kind, and therefore of course that no sane person would dignify this stupid stupid dumb question with a response!
    I truly wish that mr. roque would desist from treating every contributor and reader of this blog as if they’re all “blithering idiots”, unable to think for themselves!
    Jenkins is seemingly of a rather dubious character, so why mr. roque would come so vehemently to his defence, i think must now be seriously questioned!
    Why is mr. roque trying, and indeed succeeding, out of all proportions, in dominating all the threads in Craig McKee’s blog with one inane post after the other, without actually contributing anything of worth?
    Why is mr. roque aping and modelling himself on the rather infamous mr. snowcrash, who also, like mr. roque, from one day to the next became an instant “expert” on virtually ‘everything’; and who also, like mr. roque, started bragging about his ostensibly new-found mastery and know-how about virtually any pertinent subject others have been studied and dealing with for years?
    Why is mr. roque, as mr. snowcrash did it, ass-licking some posters, and showing irrational destructive hostility toward others? Why the ‘weird’ stark contrast, when we’re supposed all to be on the same side, just with slightly different views of what we observe?
    Why does mr. roque exclaim, like mr. snowcrash did it, that the only thing he cares about is the ‘truth’, while he time after time show little to no understanding about the concepts of being ‘just’ and ‘fair’, or attempt to show ‘tolerance’ toward the opinion of others?
    With his ostensible ‘high intelligence’, should mr. roque not know that these terms above are indelibly connected to each other?
    Yes, as the reader must suspect by now, i’m now suspecting that mr. roque could be either a shill, troll or an “agent”; even a combination of them all! Take your pick.
    By listening closely to this man’s utterings, nothing else makes any sense to me!
    I’m equally ‘suspecting’ that mr. roque couldn’t give a stuff about what i’m thinking, which of course
    made it so much easier for me to write this post!
    Cheers

    1. Tamborine man says:
       “It’s really quite incredible that mr. roque completely fails to grasp that Jenkins is here asking an insidious question to which the answer is of the “bleeding obvious” kind, and therefore of course that no sane person would dignify this stupid stupid dumb question with a response!”
       An “insidious question”? {grin} yes, indeed “bleeding obvious” – and yet it is Wood’s contention that this “bleeding obvious” debris in nonexistent. That is the whole point of the argument.
       That Tamborine is frustrated with my presence, and my prolific postings is obvious. That he has nothing of substance to counter with, he rages about my being an agent of some sort.
       But he is correct I “don’t give a stuff” about his thinking – if “thinking” is what one could call it.
       Rather than attempting to “listen” Mr. Tamborine, why don’t you try reading more closely.
       ww

       1. “Frustrated”, mr. rogue! Not at all.
          ‘Fascinated’ – would be a far more apt description, if you don’t mind!

          An “insidious question”? {grin} yes, indeed “bleeding obvious” – and yet it is Wood’s contention that this “bleeding obvious” debris in nonexistent. That is the whole point of the argument.

          I mean, what else but sheer ‘fascination’ is there to experience, by coming across the kind of answer you’ve just given above!
          Cheers

       2. Tamborine man says:
          “I mean, what else but sheer ‘fascination’ is there to experience, by coming across the kind of answer you’ve just given above!”
          The answer I gave ‘above’ had a point of substance to it Tamborine, it isn’t pure squall like all of your posts here.
          The fact that you have gone on twitchy here, freaking out over what you obviously see as my overbearing ‘power’ on this thread is that which I find fascinating, and quite a bit humorous.
          You have been nipping at my heels like a chihuahua hopped up on bath-salts since I KO’d your papa figure Fetzer. All your fevered blatherings about that were funny enough – but now you seem to be literally chewing your tongue off. I suppose that is one way to “grow-up” and come to “full bloom”…Lol…good luck with all that
          ww

    2. Dear Señor Tamborine Man,
       Some of your criticisms of Señor Rogue have merit, but many do not. He is not Mr. SnowCrash.
       Keep notes on “agenthood” suspicions, but please don’t air them in this thread. Diverting the discussion into personal attacks is a common trick and one we can’t afford to be taken in by when trying to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the 9/11TM’s most-reviled front-person: Dr. Wood. This may be our only chance to explore these themes — pro’s and con’s — in a rational fashion to serve as a reference for lurkers and googlers later.
       Señor Rogue has expressed many views that put him squarely in the 9/11TM’s camp. But he has had a laser-like focus on torching serious consideration of concepts inspired by Dr. Wood (e.g., DEW) and by September Clues (e.g., imagery manipulation, media foreknowledge), which rinky-dink coincidentally were my two hobby-horses that I got a lot of space promoting in the discussions without serious, thoughtful, or well-reasoned opposition. Until Señor Rogue’s arrival, that is.
       Señor Rogue may be an agent with an agenda, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld regarding Saddam: “Señor Rogue may be an agent, but he is our agent.” He writes well and makes reasoned arguments. He is several levels above other shills and agents I have run across. For these merits, I welcome his contributions. He helps me make my cases stronger.
       My only regret is in not being able to get him to smell the crack of Dr. Wood’s textbook. It is a serious deficiency that has him fail any reasonable test of his objectivity. It certainly puts him into a weak position when trying to argue against concepts introduced by Dr. Wood and more importantly when opening up his thought to 9/11 causes beyond “super duper nano-thermite.” He has failed to acknowledge the major weaknesses of such in accounting for content pulverization (without flashes, loud explosions, burning pieces of rubble falling, etc.), the duration of hot-spots, measured radiation level, and 1st-responder ailments.
       Señor Rogue may be justified in taking Dr. Wood down a peg or two. But, his objectivity is further tested in not being able to acknowledge the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood that cannot be so easily swept aside.

       1. Señor notes:
          (e.g., imagery manipulation, media foreknowledge)
          These are two distinct and separate issues. Media foreknowledge is a certainty beyond the slightest controversy – the Public Relations Regime is the real power behind the throne here.
          The imagery manipulation is for the most part a squirming ball of worms.
          However, you are correct about my take on both the Shackians and the Woodites. And nothing written here has come close to putting a dent in my take on this. Both are goofy nonsense from my perspective.
          I will make my final call as the thread reaches its final gasps, but I am on a trajectory here that seems to land me at the same home base I took off from.
          ww

       2. Dear Señor El Once,
          you write:

          Some of your criticisms of Señor Rogue have merit, but many do not. He is not Mr. SnowCrash.

          Well, i never said he’s ‘snowcrash’! It’s the “similarity” between the two which i find so fascinating.
          They have both spend an inordinate amount of time and energy relentlessly battering, belittling and vilifying “other truthers” for no apparent or justifiable reasons, while the true villainous perps are completely ignored.
          Very strange behavior, if you ask me!

          Keep notes on “agenthood” suspicions, but please don’t air them in this thread. Diverting the discussion into personal attacks is a common trick and one we can’t afford to be taken in by when trying to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the 9/11TM’s most-reviled front-person: Dr. Wood. ….

          No ‘personal attacks’ intended. See it rather as a friendly provocation for mr. rogue to come clean. Why “behave” like a shill, or give out the impression, if you’re not one! What would be the purpose?
          Would love to see mr. rogue bury the ‘vitriol’ for good, and become more like a ‘normal’ human being carrying his ‘heart on the sleeve’. If you’re good, you do good. it’s as simple as that.

          Señor Rogue may be an agent with an agenda, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld regarding Saddam: “Señor Rogue may be an agent, but he is our agent.” He writes well and makes reasoned arguments. He is several levels above other shills and agents I have run across. For these merits, I welcome his contributions. He helps me make my cases stronger.

          I wish you all the success in the world with your endeavour!

          Señor Rogue may be justified in taking Dr. Wood down a peg or two. But, his objectivity is further tested in not being able to acknowledge the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood that cannot be so easily swept aside.

          No. Mr. rogue is not justified in taking anybody down. no one is.
          All one would achieve in the process, would be to make oneself ‘smaller and smaller’ instead.
          The only purpose for ‘Life’ in a world of Darkness, is to ‘grow up’, to advance, to unfold and to finally come out in full “bloom”. There’s no more to it than that!
          Cheers

    3. @tamborine man
       Enjoyed reading this response and thought this was worth giving a response to.

       1. @ willy whitten
          Now that your reading my thoughts there is no need to respond to you, and since I don’t know any big words how about reading these two small words in my thoughts which you might find a bit unpleasant: 4 letter word followed by a 3 letter word

       2. You made it too easy Mr. Naus…why don’t you try with yourself and let me know how satisfying it is? Don’t worry, I will pick it up – you don’t have to embarrass yourself by posting the results here.
          Ooooh, your so…so…clever {grin}

    4. @tamborine man
       You must be reading my thoughts.

       1. That’s funny Mr. Naus, I have been reading your thoughts too, and knew you would be delighted with Tamborine man’s jingo jangle jamboree.
          He knows a lot of big words you don’t, doesn’t he?
          ww

       2. “You must be reading my thoughts.”

          That could very well be the case mr. nausmr!
          I too, ‘feel’ that the vibrations are virtually coming
          from the same wavelength ……. ;o)
          Cheers mate

37. Tamborine Man said: “…………One of the things they got right, i observed in a previous post of yours, onebornfree.
    It was in the previous thread were you on 26/5-12 linked to the ‘cluesforum’ under the header,
    “Extensive analysis of the alleged ‘live’ imagery can be viewed here”:
    Further down the thread you linked to, Simon Shack shows us two comparative screen shots of the WTC1 mast, were the ‘Etienne Sauret clip’ shows the mast falling to the left, whereas the clip from the ‘MSNBC’, of the exact same moment in time, shows the mast falling to the right!
    Obviously the ‘MSNBC’ video must have been faked for some reason …..better known to ‘msnbc’ themselves, ……….”
    Tamborine Man, thank you for your comments.
    Here’s a question or three for you to consider:
    How do you know _for_certain_ that only one of the two video sequences you viewed was/is fake, ?
    Wouldn’t it be more sensible [ with regard to employing a really useful investigative procedural methodology] to assume that both are fake , until definitively proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt [if that is even possible]?
    How do you justify the assumption that one of them _must_ be genuine, in your own mind’s eye?
    What,in your view, do you personally gain by assuming that one of the videos must be genuine? How does so doing help you/ reinforce your current beliefs/agenda about the events of 9/11?
    Furthermore, assuming that you, as an amateur researcher, have been confronted with many [possibly 100’s] of government /media lies concerning the alleged events of 9/11, and assuming that you now also really believe the MSNBC video sequence you viewed is in fact a fraud, because it contradicts the Sauret sequence of the exact same event, how can you you be so sure that the rest of the various MSM network “live” footage [ or at the very least, the rest of MSNBC’s alleged “live” coverage], is in fact genuine, as you currently seem to believe?
    These are all questions for you to perhaps consider/chew on . No need to reply here, just maybe think about them – or not 🙂
    Regards, onebornfree.

38. Dear Señor Rogue,
    I located and skimmed the two PDF files of writings by Dr. Gregory Jenkins that you were urging me to read:
    – Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
    – “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 8 (February, 2007)
    Surely what Dr. Jenkins writes has nuggets of truth in it, but I also discovered errors.
    Do we dismiss his works completely based on the errors? No.
    But this is precisely what your framing constantly does for Dr. Wood. You are too lazy and cheap to get Dr. Wood’s textbook, smell the ink in its crack, and discover & acknowledge for yourself various nuggets of truth (amidst the errors, misinformation, and disinformation). So instead, you munge around on the internet for documents 3 YEARS OLDER than Dr. Wood’s latest effort and try to foist that on us as the authority. [Duck! Because that was my copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook be tossed at your thick head.]
    In general, I like having discussions with you, Señor Rogue, except when you are obviously playing weasel games and when your personal (or professional) agenda seems to be to keep the lurker readers from finding anything of value in Dr. Wood’s work. IMHO this has been your one consistent negative trait in your tenure here.
    Dr. Jenkins did indeed find errors in Dr. Wood’s work. In particular, I like the quote from Vincent Forras that says: “Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces.” This is yet another example where Dr. Wood was sloppy by saying it was wilted and not researching more into its history. [An example I’ve found is the fire engine with a caved in front that she says: “A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go?” That style fire truck has the engine block sitting further back.]
    Dr. Jenkins continues:

    The bottom two photographs show the same minivan before and after it is burned. The likely cause is the flaming vehicle adjacent to the minivan.

    Left image
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/2431.jpg
    Right image
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image18swamp.jpg
    Sure, I can agree that the van was torched due to the burning car in the middle of the street. But does Dr. Jenkins venture to speculate how the vehicle in the middle of the street and at various locations up and down the street got torched, but not the street lights, street signs, and paper? No. Seems to me, the “hot plasmastic cloud of dust” would not have been so selective.
    In Dr. Jenkins’ second document above, he immediately hops into framing the discussion — “vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers” — and doing huge energy calculations based on this. Granted, sloppy wording by Dr. Wood may have opened her up to this ridiculous type of extreme taking. I only recall (the error with) the spire where she talks of vaporizing steel, and that is significantly less than 110 floors of it. Clearly, the pictorial evidence that Dr. Wood has viewed and promoted shows significant amounts of steel in the debris. Therefore, for Dr. Jenkins to continue more than once to base his arguments on the energy required to vaporize 100 floors of steel is an indication of someone with an axe to grind in misframing the concepts.
    Another NIST-style misleading error in Dr. Jenkins work appears in the following passage:

    A previous analysis of the expected amount of debris generated from the partially collapsed buildings (WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6) matches observation if sublevel collapses are included in the analysis. The damage is consistent with impulse damage from falling debris.

    The above would be true if there were sufficient debris from the towers on or in WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 to account for their destruction. Only in Dr. Wood’s book have I found nuggets of truth about WTC-4 that clearly showed it did not have its main edifice leveled at a line with its North Wing by falling debris.
    The charge from Mr. McKee:

    For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
    For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?

    I can find all sorts of nitpicky errors in Dr. Wood’s efforts, and I bring them up and acknowledge them as such when I can.
    Face it, Señor Rogue, you have mined precious little from Dr. Wood’s website (let alone book). Your actions over several months now suggest that you are not seeking nuggets of truth; you seem to want to keep them buried in the rubble.
    Instead of munging around the internet for other people’s faulty, stilted, and malframed analysis of Dr. Wood’s work, why don’t you step up to the plate with an open-mind and open-wallet to validated (or not) on your own the source material.
    Contact me off-list and I might be half tempted to purchase you a copy. I’m betting (a) you won’t and/or (b) you won’t accept my offer, because it is much easier for you to weasel out of a thoughtful review and analysis if you don’t have the book in question. [Any way you look at it, Señor Rogue, I’m going to make hay out of this situation. Refer to my June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm posting above.]

    If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
    ~ Dr. Judy Wood

    1. If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
       ~ Dr. Judy Wood
       That is an awfully pretty statement Señor, and I certainly agree with it.
       But let me just say this Señor, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. I’ve been into this from day one as you know. As amazing as it may seem to you, I don’t see what you see in it.
       I have sized it up. I have been paying attention. I am not obstinate out of an agenda, I truly don’t see that this beam business adds up. I think the Thermobaric, sol-gel, nano milled explosives are the most likely culprits for the WTC event. And I have yet to see anything compelling on the directed energy beam aspect.
       Wood didn’t invent the toasted cars, those photos are part of 9/11 imagery. All of the information is out there that she fits into her theory. It is not like I haven’t seen and assessed this information and imagery as it developed. It is only her theory about what it all adds up to that doesn’t sing for me. I see it as a dull thud on a lead pipe.
       If you would kindly forgive me for thinking for myself, I would be most appreciative.
       ww

       1. Dear Señor Rogue, you wrote:

          I am not obstinate out of an agenda, I truly don’t see that this beam business adds up.

          One of the reasons you “don’t see this beam business adding up” is your inate obstinance to “see” the source. As far as I know, you haven’t made any references to specific items on her website [where there is a lot scattered about to take issue with] to indicate you “thinking for yourself.” Dr. Wood’s textbook is superior to her website [but not without error], but your obstinance keeps you from “seeing for yourself” what is contained therein.
          You’ve relied on third-parties [Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins] to do that legwork for you. As I’ve readily admitted, they have spotted issues, but not without twisting into their frame and not without some of it [Dr. Jenkins’ efforts] PREDATING by a few years the publication of Dr. Wood’s textbook. Obviously, your obstinance doesn’t see any issues with this, but I certainly do. From your industry, wouldn’t that be akin to reviewing a movie based on the dailies created THREE YEARS prior to the movie’s final form and not based on the DIRECTOR’S CUT?
          But to your point of beam business not adding up. I might be persuaded one day (like NPT) that it does not, but your case does not.
          You write:

          I think the Thermobaric, sol-gel, nano milled explosives are the most likely culprits for the WTC event.

          You pull these out of thin air without substantiation.
          But tell me, how would these account for:
          – radiation measurements?
          – duration of under-rubble hot-spots?
          – low decibel readings?
          – damage to vehicles (and not other combustibles) some distance from the towers?

          And I have yet to see anything compelling on the directed energy beam aspect.

          Of course, because you have yet to see Dr. Wood’s book (among others.) Duh!
          Actually, I shouldn’t lead you astray. You have to stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood’s textbook and combine her efforts with other sources to find compelling information.
          DEW devices exist. DEW devices are operational. These are undeniable facts. Look up “active denial systems” as a start.
          Whether or not DEW devices can generate and focus the required energy levels in their destructive beams on a scale to account for the tower destruction is a point of debate.
          I’m so rabid in my bat-shit crazy mining of nuggets of truth that I throw out this gem that may have come from Dr. Jones himself. Namely, the trigger for super-super nano-thermite [and other explosives and incendiaries] could be a DEW device.
          [wild-ass speculation begin]
          Maintenance workers over long periods of time “painted” on sol gel and nano-thermite or whatever. Come the destruction day, the nuclear-powered DEW beams lacked the energy to “vaporize” or “dustify” content on their own, but not so for igniting what was painted on. The spire-based DEW devices could be targeted and pulsed with precision to ignite those incendiary coatings at the right time. At the end of the day, unspent fizzling remnants from the nuclear power source account for the hot-spots under the pile, ala Fukushima.
          [end wild-ass speculation]

          Wood didn’t invent the toasted cars, those photos are part of 9/11 imagery. All of the information is out there that she fits into her theory.

          True enough, Señor Rogue. The issue has always been: this evidence is not being fitted into anyone else’s theory. Purposely. They don’t go there. You don’t go there.

          If you would kindly forgive me for thinking for myself, I would be most appreciative.

          I’ll forgive you for thinking for yourself when you demonstrate such: like in acquiring and reading Dr. Wood’s textbook, like in not relying on axe-grinding sources [Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkin] to form seemingly the totality of your beliefs.
          If your obstinance is not agenda driven, then kindly explain why it is so opposed to “getting on the same page” physically in Dr. Wood’s textbook? Surely, that is a simple-ass prequisite for being able to shred the very same page, and I’ll even be helping wield the scissors when merited. Your obstinate unwillingness to go there starts running strikingly parallel to [disinfo] Phil Jayhan, [disinfo] Simon Shack, [gatekeeper] David Chandler, [gatekeeper] John Wright, and many other leaders of the 9/11 truth movement whom you’ve been shredding for their delphi concensus steering.
          You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue, with your posting frequency and know-it-all comments and dominance over the last few months of the Truth & Shadows forum. Although I enjoy my discussions with you, if you don’t step up to the plate with Dr. Wood’s book as your bat, then you should probably get out of this game and STOP posting to this thread. I tire of your willful ignorance and obstinance that prevents you from evaluating the source first-hand.
          That blood trickling from your nose, Señor Rogue? It didn’t come from you picking boogers. It also didn’t come from my copy of Dr. Wood’s book thunking down upon your head. It came from the limited-offer of the gift of the very same book. You see, Señor Rogue, I’ll be able to swing that gift copy at you for quite some time until you either accept it [before it expires soon — say, tonight at midnight] or get the book on your own [which is my preference, so I don’t have to spend any money or discover anything personal about you like where you live.]
          And then if the game proceeds to the next level of truth consequent of you having the book to review, I’ll be able to swing the book-in-your-possession at you again and again until you read it and acknowledge the nuggets of truth [and of course the errors].
          If you have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then the prospect of a book-in-your-possession that you don’t crack [ala Mr. Chandler] is going to be more dangerous to your reputation and that agenda than the no-book-at-all weasel-position [ala Mr. Jayhan and Mr. Shack] that you’ve been staking for months now. But both will be swung at you.
          If you do not have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then WTF?!! The book-in-your-possession coupled with thinking-on-your-own after reading it ain’t going to give you metaphorical nose-bleeds like the gushers my book-as-a-bat will measure out.
          I am serious in my search for truth. This is my hobby-horse. This thread is my home-court. If Dr. Wood’s textbook is to be shredded, I want it shredded rationally and legitimately through objective reasoning and actual review. Enough of your Willy-Nilly we-don’t-need-no-stinking-book-to-make-our-book-review.

       2. Señor El Once says:
          “Enough of your Willy-Nilly we-don’t-need-no-stinking-book-to-make-our-book-review.”
          I’m sorry Señor, I hadn’t understood that this is supposed to be a book review.
          As much as I would love to have the book, yes indeed I would, I don’t know how to tell you how to send it.
          At any rate, no one has yet pointed out the distinctions of what are in this book beyond what is on Wood’s web site.
          As far as the rumble in the jumble of the rest of your post. I agree with certain sources to varying degrees. I don’t worship any single source. And I am not here to impress upon you my independence of thought. I am here to express those thoughts. If I make reference to a paper, it is because I agree with its general tenor. You point out what you see as “mistakes” on Jenkin’s part. I don’t agree with those points, and as far as “skimming” the text of those papers goes…well the word says it all doesn’t it.
          Like I said, I have been studying 9/11 for a long time. I have made my calls on what makes sense to me and what I find wanting.
          You speak to issues like Thermobaric explosives not being capable of covering all the bases as far as the facts of the aftermath. Where do these assumptions come from Señor? You speak to the issues of the sol-gel nano devices in the same dismissive terms, yet they are fully capable of leaving the tell tale signs we see on the ‘toasted cars’ – all this excitement about ‘rust’…what do you suppose the corrosive effects of such weapons would be on metals?
          You talk about “selective” damage in the aftermath, yet do not take into account the points I made about ‘selective’ damage from tornadoes. You seem to want to view this event as some nice clean ABC problem, when in fact it was chaotic, in an even greater way than tornadoes.
          We have argues the ‘hot spots’ issue time and again. You do not know what the effects of these sol-gel materials would have if dispersed throughout the rubble, yet you are certain they couldn’t account for it because of how they would react in a container. Again, the under rubble piles where a chaotic jumble, and wandering sizzling materials may very well have been going on for weeks.
          And you have yet to convince me of any substantial nuclear radiation being detected.
          So as far as this part of the argument goes, I’ll close.
          I don’t know why it seems that I am some “Gold Medal” to be won here by changing my mind on these issues.
          ww

       3. Dear Señor Rogue,
          You write:

          I hadn’t understood that this is supposed to be a book review.

          In your case given your tenure here, the dominance of your postings, and your anti-Wood stance, at the very least you should be making your arguments from the latest efforts of Dr. Wood. Her website ain’t that, neither are the 3 years older Jenkins criticisms of her work (e.g., website.)
          You were smart enough to get to “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,” I’m sure you can handle from there how to contact me off-list. Send me a ping email to validate the communication.

          You point out what you see as “mistakes” on Jenkin’s part. I don’t agree with those points, and as far as “skimming” the text of those papers goes…well the word says it all doesn’t it.

          Your disagreement doesn’t correct the mistakes spotted just from my skimming, either.

          You speak to issues like Thermobaric explosives not being capable of covering all the bases as far as the facts of the aftermath. Where do these assumptions come from Señor?

          Well, they certainly don’t come from anything you’ve presented on the subject (e.g., nada). “It’s all talk, Elephant Talk…” [King Crimson reference.]
          I’ve run across once or twice someone claiming OKC was such a device. I did not recall my impression being that it was nuclear and therefore able to account for radiation. It doesn’t have anything electro-magnetic that could account for selective torching of vehicles and not flags, leaves, or trees, does it? How about the duration of hot-spots?

          You speak to the issues of the sol-gel nano devices in the same dismissive terms, yet they are fully capable of leaving the tell tale signs we see on the ‘toasted cars’ – all this excitement about ‘rust’…what do you suppose the corrosive effects of such weapons would be on metals?

          Again, sol-gel is something new you’ve clommed onto. Radiation, selective torching of vehicles, hot-spots?
          As for “all this excitement about ‘rust’”, not sure who you say is excited. In my opinion, this is another area where Dr. Wood makes too many comments that then lead astray. Once protective paint or other coatings has been burned or stripped from steel and iron, oxydation creates rust on the surface in a short amount of time. Most of us aren’t used to it, because our metal cars are thoroughly painted and coated to prevent this.

          You talk about “selective” damage in the aftermath, yet do not take into account the points I made about ‘selective’ damage from tornadoes. You seem to want to view this event as some nice clean ABC problem, when in fact it was chaotic, in an even greater way than tornadoes.

          Tornados are acts of nature (that HAARP might be able to induce). Aside from the wind components, tornados have an electro-magnetic component and a atmospheric pressure component. You can see tornados touching down and going back up, zigging and zagging.
          The plasmastic flow that you are trying to attribute with vehicle-torching qualities flowed everywhere it could from its central starting point at a decimating tower. It went down streets and around corners. “Uniform” is too strong a word, but compared to a tornado, the flow was uniform in where it went. It was not selective, so why was the damage?
          The vehicle damage in question wasn’t around corners. It was line-of-sight. Some of it was in a parking lot catti-corner and some distance away. Vehicles closer in, around corners, or shaded by buildings got heavily dusted but not torched.

          We have argues the ‘hot spots’ issue time and again.

          Yes indeed. It is the carousel that you keep spinning because you either evidently fail to grasp its significance or have it as an agenda item to make light of it and wave it off (as you attempt here.)
          Whatever theory-du-jour you want to propose has to address this (and radiation) somehow, because it is part of the evidence.

          You do not know what the effects of these sol-gel materials would have if dispersed throughout the rubble, yet you are certain they couldn’t account for it because of how they would react in a container. Again, the under rubble piles where a chaotic jumble, and wandering sizzling materials may very well have been going on for weeks.

          You don’t know what the effects of sol-gel are either, otherwise you would have presented them. Like tornados and Thermobaric bombs, you’re throwing them out there AS A DISTRACTION.
          A distraction from what? From anyone giving serious consideration to what DEW and its power source could do, and to other concepts from Dr. Wood.
          I have no problems with analysis of details and evidence shredding concepts or mechanisms some stemming from Dr. Wood and some taking them a step further, ala my wild-ass speculation into nuclear powered DEW.
          I do have problems with your discussion tactics. You talk about anything but. And you’ve spent several months now harping on Dr. Wood without the benefit of her book.

          And you have yet to convince me of any substantial nuclear radiation being detected.

          Nonsense. Through and through nonsense.
          Need I remind you of a govt report on radiation, a shitty and unscientific one at that for its hodge-podge measuring techniques and times? Wouldn’t have been necessary had there not been radiation.
          Need I remind you of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones stepping into the picture, accepting that govt report “hook, line, and sinker” with no backtalking or contesting, and then tweaking it further in at least two scientific-slights of hand?
          How quickly you forget!
          What would have been the purpose of these juking efforts if the radiation wasn’t substantial (e.g., enough to consider a nuclear component)? Even with the juked numbers, they were 55 times greater than previous background levels! Dr. Jones put his damn reputation on the line to steer us away from even considering the levels that the report mentions which we have no reason to believe were the actual levels.
          If the destructive mechanisms did not involve nuclear components, then correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing — no radiation — would have been measured above background levels.
          Tell the 1st responders that their ailments don’t resemble that of Hiroshima survivors! Go on. Tell them that.
          The spinning of the carousel is entirely your doing.

          I don’t know why it seems that I am some “Gold Medal” to be won here by changing my mind on these issues.

          Convince me, or let me convince you. I’m not adverse to changing my mind. Shoot, I’d be perfectly content having all of my illusions shattered WITH THE TRUTH based on convincing evidence and analysis.
          But your obstinance is of a more artificial variety. Takes a whole lot just getting you over the hurdle of exploring the source material yourself, without you turning to 2nd-hand [and sometimes dubious] sources to seemingly form your opinions, which obviously can’t be in line with Dr. Wood on anything.
          You are the one running at the mouth with your frequency in postings and comments on everything under the sun. You are therefore the “Gold Metal” target. That’s why. Enjoy.

    2. Dr. Wood has never talked about vaporization in her work or space based weapons for that matter. Vaporization implies heat. Jenkins finds it necessary to put words in her mouth in order to have something he can discredit. In the Jenkins interview, he tries multiple times to get Dr. Wood to say “vaporize,” but each and every time she corrects him. Try quoting something from her book along with the page number that you would like to challenge. Don’t promote Jenkins’ disinformation. You don’t want to damage your own reputation.

       1. Robert E. Salt says:
          “Dr. Wood has never talked about vaporization in her work or space based weapons for that matter.”
          Don’t try to bullshit us here Mr. Salt {with only one ‘L’ today}…
          Regardless of the term ‘vaporize’ which is an actual word. Wood has certainly talked about space based weapons. This was covered in her law suit, it is still a topic heading on her website.
          Have you read the summery dismissal of her case? Have you read anything at her web site?
          Or is “the book” alone ‘sanctified’ and blessed by Holy Mother Judy?
          I take it that we are expected to forget her “wicked” past and pay no attention to anything she said until her holy Ascension into the realm of physical world publishing.
          You keep insisting that Jenkins was trying to get her to say something, or put words in her mouth. I think he using familiar terms rather than your cult’s special lexicon.
          Yes she certainly did correct him didn’t she, by gawd she came off as absolutely brilliant, that’s why all her fans are in this hiss-fit over the interview.
          Mr. Salt, why don’t you drop your phony concern for my reputation and address something substantial to do with Wood’s hypothesis?
          Why don’t you get off this squall about this interview and and make a case for this theory?
          Do you even have any idea what the theory is – other than it isn’t ‘vaporization’ but ‘dustification’? {funny little red squiggly lines always appear under that ‘word’}.
          ww

       2. For you illumination Mr. Salt:
          http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080626_Reynolds_07CV4612GBD.pdf
          Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the
          World Trade Center complex (“WTC”). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that
          the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military
          “directed energy weapon.”2 Plaintiffs’ attorney argues that “the defendants knowingly
          participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World
          Trade Center on 9/11/01.”3
          Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers
          disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All
          three plaintiffs explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at
          high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality..
          ww

          1. Well done! You’ve got it right, and the plaintiffs appear to have it right. All they need is their day in court to prove their case so everyone will know the truth.

       3. For your illumination, Mr. Rogue.
          Legal loop-holes used by the Defendants (and probably a bad lawyer for the Plaintiffs) got the case thrown out.
          None of the three were “original source” for a False Claim Act (FCA) action.

          An individual is, however, jurisdictionally barred from bringing a FCA action that is based upon publicly disclosed information, unless the individual bringing the action is an “original source” of the information. To be an “original source” of publicly disclosed information, a plaintiff must have direct and independent knowledge of information on which the lawsuit’s allegations are based, and have voluntarily provided such information to the Government prior to filing the action. To even attempt to assert this type of lawsuit, plaintiff must possess and be an original source of at least the substantive information publicly disclosed about the particular fraud.
          …
          Plaintiffs’ attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers’ collapse. They merely disagree with NIST’s investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons.
          …
          Such an argument, based solely on publicly available information, could no more support a federal lawsuit to advance an alternative theory regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, or whether men ever actually landed on the moon.

          You can see how this track was doomed for failure from the get-go, even before they tried to make their case on the mechanisms of destruction.
          I loved how right from page 2 of the Decision Document, the judges legally frame the case in a dubious manner:

          The focus of the NIST investigation was on the sequence of events “from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.”

          The quoted text — “from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower” — came from the faulty NIST reports on the WTC destruction. However, in truth, this wasn’t their charge. Here is an interesting passage from NIST.

          What are the goals of NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center disaster?
          The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
          …
          What are the main objectives of the investigation?
          The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
          – why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
          – why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response);
          – the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and
          – which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.

          So, although their charge was “why and how the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft”, it morphed into “from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” In other words, NIST played the slight-of-hand into stopping at “the initiation of collapse” and avoiding the “why and how of the tower collapse.”
          NIST goes on into covering its ass with:

          Why is NIST doing this investigation?
          NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator.
          Additionally, under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, signed into law in October 2002, NIST is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.
          Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
          As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.

          In other words, the Plaintiff’s case would have been thrown out because “no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.”
          So, obviously, the lawers for the defendants are going to:

          [move] to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

          Shows how the cards of the cover-up were inserted into law, which tied the courts hands in what it could listen to and how it would rule.

          The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice. … one of plaintiffs’ asserted legal claims can withstand defendants’ motions to dismiss.

          Just because the case was dismissed for legal weasel mumbo jumbo, doesn’t mean that anything brought up by the defendants in terms of their technical explanation was incorrect. The case was headed out the door well before they presented anything.

       4. Addressing Señor El Once post of June 6, 2012 at 2:04 pm
          You missed my point Señor; That point is that indeed Wood asserted the use of directed energy weapons in orbit. And that was a point to counter Mr. Salt’s assertions that she does not impute space based weapons as the cause of the demise of the towers.
          As far as the rest of your post about the crooked court system in league with the crooked government and their allowing NIST its criminal enterprise of covering up the real mechanics of the destruction of the towers – anyone with a lick of sense knows this is what is going on in this pathological system.
          Bottom line for Mr. Salt however is, that Wood is proposing “space beams” – regardless of how you try to spin the rhetoric here.
          Stay on your toes here Señor, you are not reading what I have written closely enough and simply addressed your own thoughts as if relevant to mine.
          ww

       5. Mr. Salt,
          Pulling up Wood’s main page on the top banner, second space to the right is a button titled, ‘Starwars Beam Weapons’, click that button takes us to:
          http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html
          On that page we find:
          Figure 4. A view of the vacant lot where WTC1 stood just the day before. Where did the building go? (9/12/01)
          This view of the “vacant lot” is hardly vacant. it is covered with heavy steel beams and partial box columns – as was the entire 13 acre WTC site. So it is pretty obvious where the building went. It was blown all over the WTC site, just as this photograph would indicate. The cement, glass, interior furnishings {people} and other non metallic items were blown to a fine particulate churning pyroclastic flow that covered all of south-east Manhattan.
          For the purposes of this thread, the points to you are: “beam weapons on space platforms”, and the pictorial evidence that the heavy members of steel and other metals are in plane view in photos of the aftermath. The fact of accounting for the amount of these metal beams and partial structures is documented in the FEMA report and illustrated with the FEMA Debris Map, which shows the spread and distances of how far these members were ejected from the towers.
          ww

          1. You’ve got to be kidding! 220 stories (1 acre each) and it’s contents spread over 13 acres would be 17 stories per acre. There’s practically nothing there! As for FEMA’s report, they probably got their information from NIST.

39. DEBRIS
    Mr. Walter Thomas Cummings walked into his office one morning to find that his six foot file cabinet had been ransacked.
    Some time during the night someone had gotten into his office without breaking the lock…he suspected an inside job {the janitor?}.
    To his dismay papers were strewn all over the floor, some landing on a small table and a couch and easy chair. What he found most ‘amazing’ was that this mess only amounted to a couple of inches in height, when the papers had filled a six foot standing file cabinet.
    His eleven year old son came in later and looked around later and made note of that fact; “you would think that there would be stacks of files at least a couple feet deep covering an office floor of almost 30×30 square feet” {he was smart in math}.
    After thinking it over a few moments his face lit up, and he turned to his father and said, “I know what happened, somebody zapped some of your files with a ray gun and made them disappear.”
    Yup, I bet that’s it…
    ww

    1. There is a claim of “illumination” seeking, apparently, to show the existence of a claim being made BY Dr. Wood that is a good example of misrepresentation, at its best. The reason: The quote is not at all something Dr. Wood claims; rather, it is falsely and inappropriately attributed to Dr. Wood, not claimed by her. The quote:
       “Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the
       World Trade Center complex (“WTC”). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that
       the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military
       “directed energy weapon.”2 Plaintiffs’ attorney argues that “the defendants knowingly
       participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World
       Trade Center on 9/11/01.”3
       Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers
       disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All
       three plaintiffs explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at
       high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality..”
       To carry this to its logical conclusion, the quote is from an opinion written by a judge in Dr. Wood’s case against SAIC, ARA, et al. Other documents from that case include a specific challenge to the judge having said that. Or, in any event, the point here is that at best the claim made by Hybridrogue rests on a posting tactic that I would not use. The post is in the nature of an attempt to entrap, without first giving the person on whom the trap is to be sprung the opportunity to comment on it and, in so doing, verify the assumptions upon which the intended trap is based.
       In this instance, had an offer of comment been made, it could simply have been pointed out the quote is not from, by or even about Dr. Wood. It is a judge who sought to attribute to Wood something she did not claim.

       1. Sorry Jammonius,
          Wood has spoken to “beams from satellites” with Mr. Fetzer on his radio show. She has a section on her own web site on “Starwars beam weapons”. This idea that the court made an assertion on Wood’s claims that misrepresents those claims is patently false.
          Again, no matter how you Wood supporters try to counterspin the rhetoric. Wood has asserted “space beams” whether in so many words or directly. Andrew Johnson’s mighty campaign to fog over this fact will not negate the history of this fact.
          Are you capable of addressing the substance of this issue or do you just want to play spin/counterpsin rhetoric games?
          ww

    2. Hybridrogue,
       Your post concerns this thread how?

       1. jammonius says:
          “Your post concerns this thread how?”
          It is the eye of the needle to put the thread through. You can’t sew your seems if your thread isn’t loaded. Now can you Jammin’ noise? Are you a musician? so am I.
          Now I suppose you must be referring to my little story about the unfortunate Mr. Walter Thomas Cummings. Yes?
          The key to the riddle is in the title. Remember, the Sphinx will kill and devour you if you get the answer wrong. So give it some effort, or you don’t get past the gate alive.
          ww

    3. Robert E. Salt says:
       June 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm
       “You’ve got to be kidding! 220 stories (1 acre each) and it’s contents spread over 13 acres would be 17 stories per acre. There’s practically nothing there! As for FEMA’s report, they probably got their information from NIST.”
       WTF? Like these stories are going to be gently set in nice rows of 17 stories each after being blown to smithereens…Lol
       As far as protesting that “There’s practically nothing there!”, I’m not sure if you’re trying to blow smoke up my ass or your own.
       FEMA predates the NIST involvement. Why don’t you learn something about your subject material here?
       Oh and I’m certainly not kidding when I say that everything you have posted here so far is utter nonsense.
       ww

40. Quote: “For point of reference, it wasn’t Mr. Shack who pointed out the errors in the image. Here is the image in question:
    http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg”
    “AngelDust replied on 2012-02-21:
    http://gickr.com/results3/anim_782da81b-8a11-46d4-f911-41c0835759d6.gif
    He points out how the images of the boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on the zoom-in.”
    FYI: Angeldust is a member of the Sept. Clues forums [unlike myself].
    I am [more than] fairly certain that the particular photo-analysis in question originates from the September Clues research forums :http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=7a6686ebb39837242db3106312ef9236 , [although I cannot find the original thread and related posts right now].
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. onebornfree says – June 6, 2012 at 9:38 am:
       These issues have already been addressed upstream on this thread. I suggest you read my comments to Señor. You might even learn something about digital photography.
       ww

    2. onebornfree,
       This is my comment to Senor on this issue, it is about midway on this thread:
       hybridrogue1 says:
       June 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm

       1. Willy,
          Your 8:03 comment has now been approved minus one paragraph. When I first read it I was on my phone and editing comments is hopeless on my phone. I can live with bullshit as a term in a comment, but I can live without clever uses of “fecal” and related terms. I appreciate your comments most when they rely primarily on arguments rather than insults. You’re a very skilled wordsmith, but I’m more concerned in why the other person is wrong than how effectively you can ridicule them.

    3. Dear Mr. OneBornFree writes:

       I am [more than] fairly certain that the particular photo-analysis in question originates from the September Clues research forums: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=7a6686ebb39837242db3106312ef9236 , [although I cannot find the original thread and related posts right now].

       First of all, your link doesn’t take you very deep at all if you aren’t a Clues Forum member, like if you’ve been banned as I have. [Such a pity.]
       Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, my posting provided the link to AngelDust’s analysis:
       AngelDust replied on 2012-02-21:

41. Jammonius said : “Greetings Adam,and congratulations on being the first to post in reply to this thread! Your post does not, in my opinion, provide either an accurate interpretation of the visual information in the video clip you posted, let alone an adequate rebuttal of the treatment of the “dustification” issue presented, over a significant time period and in multiple contexts, by Dr. Wood. Further, your use of the video clip appears not to have taken into consideration the thoroughness of Dr. Wood’s analysis of the “spire” issue in the book under consideration;…..”
    Dear Jammonius, the first two videos in the referred to post by Adam Syed are frauds, every pixel, and every sound heard. No part of either is a genuine depiction of a real time event.
    Nothing more than crude, pre-fabricated, computer animations .
    Absolutely nothing about the destruction methodology used to bring down the towers can be deduced from close analysis of either of them, regardless of whether Judy Wood, Steven Jones or “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” is doing the analysis. They are both 100% fake.
    About the only thing on display in those videos are the crude techniques used by the perps to achieve the simulated reality created[ for example, simple video layering/compositing techniques :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Compositing_software ].
    One of the primary rules of the scientific analysis methodology is supposed to be : verify that all evidence used is certifiably genuine , _before_ any useful conclusions are attempted .
    As I have pointed in my initial post in this thread, with regard to the all of the network tower collapse footage and its evil offspring [i.e post 9/11 released alleged “amateur footage of the same alleged events- let alone all of the rest of the official and unofficial purported “9/11 image pool”], this primary rule was never followed by _any_ supposedly “scientist”, [including Judy Wood] and is in fact, to this day, studiously ignored by _all_ “trained” scientists and most “laymen”. [For very some good reasons- from their point of view 🙂 ].
    By the way, the only long term [approximately 8 years ongoing, spanning two forums, one now extinct], serious attempt at close analysis of all official [and unofficial! 🙂 ] 9/11 video and imagery has been undertaken here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=d96e7097c1357654afbfbd463bc3e80d and in related threads. Enjoy!
    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Dear Mr. OneBornFree writes:

       One of the primary rules of the scientific analysis methodology is supposed to be : verify that all evidence used is certifiably genuine , _before_ any useful conclusions are attempted .

       How do you know this wasn’t done?
       I mean, after all, Mr. Shack and his Clues Forum have proven precious little of the 9/11 imagery to be fake and in fact have had others prove that some of what Mr. Shack claims is fake in fact isn’t. The glitches Mr. Shack exploits did not make it fake, and actually call into question his skills in the digital arts.
       The NPT topic was discussed elsewhere.
       September Clues was discussed elsewhere. Mr. Shack even participated himself.
       Do you have Dr. Wood’s textbook? Are you familiar with her website? Can you point out definitely the images that she uses that are fakes? [I challenged Mr. Shack and his Clues Forum to do just that. Of the five seed images, only two came back as probable. Before I could get the Crew to go any deeper into legitimately debunking Dr. Wood’s efforts by proving image-after-image of potential manipulation, Mr. Shack wisely (for the disinfo he peddles) banned me. Thus, debunking of Dr. Wood’s they did not do.]
       You want into this Dr. Wood discussion by claiming fake images? Then you use your Clues Forum membership to get them to step up to the plate and definitely prove image-after-image of potential manipulation.
       Otherwise, your postings are off-topic, and I might recommend to Mr. McKee to start ignoring them (in this thread) in the future, which will mean they’ll be stuck in the moderator queue.

    2. Onebornfree,
       Thank you for your post and for its apriori declaration that ” the first two videos in the referred to post by Adam Syed are frauds, every pixel, and every sound heard…” Certainly, one effective way to challenge video is to claim and show the video is fraud. Video cannot and should not be presumed to be valid, absent a specific process of authenticating that which the video appears to show.
       That said, the process of authentication of video is not that difficult. Usually, video can be authenticated. Equally important, the claim video is fraudulent is likewise a matter requiring authentication. Video is not presumed to be valid and not presumed to be fake either. Your apriori declaration of “fraud” is not accompanied by any proof of that claim whatsoever.
       Were you to offer proof, then we are left with a number of choices, about which more can be said once proof of fraud is put into the thread.

       1. Jammin’,
          I agree with you that the charge of fraud is on the onus of the one making the charge.
          I have been a special effects artist for most of my life, and have a good sense for what is real and what is not in visual presentations.
          I have found a great many videos of UFOs on the web that are fraud, and I know the programs used to create these things. Some of them are remarkably believable, and yet there is a certain sense of ‘cinema’ to them that is hard for an artist to get over…in other words there is often ‘drama’ or a dramatic sense, a certain attention to ‘composition’ in the shot, that will often be a give away.
          I took quite a bit of time to look into Simon Shack’s Clues forum awhile back. It was during a discussion spread through a couple of threads here. Without going into the details, I determined to my satisfaction that Shack hasn’t even rudimentary technical knowledge of the the issues he is dealing in. He simply doesn’t understand even the basics of this technology, nor has he the visual acuity to become adept even if he were to study the technology. Put bluntly, he has no talent. He does have a talent for bullshit however…like a good used car salesman…that is his main ‘talent’ if you will.
          Shack too comes with the boast that his work has never been successfully debunked. And this is a mantra chanted by all of the followers of his cult. There are psychological parallels there that I am sure you would be uncomfortable with, so I will leave it with that innuendo.
          ww
          “Starts like a kiss ends like a sting”~Jim Carroll

42. I respect the discussion here, and I realize the following isn’t exactly on-topic.
    Here’s my contribution… I’ve been wondering about Fetzer’s relation to 9/11 Truth. I was somewhat surprised to find a radio show where Wood is dismissive of Fetzer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDxCazAQTU
    Fetzer’s approach does seem to tilt toward disinfo at times.

    1. bill giltner,
       Yes, as per Mr. Fetzer, we had him as a guest on a very long discussion on this very forum.
       You say:
       “Fetzer’s approach does seem to tilt toward disinfo at times.”
       Yes indeed, I’m afraid I would have to agree with your assessment.
       ww

    2. At the most innocent interpretation, Fetzer is not a scientist, has done no original research of his own regarding 9/11, and apparently does not understand how to to conduct a forensic investigation. Consequently, he takes bits and pieces from what a variety of people have put forward and mixes it up and appears to be confused how to sort through it. Fetzer confuses evidence with theory. Once he labels empirical evidence “a theory,” he then claims that the “theory” has no evidence to support it. Fetzer is not a scientist; he has described himself as a “professional philosopher.” That is, a philosopher for hire. His area of expertise is perception management. Who would hire a professional philosopher to refer to conclusive empirical evidence as “a theory”?
       Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
       I have known Jim Fetzer for over 6 years and invited him to speak in my hometown. I once thought he was honestly searching for the truth. I think differently now after learning more about him and studying his actions/words.
       As Andrew Johnson has said, “Those who can’t cover it up, try to muddle it up. And those who cannot muddle it up, try to hijack it and run it into the ditch.”
       In contrast, Dr. Wood’s degrees are in Structural Engineering, Applied Physics, and Materials Engineering Science. Her background is in forensic science and image analysis and other methods to determine material properties or other physical phenomena. She has over 35 years experience in this area. Her work is impeccable and no one has been able to refute her work, despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her work, yet want people to think they have. Now why is that? Why is appearing to debunk Dr. Wood’s work treated as the post important issue in the universe? Why is there no interest in accountability for those covering up 9/11? It is the cover up that has allowed all of the events since 9/11 to unfold. So it is the cover up that is responsible for allowing the loss of our freedoms.
       Reading this discussion over the last few days I can honestly say no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book.

       1. Mr. Naus says:
          “Reading this discussion over the last few days I can honestly say no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book.”
          Let’s be honest here Mr. Naus, it is your OPINION that “no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book.”
          You get to make that call in your own mind Mr. Naus, as a general statement “it ain’t necessarily so – the things you are liable to read in the bible they ain’t necessarily so.”
          ww

       2. hybridrogue1 says:
          Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          June 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm
          Hi Craig.. did you miss this one? Surely after his naughty post just now about imagining the two very special words he was thinking…he shouldn’t be spared such a light jab as this?
          ww

          1. This was one of those that didn’t appear at the top of the list of comments but somewhere in the middle, among those already moderated. I don’t know why that happens but perhaps I should go back a page or two from time to time to see if something appeared where it wasn’t supposed to be.

       3. I have listened to hundreds of hours of Fetzer and can honestly say no one has done more to get to the truth on 911 or Kennedy. He takes an open minded approach, and is the opposite of a gate keeper. In this truth/disinformation game you have to trust someone if it isn’t your government and I believe Jim.

    3. @billgiltner
       who writes:

       I respect the discussion here, and I realize the following isn’t exactly on-topic.
       Here’s my contribution… I’ve been wondering about Fetzer’s relation to 9/11 Truth. I was somewhat surprised to find a radio show where Wood is dismissive of Fetzer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDxCazAQTU
       Fetzer’s approach does seem to tilt toward disinfo at times.

       Just been listening to the clip you linked to, but didn’t hear any reference to any kind of “disinfo”!
       Instead i heard Fetzer say about Dr. Wood: “She has done a brilliant job of laying out the evidence ….”
       and further he says: “I applaud her” ….”!
       Is this what you call, “tilt toward disinfo”?
       Or is it their little ‘tit for tat tiff” about ‘evidence’ and ‘theory’, that you call ‘disinfo’?
       Merely trying to find out what exactly it is you’re referring to, and thus that way get to know what specifically it is mr. rogue is agreeing with you about!
       Cheers

       1. Hi Bill,
          A comment on your comment:
          “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
          Say…wasn’t that the guy who was tricked into believing in fairies with phony photos ? Oh yea that’s right. Fooled by a hoax. Maybe that part is best forgotten. Aye?
          SEE: Cottingley Fairies Photographic Hoax.
          I got to know Fetzer much deeper than I am in fact comfortable with, during our debate on this blog a few posts back.
          ” If he ain’t fruitloop – he’s cops”
          Was how I put it on that thread. There is no other option based on close encounters of the Fetzer kind…to add a little “pop culture” twang of my own here.
          ww

43. Craig McKee said: “You’re a very skilled wordsmith,..”
    “The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.” Benjamin Franklin. 🙂
    Regards, onebornfree

    1. onebornfree,
       Hmmm, Franklin himself was quite a skilled wordsmith himself…what do you suppose he may have been getting at?
       I wish you would skip those stupid smiley faces, it makes all your post look like kid’s letters.
       ww

44. After devoting years of my life to exhaustive study on the topic, any theory of what happened to the towers that does not at least encompass ALL the empirical evidence Dr. Wood presents within the pages of “Where Did the Towers Go” cannot be the whole truth. Beyond the strength of the evidence itself is the clear integrity of the messenger revealed in her words and actions.

    1. But Sherf,
       All of the empirical evidence Wood presents is all of the empirical evidence in the field of 9/11 research in general.
       I too have devoted years of my life devoted to the topic – since the very day that the towers came down. But I disagree with Wood’s beam weapon hypothesis. I postulate that the towers were brought down by the high tech thermobaric explosives, and the new sol-gel nano-energetics.
       I propose that this is a much more reasonable hypothesis as they explain what is seen in the visual record of the towers exploding, the witness testimony of bombs going off, and the evidence in the aftermath. Much of which indicates great heat and corrosive attack of the metals.
       That these energetic plastique explosives are capable of turning cement and glass to fine power is beyond dispute. The thermobaric weapons have been used in the Middle East theater, and those effects are well documented [see: fuel air bombs]. The military considers these weapons non nuclear weapons capable of nuclear effect sans radiation.
       Those of us who counter Wood’s hypothesis are continually harangued to “think out of the box”, have some “objectivity”, prove we have an “open mind”, and yet we do – at least speaking for myself have open inquisitive minds. It is not like I have hand waved Wood’s theories without investigating what they really are. It is that I have looked into it and find it lacking, wanting, and often spurious.
       ww

       1. By your use of the term “beam weapon” I’m guessing you haven’t actually read the book, at least in it’s entirety. The directed energy she describes is a type of energy field interference – not a beam. In her book Dr. Wood states that everything that explodes is not a bomb, just as everything that glows is not necessarily hot. She goes on to throughly demonstrate how explosives alone cannot account for other documented phenomenon (toasted cars adjacent to unburned paper, blocks away) which are eerily consistent with Hutchinson effects. Please, read the book.

       2. On second thought Mr. Whitten, judging by your dozens upon dozens of posts, me thinks thou does protest too much to taken seriously and question your intent here.

       3. Sherif Shaalan says:
          June 6, 2012 at 7:40 pm
          “On second thought Mr. Whitten, judging by your dozens upon dozens of posts, me thinks thou does protest too much to taken seriously and question your intent here.”
          Fine Sherif, question that to your hearts content. But don’t let that stop you from interacting with others here. And don’t think that doing so will make you immune from responses from myself in anyway either.
          ww

          1. Clearly your intent here is inexplicably destructive. I do not welcome any further communication from you.

       4. Sherif Shaalan says:
          “The directed energy she describes is a type of energy field interference – not a beam.”
          Look Shaalan, from this very remark I know that you don’t know what you are talking about and are repeating from a songbook. If this energy field interference is not focused in some fashion it cannot be put to any specific work. If it is focused in such a way as to cause material damages, it is a beam.
          If you DO understand this elementary principle then you are playing rhetorical games. If you don’t understand it, you are way over your head here. So bowing out may be your best option. But don’t put the onus on me because I am a prolific poster. I have been at this long enough to recognize all of these types of disingenuous gambits.
          Sigh or snore, the ball’s in your court.
          ww

          1. Your deliberate combativeness spoils this forum, which appears to be your intent. Craig McKee should disallow your prolific efforts.

       5. Sherif Shaalan says:
          June 6, 2012 at 8:40 pm
          “I do not welcome any further communication from you.”
          Really? Then why continue to post to me as this next one? ::
          June 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm
          “Your deliberate combativeness spoils this forum, which appears to be your intent. Craig McKee should disallow your prolific efforts.”
          So you think I should be banned? And your excuse? “deliberate combativeness”
          No, I would interpret this to be because I said this:
          If this energy field interference is not focused in some fashion it cannot be put to any specific work. If it is focused in such a way as to cause material damages, it is a beam.
          Which is substance and informative, but makes you appear the fool for not seeing such an elemental principle.
          If you can’t cut it Shaalan, then cut out.
          If one looks to how our conversation proceeded, it is clear that I was respectful and made a comment of substance to you on my first answer. You are the one that suddenly turned hostile and combative within two posts of my reply.
          ww

          1. You say, you’ve been studying 9/11 since the very day the towers came down?! Hmmm. Well sir, either you are infinitely more perceptive than any of us here, or perhaps you were/are part of the group that was sent to NYC from Tel Aviv to “document the event” that day and thus already have the answers to everything here . . . and the motivation to confuse the rest of us as you are working so hard to do.

          2. ww cannot be banned. He must be permitted to sink his own ship. His bilges are filling up.

       6. Ha ha ha ha….jeeeeze, this one is too hilarious to pass up…
          Sherif Shaalan says:
          June 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm
          “You say, you’ve been studying 9/11 since the very day the towers came down?! Hmmm. Well sir, either you are infinitely more perceptive than any of us here, or perhaps you were/are part of the group that was sent to NYC from Tel Aviv to “document the event” that day and thus already have the answers to everything here . . . and the motivation to confuse the rest of us as you are working so hard to do.”
          Of all the things I have been accused of, including antisemitism for pointing to the Mossad -Israeli angle of the 9/11 op — this one takes the cake.
          I will certainly attest to being infinitely more perceptive than than you are.
          I thought you didn’t want me to address your pansyass self any further Mr. Shaalan. So you think provoking me with this sort of spurious crap is going to help your cause for a genteel and and substantive debate?
          If you are confused ‘sir’, you came aboard in that state, don’t blame me for your natural deficits.
          ww

          1. Sociopathic trolls can’t be provoked.

       7. Your technique has hardly been subtle Mr. Sherif Shaalan. It seems very obvious now that you entered this forum with the intent to provoke me and create the disruptions that you yourself intended to make. But I’ll have to say, this has been a damn sloppy job on your part. You were too anxious and moved too quickly…you shot your wad prematurely, and totally revealed yourself.
          Frankly I am as disappointed as you are. I rather enjoy dealing with a clever gamesman, and would hope that by now amateurs and beginners wouldn’t be sicced upon me.
          I think you need some studies in prerequisite courses, before attempting any more pro level hasbara work. Maybe a course in ‘physical sciences 101’, some sociology, certainly more knowledge of psychology would be in order. And perhaps if you are from a foreign culture, more study of the western culture and the “American mind”…[Lol, for what that;s worth]…and don’t forget to shave twice a day if you have stubborn dark stubble.
          ww

45. Dear Hybridrogue:
    To reply to what appears to be the unstated premise; “No” I, speaking for me, do not find it necessary to pit one claim made by one group of truthers against another group or against them and Dr. Wood (who does not choose to be considered a “truther”).
    To me, the only issue here is that there has never been a governmentally funded, validly conducted, forensically sound determination of what happened on 9/11 in any respect at all; and, that is especially true with respect to the central component, the destruction of the WTC complex.
    Although I am here willing to comment on salient portions of your below quoted post, I should first like to double check for accuracy of a few of your apparent assumptions:
    1–Do you assume one group of truthers or people who oppose the common storyline of 9/11 must necessarily argue with one another and engage in attempts at falsification of one another?
    2–Do you agree that the common storyline of 9/11 has not ever been shown by adequate governmentally sponsored forensic examination to be valid?
    Now to your post:
    Hybridrogue says:
    “And it might interest you to know that many of the top tier scientist working on the NIST report are also involved in the development of nanothermates.”
    Reply:
    Can you please state which ones?
    Did those who made that claim sue them or the companies they worked for for fraud? If not, why not?
    Hybridrogue:
    “It is also a fact that NIST’s admission that they only worked their modelling to the point of initiation came as a response to a letter from all the signers of a petition from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, plus letters attached from lawyers for some of the survivor families.”
    The letter to Dr. Wood is dated July 27, 2007. What is the date and the link to the letter to which you refer? Is it dated before or after the letter sent to Dr. Wood?
    Note: I want to be clear that I am NOT suggesting that the one letter is better than the other letter because of the date; rather, I have heard it claimed by some that but for their efforts no one would have known NIST did not investigate the collapses of the Twin Towers and only the factors leading to the initiation of collapse.
    Hybridrogue:
    This issue of NIST failing to fulfill the congressional mandate is and has been a well-known issue in the truth community for years. I am sure Adam is just as aware of it as you are.
    Reply:
    Once again, it would appear you are taking on something of what the Brits might call “a cheek” here. As I said at the outset, I see no reason why “truthers” and others who have opposed the common storyline of 9/11 need to address one another in a manner that is competitive, let alone hostile.
    I am not here calling your reply hostile. Maybe you are just candid; or, blunt; or, whatever. However, for whatever you are trying to communicate, it is hard to consider it cooperative.
    I would prefer to engage in cooperative dialogue about the matters at hand, speaking just for me.
    Hybridrogue:
    “One would hope that you are as informed as to the issues countering Wood’s hypothesis as you are of that hypothesis. As there are other compelling features of the tower’s destruction that would counter such a hypothesis.”
    Reply:
    I am not sure I follow the logic of your declaration as to what you hope I am informed about, let alone the implication that I am not so informed. Why did you find it necessary to post that part of your post?
    If it helps you, I am aware that other persons and groups have put forward claims about what destroyed the Twin Towers. I applaud their efforts. I do not find it necessary to pit them against one another or against the work put forward by Dr. Wood. If you must know, I think Dr. Wood has proven what destroyed the Twin Towers. But, I do not think that mandates that I take on a duty to falsify all other explanations; except, that is, the common storyline.
    Hybridrogue:
    “So, unless you are another one-shot Wood supporter, stay engaged and make your case.”
    Reply:
    What? Was it your intention to scare me away from posting here?

    1. jammonius,
       Allow me to start with your final remarks last as I am at the end of reading your commentary and am at that point. I will address some others or all as I have time to do so.
       You quote me as per:
       “So, unless you are another one-shot Wood supporter, stay engaged and make your case.”
       You then ask:
       “What? Was it your intention to scare me away from posting here?”
       No, I clearly asked you to stay engaged and make your case. The reason I mention the one-shot Wood supporters is that when this thread opened a few days ago it was flooded with Wood supporters, at leas ten people, of which perhaps three have remained to say anything else.
       As far as temperance in debate for me, I take on the customers as they posture and speak to their level. As you will note, I can be as abrasive as I am given.
       Now as far as the pluses and minuses of various theories, I see some that could be, and some that surely are purposeful diversionary tactics. Parsing which is which is the problem.
       I might say, as per Wood herself, I think she has been massaged and led by agents provocateur, I think she has been encouraged and possibly financed by her promoters and agents, Mr. Morgan Reynolds in particular.
       If you know the history of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Judy was involved with them for some time – until the dispute between Fetzer and Jones. So I am assuming that the first letter to NIST came at the time just before that split occurred, but will have to check some dates to be sure of this.
       Getting back to the issue of debating “other Truthers”. I am sure you must be aware of the Sunstein strategy. There is no doubt that this strategy has actually been put to effect long before his paper was publicized. So the attempt to parse who is and isn’t an honest broker in these matters is a complex issue.
       You might have read some of the commentary here about Jim Fetzer who was initially a big supporter of Wood. It is my firm conviction that Fetzer is a mole. he is disingenuous in debate and makes “mistakes” in applied physics that are too far beneath his caliber to be taken as mistakes. We had him here on a thread that ran over 800 comments, and I was able to analyse his profile very deeply in our personal exchanges and his other commentary.
       Now would it be your opinion that we should have simply accepted Mr. Fetzer at face value because he is after all, a ‘famous Truth Leader”? Shall we cocoon ourselves in a naive world where all are excepted as genuine?
       This is enough for one post. I will get back to you on the other issues as time permits.
       `Willy Whitten

46. Señor El Once says at, June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm:
    Señor, I am posting this here because your post is so far from any reply buttons to figure out where a response might end up.
    Frankly Señor, you are again throwing these long encyclopedia length comments here that simply glaze my eyes over. If you want to discuss something with me do it a point at a time as I am not going through all that ‘wonderfully written’ [I am sure] prose…I simply refuse to do it. So figure out that you are wasting your time until you trim down so you can fit into your tango outfit once again.
    er cha cha cha…
    ww

    1. Dear Señor Rogue,
       Coward.
       I suggest you re-read these two postings of mine from yesterday: June 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm and June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
       You are on thin ice in this thread here.
       I wrote:

       You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue, with your posting frequency and know-it-all comments and dominance over the last few months of the Truth & Shadows forum. Although I enjoy my discussions with you, if you don’t step up to the plate with Dr. Wood’s book as your bat, then you should probably get out of this game and STOP posting to this thread. I tire of your willful ignorance and obstinance that prevents you from evaluating the source first-hand.

       You did not act on my limited-time offer of the gift of Dr. Wood’s book, but you also don’t seem to be any closer to acquiring it on your own. Your participation on the theme of Dr. Wood’s concepts — not just on this thread but in your whole tenure here — has been one of a distractor and disruptor.
       Here are the approximate stats for 234 postings:
       hybridrogue1 says: 99
       Señor El Once says: 27
       Craig McKee says: 15
       Robert E. Salt says: 10
       Robert E. Sallt says: 4
       nausmr says: 18
       onebornfree says: 10
       Sherif Shaalan says: 8
       jammonius says: 5
       Adam Syed says: 2
       Andrew Johnson says: 1
       For someone who doesn’t even have Dr. Wood’s textbook, you have almost 50% of the tally.
       Agenda exposed, Señor Rogue?
       Get with the program. Either get yourself informed from the source so that you can make first-hand comments of Dr. Wood’s work knowledgably, or I may start asking Mr. McKee to prevent you from posting to this thread any more.

       1. Señor El Once says:
          “Get with the program. Either get yourself informed from the source so that you can make first-hand comments of Dr. Wood’s work knowledgably, or I may start asking Mr. McKee to prevent you from posting to this thread any more.”
          Go ahead.
          ww

       2. “You did not act on my limited-time offer of the gift of Dr. Wood’s book, but you also don’t seem to be any closer to acquiring it on your own. Your participation on the theme of Dr. Wood’s concepts — not just on this thread but in your whole tenure here — has been one of a distractor and disruptor.”~Señor El Once
          Look Señor, I have attempted to address the substance of these issues in good faith. However, I am continually called out as a “distractor and disruptor” by those who will not address the substance of my counter arguments here – which is in fact a technique of distracting and disrupting. Rather than addressing my arguments I have been met with these charges over and again, even by you.
          As I have explained before, I am aware of Ms. Wood’s hypothesis from reading both her and Reynolds’ works for years now. I have years of study into the issues of 9/11, both as a psychological operation and as to the physics of these events. And I have pointed out before as well that the evidence Wood uses to make her hypothesis is and has been part of the general evidence as it has developed in the field – there is nothing unique in her evidence, only in her interpretation of it.
          It is her interpretation that I disagree with, and I have made my counter arguments based on that same evidence.
          I have stopped responding to your posts for one simple reason. And we have discussed this countless times. You refuse to address issues one at a time in a fashion that is concise and focused, but continue to post these long encyclopedic posts that have to be deconstructed a piece at a time anyway. It is cumbersome and ineffective to try to drive through your obstacle courses.
          Besides being made of paper and ink, what is the substantial difference between the information on the web and this book? You have never made this clear. In fact you make few things clear, as it all seems to be jumbled together in your long incoherent postings that seem to zigzag from one point to the next without connective tissue.
          Although I have been prolific here, it is not the volume, but the substance of my posts that should be analysed – I think that any fair study of this would show that I have tried to make substantive argumentation, but have been confronted continuously for being overly frank, and and blunt in my appraisals. If you don’t see the absurdities in some of the postings by the Wood supporters here, then I think you have not payed close enough attention. Especially to the issue of the amount of debris in the aftermath. Some of the arguments made that there is too little debris is simple idiocy, and to point out such idiocy is not disruptive, it is simply making a point to the absurdity of those arguments. If this is what you characterize as “disruptive, and distracting”, the I can only let a candid world decide.
          ww

       3. Dearest Señor Autodidact Polymath writes:

          However, I am continually called out as a “distractor and disruptor” by those who will not address the substance of my counter arguments here – which is in fact a technique of distracting and disrupting.

          If the shoe fits. Why don’t you go and count the number of postings you’ve made in this thread alone? It is well over a hundred now. How many were had substance? How many references to Dr. Wood’s website did you make?

          Rather than addressing my arguments I have been met with these charges over and again, even by you.

          There you go again in your misframing. I’ve addressed your arguments. I’ve even pointed out where they were correct and where they were wrong, just from a skimming.

          You refuse to address issues one at a time in a fashion that is concise and focused, but continue to post these long encyclopedic posts that have to be deconstructed a piece at a time anyway. It is cumbersome and ineffective to try to drive through your obstacle courses.

          “Long encyclopedic posts” have the ability “to address issues one at a time in a fashion that is concise and focused.” They can focus on the subject at hand and not make lots of unnecessary branches in the flow of the discussion. To help with the focus, they are written and revised many times off-line. They are concise, because when they are posted into the forum despite their length, they are easy to ignore and skip over; they don’t flood the forum with “twitter” style twatter.
          Your postings aren’t focused, because they can’t even be relied upon to appear close to the source posting you are responding to. Despite your boastings of being an “autodidact polymath,” you haven’t mastered finding the right posting to reply under nor how to use the simple HTML syntax of <blockquote>.
          Tsk, tsk.
          “Cumbersome and ineffective?” Here’s something for your “autodidact polymath” brain.
          1) Use your mouse or trackball to highlight my “long encyclopedic post”.
          2) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
          3) Open up NotePad (or Word or equivalent) on your computer.
          4) Press Ctrl+V to paste a copy of my “long encyclopedic post” into that application.
          5) Type in “Señor El Once wrote: <blockquote>” at the beginning of one of my paragraphs.
          6) Go back and highlight the “Señor El Once wrote: <blockquote>” that you typed.
          7) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
          8) For each paragraph of my copied posting:
          a) Use the arrow key to position the cursor at the beginning of it.
          b) Press Ctrl+V to paste in the <blockquote>
          c) Repeat for all paragraphs.
          9) At the end of one of my paragraphs, type in </blockquote>
          10) Highlight that instance of </blockquote>.
          11) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
          12) For each paragraph of my copied posting:
          a) Use the arrow key and End key to position the cursor at the end of it.
          b) Press Ctrl+V to paste in the </blockquote>
          c) Repeat for all paragraphs.
          13) Under each paragraph that you want to respond to, type your response.
          14) Remove all paragraphs from me that you don’t want to respond to or repeat.
          15) When finished, press Ctrl+A and then Ctrl+C.
          (Optional) Press Ctrl+S to save your efforts on your computer.
          16) Go to your browser and the Truth & Shadows forum to click on the “Reply” closest to my source posting.
          18) Click inside the posting field and press Ctrl+V.
          19) Click on the Post button.
          When you work off-line with the tools readily available on your computer, it ain’t “cumbersome” at all. The result is far from “ineffective.” Your response could most effectively shred in a concise and focused manner each and every paragraph, sentence, or phrase of my posting with no ambiguity as to who wrote what or to what your response might be referring.

          Besides being made of paper and ink, what is the substantial difference between the information on the web and this book? You have never made this clear.

          The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.

       4. P.S. Most of previous posting was written before our off-list email exchange. Information within was still considered valid, but some edits were made to strip out things that won’t be applicable once you have a book in hand.

47. jammonius,
    Here is a beginning list of NIST scientists involved in energetics, explosives, nano technologies, etc….
    This is but a beginning, as the author of the paper below has gone on to dig much deeper into these connections and has further papers speaking to the issue:
    Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers.
    Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was
    nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001,was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.
    Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic
    materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and
    Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials.
    Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a
    project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both
    before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project (Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).
    Further exposition at:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
    ww

    1. Well now jammonius,
       Have you been checking out the references I gave you for the NIST scientist involved in nano explosives research?
       Perhaps you are busy. Do check back in with us.
       ww

       1. Greetings Hybridrogue,
          I am here replying to your post of 6/6 at 10:06pm, where you seem to imply I am slow to reply to you. I am perplexed by that. In the first place, in that same reply, you start by saying you are posting “the beginning…” of your reply to my prior post to you. It appears to me you still have quite a ways to go. Thus, a reply at this point is a bit premature.
          Here’s what I can do at this early juncture. In a still earlier 6/6 post of yours (6:42pm), you reference the Sunstein strategy, which I gather refers to Cass Sunstein’s methods of disrupting discussion, internet infiltration and similar tactics. If so, then it is to be hoped this thread will not take on those characteristics with respect to the work done by Dr. Judy Wood.
          I fear, however, that my stated “hope” that this thread NOT take on elements of the Sunstein approach may already have been thwarted, dashed to smithereens and/or frustrated. IMHO, this thread is already tilted in that direction.
          That said, I think the discussion here can have a positive impact. I still “hope so.”
          I know you are at but “the beginning” of your reply to me and that is fine. In subsequent posts will you please consider whether it is in your interests to do more than merely provide the basis of a possible “link” between NIST names you mention and the point you are trying to make. You name Hartch Semerjian; Arden Bement and Forman Williams, each of whom are mentioned one time in NCSTAR 1. You also mention Richard Gann and Andrezej Miziolek who, alas, are not named in NCSTAR 1, but I do recall Gann’s name coming up in connection with the NIST project.
          I have also taken a look at Kevin Ryan’s pdf that you linked. I note it has a publication date of July, 2008. By that time, as you know, Dr. Wood’s litigation against SAIC and ARA et al. had been pending for quite some time. Her litigation made specific references to the persons involved in the NCSTAR project from those companies and compared the backgrounds of some of their key personnel, assigned to the NIST project, and Directed Energy Weaponry (DEW).
          It appears, then, that Kevin Ryan was taking a page out of Dr. Wood’s book in his later article. And that is fine. I earlier asked you whether those advocating other destructive mechanisms had sued anyone. You have not answered that claim. If memory serves me correctly, the NIST “Request for Correction” filed in behalf of a group that obliquely included Dr. Steven Jones mmade scant mention of “thermite” at all in that submittal. Also if memory serves, a criticism of that RFC was that it made no mention at all of thermite; but, alas, Jones and his supporters were able to triumphantly self-proclaim they had “debunked” that claim by finding a footnote mentioning thermite somewhere in that RFC. As it is my practice to avoid, at all costs, criticism of Truthers who advance other bases of destruction of the WTC complex and other aspects of the common storyline of 9/11, I want here to reaffirm I am not criticizing the “thermite” (in any flavor) group. I applaud their efforts.
          I look forward to your continued posting.
          Have you considered your position on the necessity to focus on the fact that there exists no governmentally funded, properly conducted determination of what happened on 9/11?

       2. Greetings jammonius,
          Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
          I will just address your question at the end of your post for now:
          “Have you considered your position on the necessity to focus on the fact that there exists no governmentally funded, properly conducted determination of what happened on 9/11?”
          While I might say that this “goes without saying”, that would be seen as flippant I am sure.
          As you are new to this forum, I will make some comments that I have made over and again on other threads here and on other forums since the beginning of the case being made against the “government”.
          My position, like many in the movement is that the so-called “government” has made but empty assertions, and have made no actual forensic investigation into the events of 9/11. There are no proofs offered whatsoever. There are no accounting for “chains of possession” for any aspects of this case, no serial numbers of the planes that have been claimed to have crashed into any of the buildings or the field in Pennsylvania…etc.
          So yes, first and foremost my assertion is that this 9/11 a systemic ongoing psychological operation. In fact my views go deeper than most in the Truth Movement, as mine is a deep systemic analysis asserting that the entire paradigm of modern western ‘civilization’ is a contrived myth. But this goes far beyond the issues of today on this thread…but hopefully will be addressed on this blog at some point when we have a thread to consider the Mossad-Israeli connections – and at the core of things, the Zionist agenda that is in control of the planet at this time.
          ww

48. Jammonius said : ” Certainly, one effective way to challenge video is to claim and show the video is fraud. Video cannot and should not be presumed to be valid, absent a specific process of authenticating that which the video appears to show.That said, the process of authentication of video is not that difficult. Usually, video can be authenticated. Equally important, the claim video is fraudulent is likewise a matter requiring authentication. Video is not presumed to be valid and not presumed to be fake either. Your apriori declaration of “fraud” is not accompanied by any proof of that claim whatsoever.Were you to offer proof, then we are left with a number of choices, about which more can be said once proof of fraud is put into the thread.”
    J: “Video cannot and should not be presumed to be valid, absent a specific process of authenticating that which the video appears to show.”
    Agreed.[“Laymen” do it all the time, of course. Professional scientists do not have that luxury, methodologically speaking.]
    J: ” the process of authentication of video is not that difficult. Usually, video can be authenticated. ”
    Are you saying that the videos in question [and others similar] were easily “authenticated”/ checked for authenticity by Prof. Wood or one of her co-workers _before_ she drew her conclusions about what it/they purportedly revealed?
    If so, please explain this “not.. difficult” “process”, as followed by Prof. Wood, as you understand it.
    Or instead, would you kindly direct me to the link that documents the deductive/analytic processes used and the reason for her conclusions of authenticity [assuming it is on line within her website, and not just in her book, which I am not familiar with]?
    J: “Equally important, the claim video is fraudulent is likewise a matter requiring authentication. ”
    Not so, I’m afraid. Procedurally speaking [i.e. in a court of law, not a laboratory], the government is always supposed to be held to a higher standard of truth [at least in the US] .
    Which means that in a criminal trial, any such “evidence” [such as videos and photographs like the ones in question, showing the tower’s collapse, for example] that it tried to introduce to support its case, would be procedurally presumed to be questionable/fraudulent [via the explicit evidentiary rules listed in the Bill of Rights], at the very outset of that trial, and if and when the government [i.e the prosecution] attempted to introduce them, and any similar videos that purportedly showed similar events, as evidence to try prove its case .
    The onus [burden of proof] is always supposed to be on the government to prove the authenticity of _all_ of its evidence, not on the defense. [or on people like me ]
    At trial, any competent defense attorney, on the perfectly normal, automatic pre- assumption that the governments evidence was/is either faulty, or deliberately fraudulent, would then be free to examine, cross examine and re-cross examine , that particular alleged “eye-witness” [i.e. the contents of the video itself, the alleged cameraman/woman, the history of its creation, alleged location where shot, date time , camera used, the prior history of the videos alleged creator, as well as closely examine it for internal signs of fakery, such as strange “pixelation” patterns, signs of composite layering, contradictory/unusual audio, direct comparison with other videos and photographs allegedly shot at the same time from the same location ,etc. etc. ], with the intent of raising “reasonable doubt” as to its authenticity in the jury’s collective mind . Just as the defense attorney would do with any and all other evidence the government attempted to introduce at trial to prove its case.
    Bottom line: at trial, the burden of proof is _always_ on the government , not the defense ; any/all purported “evidence” that the government might conceivably introduce in a criminal trial ,such as the particular videos in question, or others similar, [ because it believed that evidence supported its case], is to consistently be held to a higher standard of truth and presumed to be, at best, “faulty” and not trustworthy [at worst, downright fraudulent].
    It’s just the way the system was set up to function. [Yes, I know, that’s not the way it functions these days!].
    A Neutral, “Scientific” Mindset?
    Now obviously, there is no criminal trial, Prof. Wood is _not_ a defense attorney, or even a legal theorist [ and neither does she have any history in detection of video or photographic fraud, as far as I am aware 🙂 ] , but as a scientist , with regard to any/all alleged “evidence” she elects to use privately that might also conceivably be used by the government to prove _its_ case , such as any/all network videos of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 etc. [a description which exactly fits the videos in question], don’t you think her initial, and consistent “scientific” mindset should remain entirely neutral until any/all such alleged “evidence” is definitively proven to be authentic, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, at her laboratory, by her and her staff ? [ Or as you said : ” Video is not presumed to be valid and not presumed to be fake either.” ]
    Despite the fact that there is no criminal trial at this time, if Prof. Wood indeed has not done her “due diligence” and subjected those videos and others like them to rigorous “cross examination” and even “re-cross examination”, to try to decisively determine their authenticity “beyond a reasonable doubt”, before proceeding to any “drawing of conclusions” phase of her research [ as I strongly suspect, as a former frequenter of her website], isn’t that _exactly_ what she has in fact been doing [i.e. unreasonably , unscientifically assumed them to be authentic]?
    Has she effectively _not_ remained scientifically neutral regarding her pre-existing mindset towards the particular “evidence” in question , but instead displayed an unjustified bias towards their being authentic?
    Regards,onebornfree

    1. I have to say here onebornfree, that all of this mumbo jumbo is getting on my nerves as well as Senor Once’s.
       So I will point out one more time; neither you nor Mr. Shack have the technical expertise nor the visual acuity to make the determination of whether a video or any other digital or analog photograph is genuine or fake.
       And as you well know this is not an unfounded assertion as I have critiques this issue in great detail on this blog before.
       ww

    2. Greetings Bornfree,
       Thank you for your thoughtful reply posted 6/6 at 8:03pm. Here is my segmented reply:
       Bornfree:
       “Are you saying that the videos in question [and others similar] were easily “authenticated”/ checked for authenticity by Prof. Wood or one of her co-workers _before_ she drew her conclusions about what it/they purportedly revealed?
       If so, please explain this “not.. difficult” “process”, as followed by Prof. Wood, as you understand it.”
       Reply:
       First, the source of the videos appear to have been identified. That means the camera person can be ascertained and questioned when needed. This is one reason why “youtube” videos are unreliable. We usually don’t know who took them and cannot question them about the accuracy of the video. It is only in a formal proceeding, say, in court or in some sort of administrative, investigative context that the further questioning needs to take place. Key is knowing who took the video.
       Remember: To me, at least, the key issue is that there exists no governmentally funded, forensically valid determination of what happened on 9/11. One element of a proper investigation is the listing of the information relied on and the assurance of its validity. We do not have that in connection with 9/11. True, the NIST report took on elements of formality, but, by curtailing the scope of the investigation to exclude an investigation of the destructive interval, the NIST report is, to put it kindly, fraudulent.
       Bornfree:
       “Or instead, would you kindly direct me to the link that documents the deductive/analytic processes used and the reason for her conclusions of authenticity [assuming it is on line within her website, and not just in her book, which I am not familiar with]?”
       Reply:
       What? Each chapter of Dr. Wood’s book contains copious footnotes documenting sources. I must say, I am disappointed you found it necessary to pose that question.
       Bornfree:
       J: “Equally important, the claim video is fraudulent is likewise a matter requiring authentication. ”
       Not so, I’m afraid. Procedurally speaking [i.e. in a court of law, not a laboratory], the government is always supposed to be held to a higher standard of truth [at least in the US] .’
       Reply:
       I don’t think this is a proper forum for discussion of legal procedure and I will here decline to go down that path in a formal sense. Suffice to say, though, that the opposite of what you are saying is true for a whole host of reasons. One of the main ones is that governmental officials are given a license to say things that are false. That is because it is difficult to effectively challenge them when they do.
       Consider just this one example: Neither Bush nor Cheney had to testify about 9/11 and did not do so publicly, or on the record, or under oath. I think this one example puts paid to your quoted claim in the broad sense. In the more precise sense, almost all governmental officials benefit from what is called “qualified immunity” (google it); and, the higher up the official is, the more immune she or he is from being able to be challenged.
       Bornfree:
       ” Which means that in a criminal trial, any such “evidence” [such as videos and photographs like the ones in question, showing the tower’s collapse, for example] that it tried to introduce to support its case, would be procedurally presumed to be questionable/fraudulent [via the explicit evidentiary rules listed in the Bill of Rights], at the very outset of that trial, and if and when the government [i.e the prosecution] attempted to introduce them, and any similar videos that purportedly showed similar events, as evidence to try prove its case .”
       Reply:
       Bornfree, I don’t think your quoted claim is well phrased. You appear to me to be confused. To the extent you are saying the government is held to a higher proof standard, I think I have answered that your claim is incorrect.
       Bornfree:
       “The onus [burden of proof] is always supposed to be on the government to prove the authenticity of _all_ of its evidence, not on the defense. [or on people like me ]
       At trial, any competent defense attorney, on the perfectly normal, automatic pre- assumption that the governments evidence was/is either faulty, or deliberately fraudulent, would then be free to examine, cross examine and re-cross examine , that particular alleged “eye-witness” [i.e. the contents of the video itself, the alleged cameraman/woman, the history of its creation, alleged location where shot, date time , camera used, the prior history of the videos alleged creator, as well as closely examine it for internal signs of fakery, such as strange “pixelation” patterns, signs of composite layering, contradictory/unusual audio, direct comparison with other videos and photographs allegedly shot at the same time from the same location ,etc. etc. ], with the intent of raising “reasonable doubt” as to its authenticity in the jury’s collective mind . Just as the defense attorney would do with any and all other evidence the government attempted to introduce at trial to prove its case.”
       Reply:
       The above is clearer and is correct, in theory. Perhaps you should consider contacting the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions to make sure they understand they have to prove their case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I hope you get my gist here. Let me know if you don’t.
       Bornfree:
       “Bottom line: at trial, the burden of proof is _always_ on the government , not the defense ; any/all purported “evidence” that the government might conceivably introduce in a criminal trial ,such as the particular videos in question, or others similar, [ because it believed that evidence supported its case], is to consistently be held to a higher standard of truth and presumed to be, at best, “faulty” and not trustworthy [at worst, downright fraudulent].
       It’s just the way the system was set up to function. [Yes, I know, that’s not the way it functions these days!].
       A Neutral, “Scientific” Mindset?
       Now obviously, there is no criminal trial, Prof. Wood is _not_ a defense attorney, or even a legal theorist [ and neither does she have any history in detection of video or photographic fraud, as far as I am aware ] , but as a scientist , with regard to any/all alleged “evidence” she elects to use privately that might also conceivably be used by the government to prove _its_ case , such as any/all network videos of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 etc. [a description which exactly fits the videos in question], don’t you think her initial, and consistent “scientific” mindset should remain entirely neutral until any/all such alleged “evidence” is definitively proven to be authentic, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, at her laboratory, by her and her staff ? [ Or as you said : ” Video is not presumed to be valid and not presumed to be fake either.” ]”
       Reply:
       I think you’ve wandered far afield of this thread in the above. However, what I said earlier
       Bornfree:
       “Despite the fact that there is no criminal trial at this time, if Prof. Wood indeed has not done her “due diligence” and subjected those videos and others like them to rigorous “cross examination” and even “re-cross examination”, to try to decisively determine their authenticity “beyond a reasonable doubt”, before proceeding to any “drawing of conclusions” phase of her research [ as I strongly suspect, as a former frequenter of her website], isn’t that _exactly_ what she has in fact been doing [i.e. unreasonably , unscientifically assumed them to be authentic]?”
       Reply:
       In acknowledging there is no criminal trial, I think you agree with my prior observation that you have wandered a bit far from the intended purpose of this thread. Nonetheless, I have here sought to answer your post in a rather fulsome way so that the issue can be put to rest and so that we can move on. Dr. Wood relies on authenticated information and documents her book (and website) properly.
       Bornfree:
       “Has she effectively _not_ remained scientifically neutral regarding her pre-existing mindset towards the particular “evidence” in question , but instead displayed an unjustified bias towards their being authentic?”
       Reply:
       No, she has not done that and I’m sorry you found it necessary to pose that question like that without any claim at all of deficiency. Please consider refraining from that kind of presumptive posting. It does not become you.
       Regards,
       jammonius

49. I’m thinking about buying a copy of Dr. “Wood’s book and I came here to see what others thought of it. From what I’ve been reading an various websites, the book is irrefutable. From what I’ve read here, no one here has found anything wrong with Dr. Wood’s book. (You know, page number and paragraph number and reason and their proof it is wrong.) The posters here seem to have only found things wrong with each other.
    I found the best price on the book here:
    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

    1. Sure Tom, I think you should buy the Wood book. If you get it in time, and you’re a quick study, perhaps you can join in the debate here.
       Just maybe you can come forward with more substance than any of her supporters here have.
       G’luck,
       ww

       1. Thank you ** hybridrogue1 ** for the tip ! I am a quick study for sure, BUT more importantly I am a ‘thorough study’. The definition of controversial is (CONTROVERSIAL-Adjective: Giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement)
          There is no doubt that the information that we have been fed by the media concerning the events of 9-11 is IN FACT controversial. I am certain that if I went down to the local street corner in Anytown, USA and polled 100 people on their ‘opinion’ of the events of 9-11 I would then have a variety of ideas, thoughts, conspiracies, here-says, old wives tales, and campfire stories, etc about WHAT actually happened on that day. I would thus have to weigh these ideas, thoughts, conspiracies, here-says, old wives-tales, campfire stories and OPINIONS and try to determine from the vast array of ‘mucky stuff’ where the truth actually lies. It would thus become quite clear that spreading controversy -see definition-(CONTROVERSEY-a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion) is the PERFECT way to hide the truth. Especially important to note from that definition is the word ‘prolonged’. How brilliant are the ‘prolonged’ efforts of those that try to prevent the truth from coming out.
          The title of this blog is — “The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research “. The word EGNIMA (which is defined as :1. A person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand, or 2. A riddle or paradox.) seems to be attached to this blog purposely in an effort to create doubt and confusion about the author. I am a little confused after reading some of the comments here as to why one would want to do that.
          I’ve heard it said that, “The flack is always the strongest over the target.” That being the case, Dr. Wood’s book must be directly over the target.

       2. Tom says:
          “I’ve heard it said that, “The flack is always the strongest over the target.” That being the case, Dr. Wood’s book must be directly over the target.”
          Are you sure that’s not an “old wive’s tale”?
          Perhaps if you understood the genesis of the “controversy” you would understand the real “target” was always a certain Professor Jones, who indeed was so thoroughly harassed that he finally bowed out of the movement. This took a lot more than simply the efforts of the Reynolds, Wood cabal, of course, it was a coordinated effort by several sides in a pincer maneuver involving the open dismissal from his teaching position to begin with, the unfortunate coupling with Fetzer [a mole] to combine their efforts at Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which eventually led to a split between the Fetzer faction [including Wood at that time] and most of the rest of the scientists who joined Jones at Journal of 9/11 Research. Here another set of deep moles led by Frank Legge ingratiated into the new site and finally duped Ryan into accepting what is essentially the official version of the Pentagon event. At this point Jones had had enough and ‘retired’….a great loss to 9/11 truth.
          I don’t know how old you are or what experience you have in your studies of this event, but I urge you to keep searching and informing yourself. By all means check into everything and find out as much as you can.
          Good luck,
          ww

          1. Tom, if you want to learn about the psychology of coverups, Andrew Johnson’s “9/11 Finding the Truth” is free on Kindle and it’s brilliant.

    2. Dear Señor Tom,
       I have Dr. Wood’s textbook and have read it. It is a worthy investment and will be a gem in your 9/11 library.
       However, I disagree with the statements:

       The book is irrefutable. From what I’ve read here, no one here has found anything wrong with Dr. Wood’s book.

       I’ve found several niggly errors, which themselves aren’t discrediting but are sloppy. I’ve got a more detailed book review above on June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm.
       You have to have four (metaphorical) magnifying glasses in hand when reading her book. One will help you validate or not the concept. The second will help you determine applicability to 9/11. The third will help you see omissions. The fourth will help you see disinformation (or where she might have been duped).
       For example, free-energy from space? Probably scientifically valid. Applicable to 9/11? I doubt, because the perps would have easier means of getting the necessary energy land-based, even it meant carting in a small nuclear reactor from the navy to power DEW. Because radiation was measured at Ground Zero and both the govt and Dr. Jones went through a song-and-dance to explain it away, it becomes an omission on the part of Dr. Wood that she doesn’t cover this evidence and doesn’t connect this dot with a nuclear energy source. Moreover, she tries to explain away hot-spots as not existing [which is something she may have been duped by both in the govt report with thermal satellite images she sites and with other potentially faked images.]
       Same sort of discussion can apply to the Hutchison effect. I have hopes it might be scientifically valid, but hopes are all they are. This is the first hurdle before determining applicability to 9/11.
       Still, the book remains solid because it helps open you up to larger concepts and that the 9/11TM is gatekeeping on avoiding addressing sources for the energy requirements of pulverization and hot-spot duration.

       1. Please pinpoint some of the sloppy niggly errors by page number so some of us can attempt to defend them.

       2. Where in Dr. Wood’s book is free energy from space discussed? Please give the page number. I cannot find such a statement and I would like to be sure you are not slandering her. Aside from the fires in the upper floors where is there any evidence of hot spots? Please provide evidence. Hutchison merely demonstrates the work of Nikola Tesla and others. If you are claiming that Nikola Tesla is a fraud, please provide evidence that A/C electricity in your home-office does not exist.

       3. Dear Mr. Salt,
          You’re not going to want to defend those sloppy niggly errors. I don’t have my book with me to give page numbers. I’ll let you find them.
          Here are three:
          1) The fire engine with a caved in front from her website and in her book somewhere. She says: “A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go?” That style fire truck has the engine block sitting further back. We’re not seeing the engine in the dust and debris at the front because the engine isn’t at that location.
          2) The Ladder 3 fire truck Dr. Wood asks questions about why its front end got melted. Just recently (June 5, 2012 at 7:07 pm) I learned from Dr. Jenkins via Mr. Rogue that this engine was towed to the location where the picture was taken. Fire fighter Vincent Forras says: “Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces.” Ergo, it wasn’t melted.
          3) Police car 2723. Pictures exist of it on fire in another location and at the bridge. Dr. Wood analyzes the damaged vehicles pictured at the bridge. She hints that the vehicles were hit by some “effect” at the bridge (including this car). This is quite some distance which she milks in talking about what could have done with it. Part of this was some parametric driving across some bridge who noted how hot it was. I found one reference from her in her book stating cars were towed around, and the bridge was one place. Thus, her analysis of fire damage and hints that damage occured at the distance of the bridge is in error and misframes the energy and beams.
          I guess more blatant major errors are that she dismisses hotspots, and to do so, she relies on a govt report with satellite thermal data from two dates. This report was accepted unchallenged. Seems to me that, like the incomplete and unsystematic radiation report before it, this was ripe for juking. All it took was one faked thermal satellite image, or a mislabeling of the date on which it was taken.
          Thanks to Simon Shack, some of the pictures that she relies on to document “water everywhere but why no steam to cook the firemen”. Well, at least one of them is ripe for being manipulated. I don’t think she made the case in the textbook for no hotspots. I consider it one of the “self-destruct mechanisms” built into disinformation.
          She talks about how “all that glows isn’t necessarily hot.” Thanks to Simon Shack, we need to evaluate pictures with hydraulic equipment whether or not they are valid. Tainted images might also show glowing, but that doesn’t mean it was really hot.
          I don’t know why she doesn’t discuss govt reports on radiation. Instead of connecting those to nuclear weapons or reactors with fizzling but unspent nuclear fuel, she jumps to free-energy from space.
          You write:

          Where in Dr. Wood’s book is free energy from space discussed?

          Free-energy is in the title of her book right on the cover. As for free-energy from space, you’ll have to go to the latter chapter when she discusses Hurricane Erin. This is where she gets it from.

          Aside from the fires in the upper floors where is there any evidence of hot spots?

          Hello-oooo? The under-rubble fires burned for many weeks that many sources document (and that Dr. Wood ignores in her reliance on a weak govt report that tries to down-play it and might even use tainted images.) They burned without Oxygen. Hello-oooo? These hot-spots are the very secondary reason Dr. Jones was called into action. He needed to take all suspicion off of nuclear mechanisms, and he was handed super-duper nano-thermite to promote to supposedly account for fires burning without oxygen under the rubble. Kevin Ryan documents four surges over the general hot hot-spot level, representative of pockets of thermatic material getting torched.

          Hutchison merely demonstrates the work of Nikola Tesla and others.

          I’d like to believe that, but Dr. Wood and Mr. Hutchison do a poor job of proving squat on this subject. These are the weakest chapters of Dr. Wood’s textbook. Viability hasn’t been proven. And even if given the benefit of the doubt, applicability to 9/11 isn’t so easy to prove in light of other mechanisms.

          If you are claiming that Nikola Tesla is a fraud, please provide evidence that A/C electricity in your home-office does not exist.

          Nice strawman.

          1. You join a discussion about a book, and you don’t have the book with you. How convenient! It’s much easier to sit at a keyboard and rewrite the book yourself. Why don’t you get J.K. Rowling to help you? Her version might be more interesting than yours.

          2. Check this out. This starts at 3 minutes. Jesse gets it. At 10 minutes, Jesse debunks Alex Jones’ “molten metal” in a slam dunk.
             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD9UVquklZU&feature=youtu.be&t=2m59s
             To start at ten minutes:
             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD9UVquklZU&feature=youtu.be&t=10m00s

       4. Hey ahh Salt,
          Take a look at this page referenced on my post of June 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm [today], and then come back and tell me there was too little metal debris in the aftermath at WTC.
          If so I will suspect that Wood has produced her book in Braille.
          ww

       5. Mr. Salt writes:

          You join a discussion about a book, and you don’t have the book with you. How convenient!

          Yes, Mr. Salt. It is indeed convenient for me not to carry a large, heavy book to-and-from my place of employment by bicycle.
          If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can’t be considered Dr. Wood’s final word.
          Due to that overlap as well as the fact that this is not a discussion about a book but about Dr. Wood’s concepts, it can be fair game to point to things on her website particularly when I know from having studied her book that they are in both places.
          You are in luck, because this posting is being made in the wee hours of the morning from home with the book in front of me. First reference to Police Car 2723 begins on page 214.
          Page 214 with the Map of lower Manhattan that shows the WTC and FDR drive exhibits a MAJOR ERROR in Dr. Wood’s book. She has these little flaming poof marks to flag where torched cars were. Poof marks at the car park and around WTC? Valid. Poof marks on South Street Seaport and FDR drive? Invalid. Figure 217 shows has the caption “(9/13/01) Vehicles under FDR driver were randomly tasted. This is at least 1/2 mile away from the WTC.”
          Collected from somewhere on the web, I have the picture of Police Car 2723 on fire, and it was not at the FDR bridge with this occured. This vehicle and many others were towed to the bridge. Yet, when analyzing the damage of the vehicles that happen to be staged afterwards at the bridge (valid), Dr. Wood makes the repeated invalid and outright wrong innuendo that the vehicles sustained their damage while being parked at the bridge when the towers were decimated.
          Page 238 has Figure 247 (b) with the caption: “A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine and radiator go?” This is the very image from my previous posting that explains this vehicle has the engine block sitting further back.
          Same page 238 and Figure 248 shows two views of Ladder 3 with the caption “Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?” I learned from Dr. Jenkins via Mr. Rogue that this engine was towed to the location where the picture was taken. Fire fighter Vincent Forras says: “Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces.” Ergo, it wasn’t melted.
          Chapter 13 “Weird Fires” and section C. “The Rumor of High Heat” on Page 262 is filled with analysis that I can’t swallow. Page 271 in particular reproduces thermal images from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html . This is a report that quite frankly can’t be trusted, yet Dr. Wood accepts it unchallenged in order to plant heavily the seeds: “Oh, maybe there really weren’t such hot hot-spots.”
          Page 272 has Figure 278 (b) from James Nachtway supposedly from 9/11/2001 that is so totally ripe for having been photoshopped for its original purposes and publications. It is from a broken window framing the scene of destruction and has firemen milling about, most particularly standing in practically lakes of water. Dr. Wood superimposed the text “Location E 819°F?” The point she was trying to make was that if this was that location on 9/11/2001 with a hot spot, the firemen would be steamed cooked and ready to eat. [Likewise Figure 278 (a) with its thermal data from 9/16/2011 is ripe for such image manipulation.]
          For future reference, my memory from having read cover-to-cover Dr. Wood’s book and her website from one end to the other is good enough to remember what is contained in the book and her website, although it might be too poor without book in hand to recall page numbers. Thus, if I make statements about errors discovered in Dr. Wood’s book from my work computer without the benefit of the book in hand, you’re just going to have to trust me. Given that most participants do not have the book, such page number references aren’t always helpful and could be perceived as a way for someone to obscure things.
          Moreover, your lead-in statement — “You join a discussion about a book…” — is error filled on many levels. This is not a discussion about a book, but about what is contained within the book that also happens to be found to a great extent elsewhere. Also, I didn’t join it; I am it. Without me having consistently championed various concepts and evidence best embodied by Dr. Wood’s publication, there’d be no thread here for you to defend Dr. Wood under.
          Mr. Salt wrote:

          It’s much easier to sit at a keyboard and rewrite the book yourself. Why don’t you get J.K. Rowling to help you? Her version might be more interesting than yours.

          Apologize and take this back. And open your eyes to the fact that while Dr. Wood presents tons of evidence that few others address, she too has introduced errors in her analysis, whether accidental or purposeful, that shouldn’t be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

50. New article about how debate about what happened to the WTC is being used as part of the criminal cover up – I hope anonymous posters – and those using multiple names will take note – though I doubt it, as they have been “at this” for years, it seems.
    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=60

    1. Andrew Johnson says, when quoting a friend:
       “[Dr Judy Wood] being victorious – in her message to the public – results in the entire overthrow of our ruling elite – I wonder if she knows that – and the consequent forces aligned against her.”
       I would like to point out that ALL of the proofs discovered about the 9/11 Psyop would result in the overthrow of the ruling elite were they recognized by the somnambulist masses. And that holding up Ms. Wood as the premier champion of all truths 9/11 is, again to slip in the dangerous quagmire of dogmatic cultism.
       While I agree with Johnson’s character sketch of Jim Fetzer, I also disagree that the ‘certainty’ he holds as to the use of these “energy weapons” is beyond dispute. I in fact think that there are compound reasons to reject not only such certainty, but to reject even a consideration of the theory as proven beyond reasonable doubt.
       ww

       1. hybridrogue1 says: I in fact think that there are compound reasons to reject not only such certainty,(what? reject evidence?) but to reject even a consideration of the theory as proven beyond reasonable doubt
          mike says…Evidence is not consideration of the theory, your whole sentence is worse than Mr Fetzer’s twisted mind games theory of reasonable doubt that compound to reject proven beyond reasonable doubt without certainty ?….he he
          Great job with your article Mr Andrew Johnson.
          I LoVe your other pro-folio picture of you hybridrogue1 ! You have a lightning bolt coming out of your mouth with a V for victory sign coming out of your brain….he he
          Please read Dr Judy Wood’s Book “where did the towers go?
          http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

       2. Michael John Wegrzyn,
          I don’t have any idea of WTF you are trying to say in your post of 7:18pm today.
          Neither of my gravitars are pictures of me spaceboy. Maybe something was missing in your head when you got back from the future. Aye?
          \\||//

    2. Hello Andrew Johnson,
       Thank you for your post of June 7, 8:44AM. In it, you link us to the following:
       this” for years, it seems.
       http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=60
       I wonder if those who are reading Dr. Wood’s book, WDTTG?, have taken advantage of the video links set out in the article you linked us to?
       Best
       jammonius

    3. Señor says:
       “Apologize and take this back. And open your eyes to the fact that while Dr. Wood presents tons of evidence that few others address, she too has introduced errors in her analysis, whether accidental or purposeful, that shouldn’t be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.”
       Which is what separates Señor from the cult-mind I spoke of earlier, and shows he isn’t “chopped liver”…
       \\||//

51. Mr. Naus has this to say about Ms. Wood:

    “Dr. Wood’s degrees are in Structural Engineering, Applied Physics, and Materials Engineering Science. Her background is in forensic science and image analysis and other methods to determine material properties or other physical phenomena. She has over 35 years experience in this area.”

    Well, these are pretty impressive credentials. I have read lists of some of here published papers, and they seem to be duly “scientific”.
    But if one reads the resume’s of the various NIST scientists, they are no less impressive, and sometime these are some of the “most respected names in their fields”.
    At some point we must ask, ‘what does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?’
    What does it actually mean to receive promotion, decoration, praise, even glory in a culture that can be assessed as so thoroughly emotionally and mentally ill?
    One must keep in mind that in a technocratic dictatorship, a culture is just the scum grown in a petri dish. This is why my criticisms of conformists and those who go along to get along are often stated in harsh language.
    It is automatic for anyone who has been indoctrinated and processed through academia to come out academiacs. And the history of how US schooling was infiltrated by the regimentation techniques of the despotic Austrian schools of thinking, is a fascinating and necessary study for grasping how society has been molded to such insidious ends as it has.
    Naus goes on to say:

    Her work is impeccable and no one has been able to refute her work, despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her work, yet want people to think they have. Now why is that?

    This is of course par for the course, and part of the legend that is repeated like pre-frab sprouts in the garden of rhetoric. Every Wood supporter I have ever encountered repeats this assertion, practically verbatim.
    What should be kept in mind however is the extremity of such claims if taken totally literally – for descriptively they are as extreme as claims of “immaculate conception”, it is proposed that she is ‘beyond error’. And these issues my friends, are the seeds of the ‘cult mentality’. This would explain what I see as the fanaticism of what I would call, the “Woodites”.
    Of course this will seem the gravest insult to those who have invested their heart and souls into the study of “the Book”. But it is not my point to insult, but to analyse social and cultural phenomena.
    If this discussion can grow beyond the aspects of worship, and deal with the issues of substance, perhaps some headway can be made in communication. Otherwise we are dealing with dogmatism, and unmovable ‘set in stone’ concepts, and should begin a discussion on theology, rather than pretend we are speaking to physics here.
    ww

    1. Señor Naus writes:

       Her work is impeccable and no one has been able to refute her work, despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her work, yet want people to think they have. Now why is that?

       No, her work isn’t quite impeccable. No, elements of her work have been refuted. Even I do that.
       But to your point, most who try to refute her work, do so very selectively. In my opinion, the elements they attack are low-hanging fruit and have more the nature of “shoot-Wood-in-foot” or of a self-destruct mechanism to the over-arching themes she presents. All disinformation has this, from Dmitri K. to September Clues to pods-on-planes to the anonymous physicist to super-duper nano-thermite.
       In other words, the elements attached were purposely placed there by Dr. Wood [wild-ass speculation: to save her ass] so that the rest of her work and collected evidence would presumably be dismissed and thrown out without further review.
       To save face [with God], IMHO crafty Dr. Wood championed as directed the bat-shit crazy, but made sure to include lots and lots of unaddressed evidence with the CHARGE TO ALL READERS to listen to the evidence carefully.

       If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
       ~ Dr. Judy Wood

       Señor Rogue writes:

       Every Wood supporter I have ever encountered repeats this assertion, practically verbatim.

       What am I, chopped liver? Certainly, your new nose bleeds from my clobbering you over the head with my copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook in one hand and a gift copy you never redeemed in the other proves me a Dr. Wood supporter — albeit a slippery one –, and I have never ever made Señor Naus’s assertion, let alone verbatim.
       My modified Señor Naus assertion is:

       [They can sometimes refute pieces of her work but] no one has been able to refute [or address] her [evidence], despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her [collected evidence], yet want people to think they have. Now why is that?

       Señor Rogue goes on to write:

       If this discussion can grow beyond the aspects of worship, and deal with the issues of substance, perhaps some headway can be made in communication. Otherwise we are dealing with dogmatism, and unmovable ‘set in stone’ concepts, and should begin a discussion on theology, rather than pretend we are speaking to physics here.

       Written by “a retired special effects artist for cinema, a child prodigy artist, and autodidact polymath” whose dogma won’t allow him to read a copy of Dr. Wood’s book on his own to get at the most up-to-date substance.
       Yes, yes, yes, Dr. Wood has not written the holy book by any stretch of the imagination. It is a crow-bar or nut-cracker: just a tool to get passed “dogmatism and unmovable ‘set in stone’ concepts” in our thinking and analysis (and the line drawn in the sand by gatekeeping 9/11TM leaders.)

       1. Love your modified limited assertions Señor.
          However your characterization of me as “dogmatic” is your own opinion, and a laughable one at that. If those who disagree with you are automatically ‘dogmatic’ ‘pig headed’ or however you wish to put it, that is your own problem of ego driven self hoaxing.
          I shall state for the record that Señor is gullible and naive.
          Shall we all see this as a statement of fact? Or is it my opinion?
          Are we going to go round’n’round this bullshit carousel once again Once? Why don’t you stop ‘disrupting and distracting’ this thread and stick to the issues of substance concerning Wood’s hypothesis, rather than this tango fandango fan dance bantersnipe?
          I’ll send my email address to Mr. McKee again, and he can pass it on to you, you can email me, and I will gladly accept your offer of the book. I have hesitated to do so, because I don’t want to feel beholding to you, and then argue against you…it seems underhanded.
          If this is not agreeable to you, let me say it’s the only course I am willing to take.
          ww

       2. Señor Rogue writes:

          I shall state for the record that Señor is gullible and naive.

          Agreed.

          1. Most people, when they see something glowing orange, they ASSUME it is hot. But if it is sitting on a piece of paper and the paper is not burning or have any appearance of damage, it cannot be hot. That is not an error Dr. Wood has made, that is the result of her expert observational skills. Your failure to comprehend this is not her error. It is your error, possibly due to poor observational skills.
             Rudy Giuliani said he was standing on rubble that was 2,000°(assumed F). A steak on a grill that hot would burn up. Do you think he was trying to sound ridiculous or do you think he was describing what he ASSUMED was the case because he saw glowing metal under him? With all this talk of “hot molten metal,” why are there no photos of it?
             There is video of apparent liquid pouring out of WTC2 that is glowing orange. But, as Dr. Wood points out, the orange-glowing liquid pouring out of the building is splashing over the aluminum cladding. If it were hot, it would have melted and eroded the aluminum cladding.

       3. Naus says:
          “There is video of apparent liquid pouring out of WTC2 that is glowing orange. But, as Dr. Wood points out, the orange-glowing liquid pouring out of the building is splashing over the aluminum cladding. If it were hot, it would have melted and eroded the aluminum cladding.”
          And how do you know it didn’t melt and erode the aluminum cladding? The towers erupted before that molten metal [as it most clearly was] – before it stopped spilling over the side…in fact it seemed one of the precursors to the explosions.
          ww

       4. Dear Mr. Salt,
          Stop attacking me personally with your obviously superior observational and reading comprehension skills and start being more open-minded to the legitimate ERRORS and faulty analysis found in Dr. Wood’s work. You write:

          Most people, when they see something glowing orange, they ASSUME it is hot. But if it is sitting on a piece of paper and the paper is not burning or have any appearance of damage, it cannot be hot. That is not an error Dr. Wood has made, that is the result of her expert observational skills. Your failure to comprehend this is not her error. It is your error, possibly due to poor observational skills.

          Having been on September Clues carousel with Mr. Shack as my personal operator, I can say with confidence that his agenda is disinformation that also has many tough nuggets of truth buried through out. One such nugget is that imagery manipulation happened.
          Dr. Wood can’t be faulted for including in her analysis tainted images, because the same images were pumped out for all researchers to stumble over.
          With regards to images of things glowing orange and sitting on a piece of paper not burning, one theory that Dr. Wood & you promote is some weird scientific phenomenon ala Hutchison Effect. I bought into that for a long time too until I found substantiation and repeatability lacking.
          You need to open your mind to another possible theory: namely, the image with that SHIT in it was FAKED. Re-using your words:

          Your failure to comprehend this is not her error. It is your error, possibly due to poor observational skills.

          Get some perspective on the pile. It was guarded. Unauthorized photography was clamped down upon hard. Access to all areas of the pile was restricted. You can bet that dangerous areas were off-limits with enforcers backing up the orders. You can’t trust a damn thing Rudy Giulani stated, and he for sure wasn’t standing on any exact spot of the pile with such high temperatures.
          If you want to concentrate on glowing orange liquid pouring out of WTC (assumed before it fell), fine. My reference, however, was to the hydraulic equipment pulling a glowing orange piece of material out of the pile. The veracity of that picture I’m most interested in determining.

       5. @hybridrogue1
          Again, I find hybridrogue quoting me when he should be quoting Robert E Salt.
          Maybe hybridrogue is working to hard and should rest his eyes, evidently they are not seeing too well. Maybe hybridrogue has my name on his mind all the time because of the way I have responded to him.
          hybridrogue1 says on June 8th, 2:46 pm
          “Naus says:
          “There is video of apparent liquid pouring out of WTC2 that is glowing orange. But, as Dr. Wood points out, the orange-glowing liquid pouring out of the building is splashing over the aluminum cladding. If it were hot, it would have melted and eroded the aluminum cladding.”
          And how do you know it didn’t melt and erode the aluminum cladding? The towers erupted before that molten metal [as it most clearly was] – before it stopped spilling over the side…in fact it seemed one of the precursors to the explosions.” WW

          1. So you’re quoting Hybridrogue who was quoting you but should have been quoting someone else? I’m sure there was a shorter and easier way to clarify this point?

    2. @Craig
       I forgave him the first time hybridrogue1 did this. This 2nd time was not so easy to forgive.

52. Paul Zamembka says:

    I found the video between Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson on Rich Planet TV useful. I particularly was persuaded by the critique of TV Fakery, namely, that the videos we see on TV screens and in videos correspond to the official flight path.
    (……)
    The following stage was then to claim that a hologram from military object (a stealth plane) on the military’s version of the flight path created an image that was seen on TV and private videos. Actually, I know nothing about holograms but I haven’t reach that stage in the argument.
    Any help on either side of the argument would be welcome.

    Back in 2007 I looked through DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007. On page 123 I found the following excerpt:
    “…..
    These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). .….”
    Since then I’ve been convinced that it must be some kind of advanced high tech 3-D hologram projection system which they used to mimic AA11 and UA175 penetrating the towers.
    I imagined myself being with the inner circle, sitting in with them at the final meeting, where would take place the decision to go ahead with “the project” or not! Had the suggestion to use ‘remote controlled’ planes been adopted, I think that in all likelihood “the project” would’ve been out-voted there and then, as the potential danger and uncertainty of grave errors occurring, would’ve been far too great.
    On the other hand, the alternative method above seems more likely to have been approved by those present.
    The members are beforehand taken to a remote location, where the ‘new’ technology of 3-D projection is demonstrated to them not once but several times. They are also shown how a powerful sound system can be synchronized to play a tape loud enough of a plane engine, in perfect conjunction with the visible 3-D projected mowing image.
    Regarding this, we should bear in mind that something ‘strange’ happened on top of the Woolworth building. Some activity up there were noticed by witnesses, that to this day has never been thoroughly investigated.
    And not forgetting, that the members had of course been informed of the fact, that the “general public” would be completely ignorant about the existence of this ‘new’ technology, and would therefore never be able to connect this, with what they saw “with their own eyes”.
    Questions would never be asked!
    Here’s another excerpt from the US air force:
    “…..
    Future weapons proposals:
    (Air force 2025 study)
    Airborne Holographic Projector A projector system that displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.
    …..”
    Just my seven cent
    (or, seventh sense?)
    Who knows!
    Cheers

53. “nausmr says on June 7, 2012 at 12:48 am
    “@Paul Zarembka
    Richard Hall did not “claim” the second path projected a hologram, he simply asked if it could be a possible explanation. It is meant as collaborative research. He was merely posing a question.”
    REPLY:
    Thanks for the correction.
    What about the prior issue regarding the authenticity of the data used to establish a flight path for a second (stealth) object? Is that also merely a posing a possibility or do you understand Richard Hall as being sure of it?

    1. @Paul Zarembka
       posing a possiblity

54. Jammonius says: “First, the source of the videos appear to have been identified. That means the camera person can be ascertained and questioned when needed.”
    Are you saying that the camera person[s] have been “identified” [whatever that means!] but their background history has not even been checked to date? And how, and where, has the “source of the videos… been identified”? What do you mean by “source” ? “Identified ” by whom?
    And how does simple identification of an alleged source pass for sufficient proof that the video in question is genuine, in your mind?
    Furthermore, please show me where and when, and, as I stated earlier, [self quote]: “the contents of the video itself, the alleged cameraman/woman, the history of its creation, alleged location where shot, date time , camera used, the prior history of the videos alleged creator, as well as close examination for internal signs of fakery, such as strange “pixelation” patterns, signs of composite layering, contradictory/unusual audio, direct comparison with other videos and photographs allegedly shot at the same time from the same location” etc. , has ever been undertaken to date , for _any_ of the videos she has used to date as so-called “authentic evidence”, to reach her alleged “scientific conclusions”, prior to reaching those conclusions?
    Jammonius says: ” Key is knowing who took the video.”
    Yes, that might play a small part, but by itself, no . Regardless of alleged authorship, “key” is first of all establishing beyond any reasonable doubt, that the video itself is authentic, before any scientifically valid conclusions can be reliably drawn from its contents. That process goes way, way beyond simply knowing that “the camera person can be ascertained and questioned when needed”, or that a “source” has been “identified”.
    Knowing who allegedly took the video in question has little bearing on the very important question of whether it is fake or not.[see partial list given above].
    Jammonius says: “To me, at least, the key issue is that there exists no governmentally funded, forensically valid determination of what happened on 9/11.”
    Are you implying here that the government investigating itself with our money is going to “uncover” the truth here?
    Why would you believe that is possible? On what grounds would you make such an assumption [for example, on what historical evidence]?
    Jammonius says: “What? Each chapter of Dr. Wood’s book contains copious footnotes documenting sources. ”
    Are you claiming that the mere “documenting ” of “sources” in a books footnotes is sufficient evidence of, and compares favorably to, the partial list of processes to definitively establish authenticity[or not], I suggested previously? [see above]
    Jammonius says: “Suffice to say, though, that the opposite of what you are saying is true for a whole host of reasons. One of the main ones is that governmental officials are given a license to say things that are false.”
    So you believe that government officials can and do lie all the time [“given a license to say things that are false”] . If so [and I agree, they do lie almost all the time, whether “licensed” or not 🙂 ], why do you lament the lack of a government funded investigation of 9/11? Isn’t that a huge contradiction?
    Jammonius says: ” In the more precise sense, almost all governmental officials benefit from what is called “qualified immunity” (google it); and, the higher up the official is, the more immune she or he is from being able to be challenged.”
    That is true, that _is_ the way the world works, in real life. However that so-called immunity does not [or more correctly _should_ not] , override the specific rules laid out for evidence admissions in a US federal criminal trial. Please re-read the Bill of Rights.[BOR] .
    That document exists solely because of the fact that almost everyone at that time [or more accurately, the Anti-Federalists and associates], knew as a fact of life that governments were extremely powerful and could [and would, and did] easily falsify evidence at any trial where it was necessary.
    In point of fact, that is precisely _the_ reason why the required procedures for evidentiary submissions by the federal government are laid out in such detailed and specific manner within the BOR.
    And it’s still the reason why the federal government will likely never risk to prosecute at a federal criminal trial on the events of 911. The requirements [burden] for proof of evidence validity stipulated in the Bill of Rights are simply too high for it to risk cross-examination in front of a jury [ failing, of course, a rigged “show trial”]
    As I said in my prior post to you, the US Federal government is required to be held to a higher standard of truth, [i.e the US federal criminal court system was most certainly _not_ initially set up systemically to give “a level playing field” to the government and its “evidence”] , and its evidence is procedurally _not_ just supposed to just be believed, but all evidence it presents is supposed to be held to a “higher standard of truth”, and to be rigorously cross- examined [and re-examined] as per that standard, in front of a jury, _before_ it is ever to be believed in court, precisely _because_ of the plain fact that “governmental officials are given a license to say things that are false.”, as you yourself so rightly said.
    Jammonius says: “Dr. Wood relies on authenticated information and documents her book (and website) properly.”
    As I asked previously, [and you appear to have missed it, or simply avoided so doing] , please direct me to the links on her website where she documents the precise investigative methodologies used to determine, one way or another, actual video and/or photographic authenticity , which in any way, shape, or form replicate _any_[ let alone all] of the simply common sense investigative authentification procedures/ precautions I outlined both in this post and my previous one to yourself.
    The naming or documenting of alleged video/photo sources[ i.e. cameramen/women] is simply not scientifically sufficient to prove their authenticity [or rather, should not be]. Surely you understand that?
    Regards, onebornfree.

55. A Multiple Choice Questionnaire, from Andrew Johnson’s “Conspiracy Culture” culture article:
    My answers are after the arrow >
    1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no) >Yes
    2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no) >No
    3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no) >Yes, but this is the nonmetallic materials not the metal which was found in great quantities in the debris of the aftermath
    a) “If your answer to question #3 was “no,”
    “Please review the empirical evidence more carefully or find someone who can.”
    b) “If your answer to question #3 was “yes,”
    4.”Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this?” (yes or no) >Yes, explosive demolition. [Are we in agreement?]
    “If your answer to question #4b was “yes,” we are in agreement.”
    >Obviously Mr. Johnson has pulled a rhetorical rabbit out of his trick-top-hat here.
    Anyone familiar with this technique of gaining agreements in a series, understands it as a psychological technique used in Sales, and Religious meetings.
    I am not in agreement with Mr. Johnson’s hypothesis, yet he leaves no room in his multiple choice questions.
    ww

    1. Here’s the way it looks in Andrew’s article for all the other readers of this blog. Please compare this to the way hybridrogue1 copy, pasted and replied to it.
       1. Were the towers once there? (yes or no)
       2. Are the towers still there? (yes or no)
       3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)
       4. a) If your answer to question #3 was “no,”
       Please review the empirical evidence more carefully or find someone who can.
       b) If your answer to question #3 was “yes,”
       · Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)
       If your answer to question #4b was “yes,” we are in agreement.
       If your answer to question #4b was “no,” please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

       1. nausmr says:
          “If your answer to question #4b was “no,” please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.”
          Thank you Mr. Naus for pointing this out…I had pulled the question down to answer them myself and missed that most important part.
          Point taken.
          ww

       2. But you will notice Mr. Naus, my answer to #4b was “yes”:
          And it was not to “explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.”
          There is no contradiction, as I give a alternative reason why the “impossible” occurred. And my assessment of the ‘leading suggestions’ of salesmanship still apply to Johnson’s technique.
          ww

56. Dear Bornfree,
    This will serve as my reply to yours of 6/7 12:32pm.
    In a technical, legal sense, not every photograph in Dr. Wood’s book is authenticated for purposes of legal verification at this stage. More authentication would be necessary; and, those that are sourced to, say, youtube would be difficult to authenticate further.Thus, in that sense, if you are to be understood as demanding more proof from Dr. Wood, then, in that event, I think you could demand it. In both epistemology and in legal terms, demands for more proof can and do serve a purpose in furtherance of accuracy.
    As the event of destruction of the WTC complex was widely recorded, with the first post in this thread offering up a different angle, from among many, of the destruction of a remaining spire within the disintegrating structure of the North Tower, the authentication process would not be overly difficult for purposes of showing the spire turned to dust; or not, if that is one’s take on it.
    Photos and videos are an aid in ascertaining the proof of claims. They are not sacrosanct, or perfect. They are merely useful.
    I
    n both realms I have mentioned–epistemology/law–disputes as to how much proof is enough proof are never ending and never resolved satisfactorily to those whose proof requirements are set high, higher and higher still, ad infinitum.
    If you are an epistemological absolutist, then, chances are, there is very little in life on earth that can be proven to your satisfaction. Reason does not demand epistemological perfection. Reason demands, well, reasonable proof.
    So it is with Dr. Wood’s book. It is a study in reasonable, detailed proof, based on evidence.
    So it is not with NIST’s publications and with the 9/11 Commission Report, for example. Those two sources are unreasonable and unreliable for proving what happened on 9/11. And, they are the focus of my concern. Once again, I do not as a general rule seek to criticize other alternative claims about what happened on 9/11.
    I am not here saying Dr. Wood should be considered by others to have provided enough proof; and, certainly not for you. I do here state that Dr. Wood’s documentation rises to a high forensic level, such that what she claims is proven. I cannot say it any plainer than that. I can also say that others may choose to disagree and that is fine. If you choose to proclaim that Dr. Wood has not provided enough proof for you and then give examples, then perhaps we can discuss the examples you choose to illustrate and show why you think the proof is insufficient.
    If you are inclined to do that, then so be it.
    I am prepared now to move on to other topics.

57. This is a strange word * hybridrogue * …but even more confusing when broken up into two words:
    hy·brid/ˈhīˌbrid/ ( Noun: A thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture. )
    rogue/rōg/ ( Noun: A dishonest or unprincipled man.)
    Does this user refer to him/her self as a – A man/woman that uses a mixture of dishonesty with a lack of principles – ? I sure hope not , as I hope this blog really is about searching for the truth about the events of 9-11.

    1. “NOTHING THERE?”
       http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
       WTC Aftermath
       \\][//

    2. Howdy Tom,
       You have an interesting and selective approach to choosing definitions from a dictionary.
       Is this a harbinger of what is to come in dealing with you?
       I suppose there are a lot of dishonest and unprincipled male elephants roaming the plains and jungles of Africa…aye? They must be, as they aren’t following the herd or ‘going along to get along’.
       The secret’s out right here on the blog Tom, my name is Willy Whitten, a man that may have used women in less than ‘honorable’ ways in my youth, but never became one. I do hope you will forgive me such trespass..??
       How’s that ‘hopeful thing’ worked out for you in life? A ‘glass half-full man’ are ya?
       Oh yes yes, you are just asking innocent questions here aren’t you son? No innuendos implied at all I am sure.
       By the way Tom, I am not “the blog”. The blog is maintained and managed by Craig McKee.
       If you ever have any insights on the substance of this topic, you be sure to let us know.
       ww

       1. @ hybridrogue1 – Thanks for the compliment ((((grin)))) -Yes, it’s true, I am quite *optimistic* , friendly and I have certainly had my share of loves during my life. Come to think of it , no one has ever referred to me in the way that you did in your last post by saying “””” How’s that ‘hopeful thing’ worked out for you in life? A ‘glass half-full man’ are ya?””””” . I suppose you are trying to insult me by suggesting that somehow I am unloved or inadequate. That’s ok, I am not easily offended, as I see no need to keep score or compare myself to others. Just merely pointing out that this blog ‘seems’ to be about searching for the truth about the events of 9-11. I haven’t seen any real postings from anyone here that prove that Dr. Wood’s book is inaccurate. I have also been reading on her website as well which is outstanding I might add and full of very insightful information ! That being said, it encourages me to buy more than one copy of her book. Thank you.

       2. Tom says:
          “I suppose you are trying to insult me by suggesting that somehow I am unloved or inadequate.”
          Certainly not Tom, if I ever “try” to insult you, you will be left with no doubt that you have been insulted.
          However, I did suggest that you begin posting on the substance of Wood’s work, which you should already have some knowledge to go on as you have visited her excellent site.
          But you choose rather to continue your snitpissing. Frankly there is enough of that here.
          No more fizz Tommy me boy, bring some meat to the table.
          ww

58. Hybrid,
    Thanks for your reply of 6/7 12:13pm. I think there is far more you and I agree on than disagree on. I will look for ways to develop a cooperative approach on points of agreement. I also see no reason why points of disagreement will not be principled ones.

    1. Jammonius,
       “I think there is far more you and I agree on than disagree on.”
       My intuition is telling me the same.
       I suppose you figured out that, Mr. Walter Thomas Cummings is often known by his initials, WTC.
       And the analogy of all of the material in that file cabinet covering only a few inches high throughout his office had to do with the debris pile…and I figger these here things cuz the Sphinx didn’t eatcha {grin}
       \\||//

    2. Jammin’,
       How much do you know about the technology of digital special effects? Either digital animation, or still image manipulation?
       I see you having these exchanges with Onebornfree, and conversing with him as though he knows what he is talking about. Which gives me the impression that you know little about the technology as well.
       Have you ever used Photoshop? Have you ever used a pro, up to date full blown version of Photoshop? Have you ever used a CAD program? A digital animation program? If not have you read any of the information on how these software aps work?
       Also, do you realize how wildly off topic this issue is for this thread?
       ww

59. @ Craig McKee:
    Craig, here is a problem that I have seen raised elsewhere concerning Prof. Wood’s research conclusions to date [i.e. that some type of energy weapon was used to demolish the WTC complex], and that has never been answered by her supporters to date as far as I am aware [but maybe I missed it, I’m no longer a Prof. Wood supporter], and which has, as far as I can see , not been brought up for discussion/rebuttal in this thread either to date .
    First, 3 initial assumptions:
    1] That 9/11 was an “inside job”, that is, a “psyop” specifically instigated by the US government and various associates in order to create an excuse to go to war etc. etc.
    2] As a major “psyop”, it was necessary to induce maximum “shock and awe” on the general population [“boobus americanus”] in order to sell/justify/start any war and all war associated government actions [e.g. the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act etc.] as quickly and easily as possible.
    3] As a part of that necessary maximum “shock and awe” psychological effect [probably the major part] , it was critical to bring the twin towers down in an unbelievable, super fast time, and, as most here already know, according to the “testimony” of the alleged “live” network videos [if believed 🙂 ], both towers collapsed in under 20 secs. flat, top to bottom.
    [I am going to assume that the average Prof. Wood “believer”, and maybe even Ms Wood herself, as well Morgan Reynolds, hold those same three assumptions, or close to them. If not, it is unlikely they will agree with the following “reasoning” on my part ] :
    As I see it, employing those 3 assumptions [all of which I believe to be perfectly reasonable, by the way], and given that the destruction of the twin towers was scheduled for what was, inevitably, prime-time TV, in front of an audience of millions of viewers [and this “prime-time” viewing would of course, have been deliberately planned for by the perps], there was absolutely no way that the imagined energy weapon could be allowed to fail when the time came for it to “do its stuff”.
    The alleged technology would_have_ to have been guaranteed to perform to absolute perfection in order for it to destroy the towers in the time frame needed[under 20 secs.] to induce maximum “shock and awe” in the general population [the millions of viewers watching “live”]. Yes?
    Which means that the weapon would need to have been rigorously and repeatedly tested over a number of months/years before- hand, on structures of similar [or greater] size and materials composition.
    I would ask the Prof. Judy Wood supporters here: where are [or where were] those similar structures? Where was this weapon so rigorously tested to the point that it could be relied on to perform flawlessly on 911?
    For myself [as a former Prof. Wood advocate] , and given those three assumptions listed, I cannot see the logic in the claim of an energy weapon of some type being used, given that there is no proof that such a weapon exists, let alone the fact that it would have to have been rigorously, repeatedly pre-tested on similar structures before ever being trusted to perform without failure, “live” on the 911 center stage.
    To me it would appear to be a whole lot easier, and far less complicated, [and virtually failure proof] to simply run, on all of the national networks, various pre-fabricated computer simulations of the under 20 sec. tower collapses, and virtually guarantee the inducement of maximum “shock and awe” in the general population, rather than run the risk of a major technological foul-up with some sort of energy weapon employed in in real time, in front of a worldwide audience to boot. And indeed, close examination of the various network and related tower collapse images/sequences shows them all to be fakes , at least as far as I am concerned : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=ef069e025a4f470fe0d712ef9e1e5286
    The above considerations are the main reasons I abandoned Prof. Woods research and theories , back in late 2007, early 2008, if I recall correctly.
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Onebornfree,
       I also have no problem your three assumptions.
       I think we have to be careful with the “wouldn’t it be less complicated to…” argument. The same argument is used to refute the idea of a flyover at the Pentagon.
       “Why create an illusion when you can fly a real plane into the building?” The problem with a real plane, of course, is that then you have to have physical evidence match up with the story. You can’t have an empty plane, after all. You need real bodies, etc.
       I think it’s absolutely true that nothing could be left to chance with this operation. It had to work all the way whether it was done with energy weapons, conventional explosives or whatever. But is there any way to bring down a 110-story building without any doubt about the success of the operation.
       Since we know so little about what could be done with an energy weapon, it’s impossible to know whether it would be more complicated than faking the video of the event. This would involve enormous logistical complications. What if the building didn’t come all the way down in real life but did in the video?
       I think it’s all incredibly complicated and everything had to go perfectly to make it work. I don’t buy statements by people like Kevin Ryan that simpler explanations are better ones. Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply when deliberate deception is involved.

       1. hybridrogue1 states: Perhaps you could address the specifics of number 3 in some more detail:
          3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)
          When we are asked if over 50% of the towers are turned to dust, does this mean that this includes the metal as well?
          Mr Naus says,
          You can read my thoughts, but just in case there is a lot of dust in the atmosphere that is interfering with your thought waves I will refer you to chapters 8, 9 and 14 in Where Did The Towers Go? Since you mentioned the word “metal” I enjoy answering a question with a question. What happened to all those file cabinets that held all that paper we see spread out over Lower Manhattan that tragic day?

          1. The file cabinets were on the upper floors on the north side of WTC-1. There was a snowfall of paper through the hole in the building. The file cabinets were later turned to dust like everything else in the building.

       2. Mr. Naus says:
          “I enjoy answering a question with a question.”
          Which is a nausiating way of avoiding answering questions, by bobbing and weaving and dancing the looney hoochiecoo.
          ww

       3. @hybridrogue1
          hybridrogue1 posted:
          Mr. Naus says:
          “I enjoy answering a question with a question.”
          Which is a nausiating way of avoiding answering questions, by bobbing and weaving and dancing the looney hoochiecoo.
          ww
          Mr. Naus says,
          It’s funny you should critque my answering questions when way back on June 3rd, 8:05 pm, when this blog started, I asked you this simple question and all you had to do was answer yes or no. Did you read Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did The Towers Go?”
          I also reminded you in a reply on June 4th, 1:02 pm that you didn’t answer such a simple question as this. I’m still waiting to hear that answer and now its June 8th.

       4. Mr. Naus complains:
          “It’s funny you should critque my answering questions when way back on June 3rd, 8:05 pm, when this blog started, I asked you this simple question and all you had to do was answer yes or no. Did you read Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did The Towers Go?”
          Your question is not an issue of substance Naus. Do you not comprehend the difference in substance as per the issues of the event verses the issue of whether I have the book or not?
          If you really think that your having the book trumps reasonable argument here. you are far from capable of standing on this turf. We will discuss the issues of the event, or you will receive further ridicule for avoiding those issues.
          I am quite bored with your trifling Mr. Naus. If the book is so splendid, and you have read and comprehended it, use that knowledge to make an argument of substance, don’t just use it as a crutch while you bitch and moan.
          ww

    2. Onebornefree,
       You have claimed that the photos of the aftermath are faked as well. Take a look at these photos and tell me which ones, in your expert opinion, are faked.
       All of them?
       Most of them?
       Maybe a couple.
       None of them?
       http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
       Thanks,
       ww

    3. @onebornfree
       Dr. Wood addresses evidence, not beliefs. Dr. Wood does not entertain speculation.
       It doesn’t exist because you don’t believe it exists. Hmmm… strange
       logic. Instead of using speculation and hypotheses to discount empirical evidence, perhaps you should retake the pop quiz.
       1.
       Were the towers once there? (yes or no)
       2.
       Are the towers still there? (yes or no)
       3.
       Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)
       4.
       a) If your answer to question #3 was “no,”
       •
       Please review the empirical evidence more carefully or find someone who can.
       b) If your answer to question #3 was “yes,”
       · Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)
       If your answer to question #4b was “yes,” we are in agreement.
       If your answer to question #4b was “no,” please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

       1. Mr. Naus,
          Perhaps you could address the specifics of number 3 in some more detail:
          3. Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)
          When we are asked if over 50% of the towers are turned to dust, does this mean that this includes the metal as well?
          Is this why the assertion that “the building was gone” – Like, totally disappeared?
          I mean, I have heard this from several on this page now; that there was essentially nothing left of the buildings in the debris. So I want to get this straight. Is this your position?
          Who else of the commentators here agree with this position?
          ww

          1. I agree that at least 98% of the Towers had turned to dust including the steel. Looking north to Manhattan from 5 miles away at 10:30AM, I could see a thick black cloud extending from NJ to Brooklyn about 4 miles wide. It was roughly 800 feet high. I knew the south Tower was already gone, and I was trying to see if the north Tower was still there. I couldn’t see it, but I wasn’t sure it wasn’t there because of the haze and smoke above the black cloud.

       2. Mr. Salt writes:

          I agree that at least 98% of the Towers had turned to dust including the steel.

          Setting yourself up for failure, I see. What are you trying to do? Get everything in your matron-saint’s book taken out of consideration because you are defending it so poorly?
          You obviously have no concept of what 98% is. Visual evidence proves this wrong, particularly with the steel.
          I am still championing nuclear-powered spire-based DEW that was directed to miss both the spire supporting it and the outer walls. The steel outer walls were not turned to dust, and their quantities alone disprove your 98% contention.
          Now if you want to talk concrete, drywall, and other content with residual water molecules trapped and contained therein, I’d be in agreement that such content was dustified to 90-something percent.
          Now if you want to talk inner-steel, like the supports going from the core to the outer walls that held the concrete floors, I am on the fence whether 90-something percent of that was dustified. Dr. Jenkins does calculations into the energy required to vaporize steel (which is about the same as dustification.) Whereas he purposely misframes it to be all of the steel in the structure, even taking a much small subset of the steel being the aforementioned inner-steel, (a) the energy would still be massive and (b) I’m not convinced that so much of it was missing from the debris.

       3. Robert E. Salt says:
          “I agree that at least 98% of the Towers had turned to dust including the steel…It was roughly 800 feet high. I knew the south Tower was already gone, and I was trying to see if the north Tower was still there. I couldn’t see it…”
          So you are assuming that since the towers can no longer be seen in the skyline that they have disappeared, “98%” of the buildings?
          That this is still your opinion despite the literally hundreds of thousands of tons of evidence that this is simply untrue, strikes me as blithering mad, to be honest.
          ww

          1. You seem to have no concept of the size of the 7 buildings that were selectively destroyed.

       4. nausmr says:
          “Dr. Wood addresses evidence, not beliefs. Dr. Wood does not entertain speculation.”
          WTF are you talking about Naus?
          EVERYTHING about Wood is speculation.
          I could come on the thread here and announce that I am not dealing in speculation, just presenting evidence. But that wouldn’t make it so would it Mr. Naus.
          Simply presenting cherry-picked evidence is a matter of speculation and a display of one’s assumptions.
          ww

       5. Naus says:
          “You seem to have no concept of the size of the 7 buildings that were selectively destroyed.”
          To the contrary Naus, I am well aware of the size and structure of the WTC buildings.
          You are the one who is denying the huge amount of metal debris in the aftermath. You do this because it puts the lie to the assertion “there was nothing there”. And if you still haven’t looked at the portfolio of the aftermath shots on the page I offered, you are doing so to remain blissfully ignorant of the facts.
          ww

       6. @hybridrogue1
          You are mistaken again hybridrogue1 when you say,
          Naus says:
          “You seem to have no concept of the size of the 7 buildings that were selectively destroyed.”
          To the contrary Naus, I am well aware of the size and structure of the WTC buildings.
          You are the one who is denying the huge amount of metal debris in the aftermath. You do this because it puts the lie to the assertion “there was nothing there”. And if you still haven’t looked at the portfolio of the aftermath shots on the page I offered, you are doing so to remain blissfully ignorant of the facts.
          Naus says:
          This was said by Robert E. Salt at 12:38 pm June 8th
          Please use more care in who you are quoting. Forgiven

       7. That’s correct Naus I attributed that to you rather than Salt.
          Pardon me.
          ww

60. Jammonius said: “If you choose to proclaim that Dr. Wood has not provided enough proof for you and then give examples, then perhaps we can discuss the examples you choose to illustrate and show why you think the proof is insufficient.”
    I cannot “prove” anything to you or for you, nor to anyone else.
    All I can do is present you with some information which if viewed by yourself, you will freely choose to consider, either with an open, inquisitive mind, or with a closed mind, or with some variant of the two extremes. I have no control over that, and wish for none. It is yours [or anyone else’s] choice to make.
    In my very first post to you I gave a link to a site that to this day closely examines all of the network and amateur 911 video and still imagery released to date. Within the scope of that one link given , there are contained numerous sub links .
    Here is just one of them , entitled “C.G.I. collapse Footage” : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=ef069e025a4f470fe0d712ef9e1e5286
    It is long, and contains some dubious examinations, in my opinion [nobody’s perfect]. However, it still manages to hit enough “home runs” over all to shift the burden of proof scale well into ” it’s all mostly fake, beyond a reasonable doubt” territory, in my estimation.
    But don’t go there expecting to be swayed overnight. It takes time to “chew over” and sift through all of the evidence presented; and also, the effect of a “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” type conclusion on yours [or anyone else’s] psyche can be an enormously upsetting, damaging emotional experience [take it from me!], to the extent that most will automatically, subconsciously shy away from reaching any such conclusion in order to shield/protect their psyche and what they “already know” , which for them, can never be seriously questioned [i.e. that the government and the media always tell the truth and wouldn’t dare fake video footage to start a war, etc. etc.]
    Regards onebornfree

    1. Onebornfree,
       When the rest of the forum is attempting to discuss and analyze the visual evidence of these events, it is really rude for you to continue posting these long commentaries in the middle of the discussion disavowing the legitimacy of the evidence.
       Everyone here gets that you think it is all fake. So let it be. You don’t need to reiterate it.
       Enough.
       ww

       1. Was that reply to Onebornfree supposed to be a “joke” mr. rogue!!
          Cheers

       2. Tamborine man says:
          “Was that reply to Onebornfree supposed to be a “joke” mr. rogue!!”
          Yea Tamborine, a “joke” – like the both of you who don’t even understand that “Photoshop” isn’t used in video animation.
          ww

    2. Hi onebornfree,
       i gather that you and ‘cluesforum’ maintain that instead of what we see in the various videos and in the photo on top of this thread, the towers were brought down by something like ‘conventional demolition’!
       If that’s the case, how do you personally account for the huge amount of dust we in the video below see spreading over a very large area?
       Wouldn’t it be more logical and prudent to go for the enormous ‘pyroclastic’ clouds we’re so familiar with – as the true reasons for the amount of dust?
       http://youtu.be/vUQjphJLuck
       I’m with you though, that quite a lot of photoshopping has taken place – for whatever reasons!
       Cheers

       1. Thank you for posting this video ! Wow, that is an enormous amout of dust and paper ! It brings to mind a question. Why is the paper not burned ?

    3. Bornfree
       I appreciate your post of June 7, 7:20PM.
       I have also begun the process of examining the “C.G.I. collapse Footage” link you provided.
       At first glance, the overlap and point of agreement between us on CGI is that I have long maintained that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 (including, but not limited to Vigilant Guardian), that had as their objective that of simulating the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings are a means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.
       Not only that, but by framing the events as “an exercise” a large number of trained military personnel could have been unwittingly duped into carrying out the destruction all the while thinking they were just doing their part in an exercise and that pushing this or that button or inserting these radar blips into the ATC system and/or launching the “little” pulses from that secret DEW thingy was all set up so as to be just another “live fire” but nonetheless safe exercise.
       Such exercises are carried out on the basis of compartmented information. Each participant only knows that which s/he needs to know to perform their assigned tasks. In other words, nobody knows nothing in so far as what is ultimately to take place; except the handful of people having the very highest security clearances.
       A valuable hint about the extent of compartmented information use with respect to the simulated hijacking and crashing is found in Lynn Spencer’s book, “Touching History.” At pg. 38 of that book she points out that the commander of the simulation exercise, Gen. Larry Arnold was not privy to all that was to take place. Small wonder. While he may have been a general, he was not nearly high ranking enough to be trusted with the full details of what was to really take place on 9/11. And, it goes without saying that if the commanding general of the exercises didn’t know what the heck was going down, then neither did anyone beneath him in the chain of command.
       As to the extent of CGI used and the purposes for which it was used, you and I may differ. I will, however, continue to explore the link you provided.
       Regards

61. > “70 stories of steel does indeed turn to dust – as viewed from several different angles and in still images.” ~Andrew Johnson
    There are three core assumptions that lie at the base of Wood’s Hypothesis of the use of DEW to bring down the WTC towers:
    1) lack of significant seismic signature
    2) lack of appropriate sound
    3) Lack of building {which presumably proves the assertion topping this post}
    I addressed these assumptions in a post above at > June 3, 2012 at 9:37 am
    There has been no rebuttal to what I said in my comments.
    [Mr. Salt has made several remarks as per number 3, but I have to discount those as being lucid in any way.]
    I offer Exhibit A.:
    http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/ WTC Aftermath,
    A portfolio of very clear photo’s of the WTC complex taken some ten days after the event. So a good amount of the material has been cleared and hauled off already by that time. “Clean-up” is underway.
    This is prima facea evidence that assumption number 3 is utterly false.
    The first two assumptions are addressed in quick sketch outline in my June 3rd post.
    I would ask Señor in particular, and anyone else to respond in some way to my commentary.
    ww

62. Now, as far as getting into a discussion of the seismic topic, I think it would be beneficial to review the physics of the event beginning with the plane crashes, and take into account the details of the structure of the towers. This will have precursor bearing on the rest of the events.
    First take into account the initial event, and what is known about that, with the reactions of the buildings. From that point there is some 50 minutes plus until the buildings blew up. But there were events going on during this time of close to an hour averaged. How can these events be described and what is the evidence used in such a description, are the pertinent questions for this time period.
    Of course the next stage is analysis of the destruction events themselves. What is the best evidence of how this occurred? What is shown in the visual evidence? And just why is it that these interpretations are in controversy, is a major question to be resolved.
    Finally there is the analysis of the aftermath.
    ww

63. SIMPLE ABSTRACT OF WTC PLANE IMPACTS
    [Per Tower]>
    > These 2 objects are in the state of destiny, the plane and the tower. Of the two, one is at rest {tower} in a state of inertia within the frame of the planet Earth.
    > The second object {plane} is in a state of momentum in that same frame.
    > A state of Momentum has three components:
    Mass – Velocity – Specific Direction.
    > A state of Inertia has only one component of Momentum – Mass.
    Destiny is fulfilled at the Moment and Point of Impact:
    At this moment and point the momentum of the 2nd object [plane] is converted into kinetic energy, and this action is met by the reaction described by the formula of Inertia in interaction with the formula of kinetics.
    This action–reaction takes place in an elongated moment and space, of from 15 to 30 seconds in which the vast majority of the energy is consumed.
    The residual energy is translated into omnidirectional velocities within the 1st frame, that of the building in the form of oscillation.
    These physics are the same as that of a tuning fork, wherein the one prong of the fork is struck creating a high octave strike, experience as a shutter initially in the direction of the strike, but in seeking equilibrium oscillates back and forth eventually reaching an omnidirectional vibration in every direction, sideways, and up and down. This energy is gradually dissipated in a graphic arc downward as the octave lowers to bass and finally zero. At this point inertia is again reached.
    For the building this inertia remains until the secondary event of the explosive demolition.
    _________________________
    Now, within this frame, it is assumed that the plane impact and bombs in the basements were coincidental to about a 17 sec differential and that it is the bombs that created the seismic spikes. This is for the same reason as the physics of the impact of the plane – in that the coupling with the ground is only going to receive a dispersed and dissipated vibration wave. There would be no “impact” effect at the ground level from the plane impact.
    This summation now leads into the period between the impacts and the onset of the global destruction of the tower.
    ***Discussion invited***
    .
    ww

64. Craig McKee says:
    “I think we have to be careful with the “wouldn’t it be less complicated to…” argument. The same argument is used to refute the idea of a flyover at the Pentagon.”
    Craig, I agree, but I thought the same “less complicated” argument, when applied at the Pentagon, revolved specifically around the question of whether or not a plane definitely hit there , not around whether or not planes flew over the area ?
    Given the number of now known [ then secret], large scale military operations running that day that involved planes being in the air, having a plane, or planes fly by the Pentagon would not seem to have much of a logistical problem either way, surely?
    Craig McKee says: ” The problem with a real plane, of course, is that then you have to have physical evidence match up with the story. You can’t have an empty plane, after all. You need real bodies, etc.”
    Yes, exactly. And the exact same argument you make there [and that I have attempted to apply with regard to the idea of running simulated collapse footage], can also be made with regard to the alleged NYC plane crashes.
    As at the Pentagon, why risk flying real planes into buildings [which would have been a huge real time logistical problem- what if they missed the towers, or hit and did not penetrate? ], when you can show one, extremely vague, guaranteed not to fail, very short [less than 2 seconds, I believe], pre-recorded video sequence of a plane image striking and fully penetrating a building “live”[i.e. the Fox 5 footage] and then repeat it ad infinitum on CNN and elsewhere throughout the day to further condition the population, and then later on run other, different pre-recorded [and equally preposterous 🙂 ] simulations [eg the Naudet, Fairbanks and Herzekhani footage] to reinforce the initial suggestion, and then back it all up with fake, “live eye-witness” testimony used planted actors as “eyewitnesses? http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=372&sid=ef069e025a4f470fe0d712ef9e1e5286 .
    As at the Pentagon, planes may well have been in the NYC vicinity that day, who knows?
    The problems multiply exponentially if real planes were used to crash into buildings, or again, as you said: ” The problem with a real plane, of course, is that then you have to have physical evidence match up with the story. ”
    [See also “Why They Didn’t Use Planes” by Gerard Holmgren, here:http://www.911closeup.com/ ]
    As far as demolition technology goes, we don’t even know whether or not such a weapon as Prof. Wood theorizes even exists.
    And as I asked previously, where and when was it tested to make sure it would work perfectly come 9/11 ? On what would it have been tested?
    Craig McKee says: “What if the building didn’t come all the way down in real life but did in the video?”
    Good question, but as large -scale military operation [which it obviously was] , after the first alleged plane strike [WTC1], surely there would be no [or much less!] problem with obscuring the entire area with military smoke obscurants [ i.e standard military protocol], and then using conventional, pre-planted explosives [the towers may have even been rigged for subsequent, planned demolition years earlier], to bring down the towers in a controlled demolition over a real-time period of say, 30 minutes to an hour?
    regards , onebornfree.

65. nausmr says: “If your answer to question #3 was “no,” Please review the empirical evidence more carefully or find someone who can.”
    Nausmr, thank you for your questions . Here are some for you:
    Who do you have in mind, or would recommend, to entrust with reviewing that “empirical evidence” Nausmr, seeing as my answer to # 3 is a “no” ?
    Are you suggesting I’m not allowed to review it for myself and be responsible for the conclusions I reach, or that perhaps I’m not capable of so doing because my conclusions are different from your own?
    Please point me to the “empirical evidence” that has to date lead you to conclude that ” over 50% of the towers turn to dust.”
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. @onebornfree
       If you can’t figure out what empirical evidence I point to which concludes that over 50% of the towers turn to dust I seriously have to wonder if you have short term memory loss from my previous posts. I’m sure my previous posts give evidence to all the readers of this blog whose empirical evidence I support. The questions were created by Andrew Johnson from an earlier link he gave so why don’t you go back and read this article. Your other questions can be addressed with this statement. “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”.

66. Tamborineman says: “i gather that you and ‘cluesforum’ maintain that instead of what we see in the various videos and in the photo on top of this thread, the towers were brought down by something like ‘conventional demolition’!If that’s the case, how do you personally account for the huge amount of dust we in the video below see spreading over a very large area? Wouldn’t it be more logical and prudent to go for the enormous ‘pyroclastic’ clouds we’re so familiar with – as the true reasons for the amount of dust?”
    Well as Ayn Rand used to say “check your premises” [or something like that] . And no, I’m not an objectivist. [used to be, a long time ago.]
    Your assumption [i.e. premise] at this time appears to be that the video you included is genuine, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, yes?
    You ,and only you , [ assuming you were even interested], would have to openly but closely check that very important initial assumption from which you are subsequently drawing your logical conclusions, and then examine why you still hold on to it to draw your conclusions to date.
    If I held the same initial assumption, I would have to agree with your logical conclusion [i.e. the video and others similar, shows massive amounts of dust and “pyroclastic clouds”] , and in fact back in 2006-8, I _did_ agree with that very same assumption.
    All I can offer with regard to possibly helping you closely question/play a little with that initial assumption would be to ask you this:
    have you already been made aware of instances of large scale video and/or photographic fakery from what are usually assumed to be reliable sources such as network TV?
    If so, why would you continue to believe that the alleged post collapse footage you posted was genuine imagery ? [ True confession- I already know the answer to that – you previously told me that you now believed some MSNBC collapse footage was fake ; after that post by you I asked you a couple of follow up questions for your consideration, I am not sure if you saw that or not].
    Anyway, as I said, maybe question/play with your initial assumption here if you like [if not, fine], and maybe ask yourself questions such as: “what if that initial assumption were no longer irrefutable, what would that mean?”, or perhaps: “where is the “tipping point” for me personally -how much evidence of bold-faced video and photographic fakery from “official” sources do I need to see before I am convinced that most, if not all, is fake and untrustworthy, “beyond a reasonable doubt” ?
    Have fun, regards, onebornfree.

    1. Onebornfree,
       Could you please stay on the topic? I know there is overlap because the authenticity of visual evidence is an important question when considering Judy Wood’s research, but this is not a thread on video fakery. The amount of debris, which you also address, is directly relevant.

       1. Craig McKee says: “Onebornfree,Could you please stay on the topic? I know there is overlap because the authenticity of visual evidence is an important question when considering Judy Wood’s research, but this is not a thread on video fakery. The amount of debris, which you also address, is directly relevant.”
          I’m sorry if you think I’m off topic and its hard to draw a line, but I will try. If you have the last post to Tamborineman in mind, bear in mind that I am merely attempting to fully answer questions he specifically asked [as with any other posters I have taken the time to reply to].
          Craig McKee says: “the authenticity of visual evidence is an important question when considering Judy Wood’s research,” .
          Yes, and if you review my very first post in this thread, you will see that my initial criticism of Prof. Wood’s conclusions to date was that as a supposedly trained scientist, she has never made a serious attempt to authenticate the imagery she has used to draw her conclusions from .[ this was the main substance of my exchanges with “Jammonius” , as well.]
          Debris or Not Debris? – That Is the Question:
          Unfortunately [or fortunately depending on how you choose to look at it 🙂 ] , most of the supposed “scientific” [or non-scientific] conclusions reached to date about 9/11 rest all too heavily on the unquestioned assumption that all of the network and related official imagery is actually genuine , including, of course all discussions of photos/videos of purported post collapse debris in this thread.
          As an individual who has reached an entirely different conclusion, I feel that is necessary for me to point out that initial unquestioned assumption [of genuineness] every time I see it made, by a poster within this forum who accepts/advertises a particular researchers conclusions. It is inevitable.
          If I am not allowed to freely question that assumption here, any and every time it is made, in whatever thread that assumption occurs, by whichever poster, please let me know that up front, as soon as possible.
          Craig, if your request was at the prompting of another certain member here [who because of their unending rudeness, name-calling etc. etc. I refuse to have anything to do with and always ignore], then my estimation of you goes down. [as if you care, right?]
          The main person I have in mind does almost nothing here but badger posters, ridicule them day in and day out, over the course of many, many posts, and then “make nice ” with you any time you censure them. I would suggest that their continued presence in this forum does far more damage to your market for readership than do my own posts. [But then again, hell, what do I know? – maybe this person has an agreement with you to hound posters day in and day out in a deliberate attempt to _increase_ readership? ]
          Either way, that you would honor their complaint/request for any reason whatsoever is beyond my comprehension- if indeed that is what you have done. But maybe that is not what’s going on here, I don’t know for certain.
          regards, onebornfree.[apologies for the way off topic response 🙂 ]

          1. I may be aware of that sentiment from one or two others, but I didn’t respond to prompting. My comment is just a friendly reminder not to stray too far off Judy Wood. I know many things can be linked to what she says, and I don’t want to restrict anyone unduly, but I know how easily a thread can break down into bitching. And I realize it looks like I just jumped on the 10:14 a.m. post by Hybridrogue to Jammonius, but I hadn’t seen that when I posted mine.
             You’re right that it’s hard to draw the line. As long as we make a sincere effort to relate anything to the topic in some way then I have no problem.

    2. Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
       To Mr. McKee’s point about you staying on topic (Dr. Wood’s concepts) and to your point (or misinformation) about the amount of image manipulation, how about you and your mates at Clues Forum doing everyone inside and outside of the truth movement a big huge favor by, say, targeting specifically the imagery used by Dr. Wood to make her case.
       Take her analysis out of play legitimately: prove the tainting.
       And don’t be so hard on yourselves if you can’t prove the tainting in each and every image, because that will simply mean after your experts’ digital manipulation professional analysis that those images probably weren’t tainted and can be deemed the opposite: genuine.
       For all parties, it will be helpful to know the probable tainted from the probable untainted.
       Focussing on the images used by Dr. Wood is a much much smaller subset of the whole class of 9/11 imagery. Why from her textbook alone, she has over 500 images, but this number includes duplicates, maps, and other charts. For that matter, you could probably target initially these two pages:
       Page 5: Toasted Cars [~80 images]
       Page 5a: More Toasted Cars [~30 images]
       Or better yet, prove this one false:
       http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image151.jpg
       No, please prove these two false, because otherwise if not false, I’m going to use it against Mr. Salt by claiming it has more that 2% of the WTC steel in the pile, albeit WTC-4 in the lower left has insufficient quantities of tower steel to merit getting its main edifice leveled like it was.
       http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image147.jpg
       http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image145.jpg
       Oh, oh, oh, oh! Here’s something that ought to be low-hanging fruit to prove tainted. Here are the images that she re-uses from some govt report
       http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtc-r09.jpg
       http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtc-r14.jpg
       Can they be trusted? If not, where’s the error?
       As you can see, this is pressing for the discussion here. Time is off the essence. Hop to it! Chop, chop!
       Have fun, regards, Sr. El Once

    3. Hi onebornfree,
       and hi Craig! Hope you’ll give me permission to answer obf’s questions, even though they might be a little outside the actual topic! After this, i’m sure we both will respect your earlier ‘admonition.
       Onebornfree says:

       Your assumption [i.e. premise] at this time appears to be that the video you included is genuine, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, yes?
       You ,and only you , [ assuming you were even interested], would have to openly but closely check that very important initial assumption from which you are subsequently drawing your logical conclusions, and then examine why you still hold on to it to draw your conclusions to date.
       If I held the same initial assumption, I would have to agree with your logical conclusion [i.e. the video and others similar, shows massive amounts of dust and “pyroclastic clouds”] , and in fact back in 2006-8, I _did_ agree with that very same assumption.

       I’m not really a “premise, assumption and conclusion” kind of person, as i prefer to “hover” above these very physical and earthly terms, which time and again have been proven to be ‘utterly worthless’, especially about things that truly matters.
       But yes, i do think that the ‘collapse’ of the towers we’re seeing in the many video clips, is a true
       representation of what actually took place on that day.
       Have of course been contemplating a lot about the ‘alternative’ you are promoting, but in the end i think the indescribable amount of work that had to be involved in achieving the ‘hoax’ rules this out, because there was so much easier ways (as often mentioned) to achieve their goals.

       have you already been made aware of instances of large scale video and/or photographic fakery from what are usually assumed to be reliable sources such as network TV?
       If so, why would you continue to believe that the alleged post collapse footage you posted was genuine imagery ? [ True confession- I already know the answer to that – you previously told me that you now believed some MSNBC collapse footage was fake ; after that post by you I asked you a couple of follow up questions for your consideration, I am not sure if you saw that or not].

       The last first: yes i did read that post, but as you told me i didn’t have to answer then, i chose (out of admitted laziness) to wait for a later opportunity!
       Besides the MSNBC mast collapse footage, i trust you’re familiar with the video clip of all the people hanging out of windows, in window frames that appeared to be only of half height at most!
       This video clip i showed over at P4T in a thread debating the same thing.
       Onesliceshort was the only one who questioned this footage, otherwise it was met with overall silence.
       So yes, i do believe that CGI and, as i told you, photo-shopping was used here and there, but only for specific purposes. F.ex. the CGI video with the people hanging out of the windows, i think was faked and used in connection with the claims of ‘3000’ victims, together with the stories of multiple “jumpers”!
       As you can see, i’m probable with you on quite many things, but on the main question on the collapse of the towers themselves, i will keep on sticking to ‘what we see’ is actually what we would have seen in real life – until one day i’m presented with much better proof to the contrary!
       Cheers

67. I see that many of the posters here are in agreement with Wittgenstein – which is very disappointing to those of us who hoped to have a well reasoned, well seasoned rational discussion here.
    This obviously isn’t happening, and it appears that it isn’t going to happen.
    “Belief in the causal nexus is superstition.” ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
    ww

68. Ola, Senor
    ?Como estas?
    This is a reply to your post that can be found as follows:
    Señor El Once says:
    June 8, 2012 at 8:47 am
    In it, you provide some treatment of the Toasted Car issue. To your credit, you reference figures and pages actually found in the book, “Where Did the Towers Go?” That is good. To your discredit, you make a claim, in caps no less, of MAJOR ERROR where no such error is to be found. In fact, the answers are right in front of you, in the book; but, you overlooked them, for some strange reason.
    Ch. 11, ‘Toasted Cars’, like other chapters in WDTTG? is comprehensive. True, it includes pg. 238, that you referenced, but, it begins at pg. 213 and does not end until pg 246 (inclusive of footnotes). By way of confounding (for the towed car supposition) variable, at pg 218 there is to be found the account of verifiable witness EMT Alan Cooke. He is quoted in that segment of Ch. 11 as locating the source of a fireball precisely at the location of FDR drive. This does not, of course, absolutely refute the rather oft repeated claim that the cars on FDR drive were towed there; a claim that, itself, is not self-actualizing, let alone something to be taken for granted as proven, without any proof. If anything, the claim of towing is counterintuitive because towing cars to FDR drive should not be assumed to be a high priority given other immediate issues occurring on 9/11.
    True, there is much more that could be said about whether the cars were towed or not; that is an argument that probably has no end.
    Returning to EMT Cooke, here is what he said:
    “…one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as the South Street Seaport, because what happened at that time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there.”
    I know I do not need to detail why that statement is consistent with cars blowing up on the FDR drive, for which the toasted cars are but the visual confirmation of what EMT Cooke describes as occurring in that area.
    This one example of what else is in Ch. 11 is just that: An example of what else is in it.
    Senor, your claim of error, major or otherwise, is not well grounded. I do hope you will reconsider relying on it.

    1. Returning to EMT Cooke, here is what he said:

       … one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as the South Street Seaport, because what happened at that time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there… I thought what happened was that there was an explosion at the World Trade Center. Then I thought there was another one at the Seapport.

       He didn’t see anything; he assumes and he makes the analogy “it seemed like an explosion was coming from there”. This is quite different from actually seeing it and there actually being an explosion. Go read it in full context (on page 5):
       Also, when reading his testimony linked above, the Seaport explosion happened before WTC-1 came down (the 2nd tower to fall). Not sure the timing of the seeming Seaport explosion with respect to WTC-2 demolition.
       This isn’t to say that explosions might not have happened at the Seaport. Determing whether or not an actual explosion happened at the Seaport is one thing. Determining the cause of such an explosion or that the source was a beam from the towers, that is an entirely different matter.
       Just from some basic googling, I came across these entries which leads me to the conclusion that EMT Alan Cooke was indeed using hyperbole and not exact language we he spoke of what seemed like an explosion was coming from the South Street Seaport.
       As such, the MAJOR ERRORS in Dr. Wood’s book regarding the damage vehicles and her insinuation as to what caused them, when, and specifically where they were when they were damaged STANDS.
       ++++++
       http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-27/titanic-100-year-anniversary/53792376/1

       Many of the 9/11 refugees wound up at the South Street Seaport, where a small lighthouse, covered with a film of gray ash, stood witness to the catastrophe.

       http://storiesconnectloveheals.com/2011/09/13/reflections-on-911-engine-company-14-and-divine-providence/

       Engine 14’s story: I got a call saying that there was a fire uptown and we were sent away from the Towers. I drove up to Sixteenth Street but there was no fire. It was a false alarm. We turned around and headed back to the towers. By now the second plane had hit. When we reached the Towers I received another call. There was a report of an explosion over near the South Street Seaport. It was chaos. The streets filled with people running around. I drove the rig over to the Seaport. We searched around for a while and couldn’t find anything. Then we heard it. The buildings began coming down. All the men were safe. No one was lost.

       http://elitewatch.911review.org/7WTC.html

       The fire and subsequent collapse of 7 World Trade Center has permanently damaged two substations located adjacent to the building as well as major electric transmission cables. A third substation located near the South Street Seaport also lost service. Approximately 12,000 customers are currently without electric power.

       1. Señor
          If it makes you happy to self-proclaim a major error, then so be it. Publish your claim far and wide and link it in tandem with “the Greg Jenkins video.
          You argue interpretation oh EMT Cooke’s statement and obviously ignore the possibility your interpretation is at odds with the visual evidence; namy the toasted. Ars are on FDR drive AND at a number of other perimeter locations on both the lower West side as well as East side of manhattan.
          While going to great length to proclaim correctness of your interpretation of Cooke’s statment, you ignore the requirement that you’d have to do the same with other witness accounts also mentioned in Ch 11.
          For instance, are you going to monopolize correctness of interpretation of Patricia Ondrovic’s statement too?
          Tell you what, since I went first in offering the meaning of Cooke’s statement, why don’t you offer your interpretation of that part of Ondrovic’s statement referring to card blowing up around her.
          Will you claim they were towed, too?
          Then, when you interpret, I’ll debunk.
          Fair enough?

       2. Dear Señor Jammonius,
          Mellow-out. You may not realize that I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood’s on Truth & Shadows, albeit with many left- and back-handed techniques. I really want to believe and trust everything she writes as the gospel. (It’ll be damn great to have my beliefs vindicated.) But what I really want is different from what is really true.
          Because my goal is discovering truth and that is really really really what I want, I also have no problems in letting evidence and properly applied science & analysis convince me of something else, like what I previously believed is wrong.
          FTR, I am still on board with, say, some beam energy or electromagnetic fields slipping out through window slits and zapping cars like the one blowing up around Patricia Ondrovic, those in the line-of-sight catticorner parking lot, and a whole string of cars along West Broadway next to WTC-7. Those were closer and line of sight. They make sense.
          The FDR bridge is a step too far. Energy would dissipate rapidly by something like the inverse of the distance squared. I’m not even sure those vehicles at the bridge, even if some were parked there throughout and damaged where they stood, were line of sight. Assuming they were and assuming some errant energy zapped them there, the ramifications for how such energy levels would affect things closer in is huge. More line of sight damage (assuming it was able to slip out through window slits and gaps in falling debris) would be evident within that 1/2 mile radius.
          The MAJOR ERROR is that police car 2327 was NOT there when it was torched — and I discovered somewhere pictures that prove this –, yet this very vehicle is held up by Dr. Wood as if it were torched at the bridge — 1/2 mile from the towers. The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of anything decimating the towers. She has other niggly errors that should have been corrected from her website before inserted into her book.
          Sorry, Señor Jammonius. You’re just going to have to deal with the fact that although Dr. Wood has lots of nuggets of truth that I am more than happy to mine, refine, re-purpose, and put on display, she also has misinformation and possibly disinformation (that I am more than open to have others help me find.) We owe it to ourselves (and the truth) to trim that bad fat in an objective fashion. We cannot and should not be promoting anything 9/11 in a religious with-us/against-us black/white all/nothing fashion. Shades of gray, cherry-pick the nuggets of truth, acknowledge the bad, move on.
          In summary: Patricia Ondrovic and the car park equal good examples of something strange like an errant beam. FDR bridge equals a bad example of the same.

       3. jammonius says:
          “Tell you what, since I went first in offering the meaning of Cooke’s statement, why don’t you offer your interpretation of that part of Ondrovic’s statement referring to card blowing up around her.
          Will you claim they were towed, too?”
          _ _ _ _ _
          But Ondrovic was in the area of number 7 when she started her sprint, those cars were nowhere the distance of the ones that were later towed.
          Try to maintain both the time frames and spacial frames in mind at once, or you will end up playing apples for oranges.
          ww

       4. @El Once says:
          The MAJOR ERROR is that police car 2327 was NOT there when it was torched — and I discovered somewhere pictures that prove this –, yet this very vehicle is held up by Dr. Wood as if it were torched at the bridge — 1/2 mile from the towers. The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of anything decimating the towers. She has other niggly errors that should have been corrected from her website before inserted into her book.
          “…yet this very vehicle is held up by Dr. Wood as if it were torched at the bridge — 1/2 mile from the towers.”
          Mr. Naus says,
          Please cite in Dr. Wood’s book where she states this vehicle was “torched” at the bridge. I have not found such a statement. I have found that she does NOT state one way or the other where vehicles were toasted except where she has images of them while they are toasting. It appears you are imagining errors and then accusing Dr. Wood of the errors that you actually made. I believe that is called a strawman, in the most innocent interpretations. That would be like my saying that El Once claims that none of the photos were taken in the same location where cars were toasted. As soon as I show proof of cars being untoasted, then appear “on fire”, and then toasted, all in the same place, then I can declare El Once as making MAJOR ERRORS in his analysis. But that doesn’t mean it is honest. The same is true for El Once’s false claim that Dr. Wood’s book refers to “free-energy [beams] from space,” which it does not. For whatever reason, El Once is obsessed with declaring Dr. Wood to have “MAJOR ERRORS” even if he has to be dishonest to do so.

       5. Dear Señor Naus, you demanded:

          Please cite in Dr. Wood’s book where she states this vehicle was “torched” at the bridge.

          Page 216 Figure 216: Map of lower Manhatttan shoes the WTC and FDR Drive a half mile or more apart. It shows “poof balls” to mark where torched cars are. Aside from the car park and around the WTC complex, she marks several at the South Street Seaport and FDR Drive.
          Page 217 of WDTTG by Dr. Judy Wood:

          When the debate over taasted cars arose, some argued that the wrecked vehicles under the FDR Drive had been damaged at the WTC and were then loaded up and transported to the FDR Drive for storage. But there are problems with this theory. First, there is noevidence that the moving of vehicles was done. Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks and transported them only to dump them by a busy thoroughfare for “storage.” These wrecks would then have had to be picked up yet again and transported once more. If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to the FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR Drive as well, if it was such a good storage area. Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient. Further, if reported, such tampering with evidence would have been declared felonious. Marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could later be removed.

          Dr. Wood goes on to bring in testimony of EMT Cook who used the hyberpole of an explosion to explain confusion on the street near South Street Seaport.
          The above passage does not state the vehicles were damaged at the bridge. But by casting doubt on whether the damaged vehicles were towed to the bridge, what argument is she making? That the vehicles were parked at the bridged and damaged in place.
          When I first read the above passage from Dr. Wood, I accepted it and the direction she was headed with it, e.g., somehow the DEW beams reached South Street Seaport and FDR Drive.
          However, when I was given opportunity later from other wild-goose chases and discovery research to stumble upon related images — such as the Police Car 2723 damaged in clearly another location –, I began to change my assessment of her statements. The research I did above into EMT Cook and the hypothesis of explosions at South Street Seaport modifies my assessment further. Specifically, to Dr. Wood’s statement:

          First, there is noevidence that the moving of vehicles was done.

          Photos of police car 2723 damaged and in another location proves this assertion wrong. If memory serves me, Dr. Jenkins provided other evidence of vehicles getting towed there.

          Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks and transported them only to dump them by a busy thoroughfare for “storage.” These wrecks would then have had to be picked up yet again and transported once more. If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to the FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR Drive as well, if it was such a good storage area.

          Quite the contrary, it makes a lot of sense. These damaged vehicles in their original locations may have been in the way for arriving equipment and operations. (Police Car 2723 appears to have been blocking an intersection, as police cars are known to do during emergency operations.)
          Also, you can make much more efficient use of towing resources. In a given short period of time, a single towing resource can tow more vehicles ~1/2 mile (to a temporary staging area under the FDR) than the number of vehicles it can tow >1/2 mile to a more permanent location.
          Dr. Wood’s wondering into why steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR is daft. She evidently ran out of arguments and needed to pad the paragraph.

          Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient.

          As already proven, it was very efficient in a short period of time to use limited towing resources first to clear away damaged vehicles obstructing streets from arriving equipment by using a staging area close by.

          Further, if reported, such tampering with evidence would have been declared felonious.

          Tampering with evidence was par for the course.

          Marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could later be removed.

          Marks on the road indicate to me that tow truck drivers dumped their loads haphazardly before returning to move other damaged cars from critical areas. A more efficient piece of equipment came by later to push the vehicle pile together and out of the way. Nothing fishy there.
          The question remains: were any vehicles parked under FDR or at South Street Seaport while they got damaged? Here’s the closest thing I come across.
          http://elitewatch.911review.org/7WTC.html

          The fire and subsequent collapse of 7 World Trade Center has permanently damaged two substations located adjacent to the building as well as major electric transmission cables. A third substation located near the South Street Seaport also lost service. Approximately 12,000 customers are currently without electric power.

          This leads to the following remembrance:
          http://storiesconnectloveheals.com/2011/09/13/reflections-on-911-engine-company-14-and-divine-providence/

          Engine 14’s story: I got a call saying that there was a fire uptown and we were sent away from the Towers. I drove up to Sixteenth Street but there was no fire. It was a false alarm. We turned around and headed back to the towers. By now the second plane had hit. When we reached the Towers I received another call. There was a report of an explosion over near the South Street Seaport. It was chaos. The streets filled with people running around. I drove the rig over to the Seaport. We searched around for a while and couldn’t find anything. Then we heard it. The buildings began coming down. All the men were safe. No one was lost.

          My speculation is that the explosion heard by the people to send them running into the street in chaos — chaos as reported by both EMT Cook and Engine 14 — may have been the loss of the South Street Substation.
          By the way, I would like to amend a statement I made earlier:

          The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of anything decimating the towers.

          My amendment is:

          The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of DEW beam hitting it as part of decimating the towers.

          Señor Naus goes on to write:

          It appears you are imagining errors and then accusing Dr. Wood of the errors that you actually made. I believe that is called a strawman, in the most innocent interpretations.

          The error has been proven to Dr. Wood’s and not my imagination.
          Señor Naus goes on to write:

          The same is true for El Once’s false claim that Dr. Wood’s book refers to “free-energy [beams] from space,” which it does not.

          I refer you to Chapter 10. Holes which begins on page 197. Dr. Wood writes:

          [Page 198] Buildings 5 and 6 had holes in them that were quite mysterious. Because of the verticality of these holes, they could not have been caused by conventional explosives. WTC6, an eight-story building, lost about half of its volume and yet there was remarkably little debris left at the bottom of the building.
          …
          In Figure 192, notice how straight the vertical holes are that cut down through WTC6. While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes.
          …
          [Page 204] Figure 199 and 200 both contain the same overhead view of WTC6. This photo shows not a single cut-out but a cluster of vertical cut-outs that coalesce together and form a scalloped border. No collapsed floors are visible at the bottom of the hole, and the heart of the building is gone. A bomb cannot do this. The debris inside the building is minimal and all at ground level, no deeper.
          …
          The vertical cut-outs in WTC6 approximate the shape of circles (viewed from above), each with a diameter of approximately 24 feet.
          [Page 211] What may we make of this? Neither controlled demolition nor thermite (much less burning airplane fuel in the towers) can explain both of these anamalous holes and the fact that there is no pancaked debris at the bottom of them.
          In short, something else must now be considered as the mechanism of destruction, something that, quite literally, bored holes down through the buildings, and something, also, that dustified the twin towers.

          In the conclusion to chapter 20. Tesla-Hurricane-Manetometer Correlation, Dr. Wood writes:

          [Page 451] In today’s culture of over simplification and standardization multiple-chice testing, many have an impulse to name a known technology (e.g., thermite, TNT, RDX, nukes, progressive collapse, HAARP, scalar weapons, torsion physics, Nazi Bell, etc.) instead of looking at the evidence tat the use of one technology or another has left behind.
          …
          Some people feel they are being more scientific when they use the name of a known technology to describe unknown phenomena, but the opposite is true. Such an approach omits evidence tat does not fit any known technology.

          Thus, touché and well played, Señor Naus.
          Crafty Dr. Wood probably never explicitly writes in her book: “free-energy [beams] from space.”
          However, what innuendo is she making when she talks about (1) the verticality of holes coupled with pulverized debris for WTC5 and WTC6, (2) Chapter 19. Earth’s Magnetic Field on 9/11, and (3) Chapter 20. Tesla-Hurricane-Manetometer Correlation?
          Señor Naus charges

          For whatever reason, El Once is obsessed with declaring Dr. Wood to have “MAJOR ERRORS” even if he has to be dishonest to do so.

          I have an obsession, Señor Naus. That is so true, so true.
          My obsession is with finding truth, even if they be tiny nuggets of truth. Part of this obsession leads me into works that others have labeled “crazy, nutty, loony” as well as “disinformation.”
          Granted, I may have used a bit too much hyberbole when I labeled blatant mistakes in Dr. Wood as “MAJOR ERRORS” or even “major errors.” The truth is that the errors themselves are rather minor, except that they have a major (or even MAJOR) impact in the innuendo that Dr. Wood drives at.
          However, I am not being dishonest in pointing out the errors.
          You tell me how ignoring, side-stepping, or downplaying the validity of the errors plays into honesty, yours in particular.
          If you really wanted to prove your devotion to Dr. Wood’s textbook, you should help in the discovery of such errors so that they can be contained, quarantined, and even excised in subsequent revisions to Dr. Wood’s legacy publication.

       6. @ El Once El Once does not disagree. He agrees that he made a mistake claiming Dr. Wood said the cars were “torched” there and now admits that Dr. Wood never said the cars were “torched” there nor did she say they were not “torched” there. El Once also agrees that he made a mistake claiming Dr. Wood referred to “free-energy [beams] from space” in her book and now admits she did not. What El Once imagines or projects onto Dr. Wood’s work are not a reflection of Dr. Wood, but a reflection of El Once and whatever objective he is seeking to promote. I’m sure El Once can imagine MAJOR ERROR everywhere he looks, but that doesn’t mean such errors exist.
          El Once has not been able to identify even one error in Dr. Wood’s book, despite his obsession with trying. Again, what El Once imagines or projects onto Dr. Wood’s work are not a reflection of Dr. Wood, but a reflection of El Once and whatever objective he is seeking to promote. So, while El Once has not been able to identify even one error in Dr. Wood’s textbook, he has revealed many errors in achieving his agenda.

       7. Dear Mr. Naus,
          Great weasel-words! Based on your faulty summary of my posting, it becomes clear why your defense of Dr. Wood’s textbook is so stilted. You understand neither.
          The following repeated statement from you lacks qualifiers:

          El Once has not been able to identify even one error in Dr. Wood’s book…

          “…that Mr. Naus will acknowledge as errors” is the missing qualifier.
          You asked for details and specific page numbers. I gave you such in just this starting gambit. You address nothing I have brought up except with ad hominems about what I imagine or project. Beautiful.
          So that you are clear on what my agenda is. My objective is to trim the fat from Dr. Wood’s work and to preserve the nuggets of truth. This is far different from others who point out errors, because they want guilt-by-association from the errors they find to take the rest of her work & evidence off the table. Nope. That ain’t my intention at all. I want to mine, refine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth — if they exist (and I believe they do) — from the dross of disinformation.
          Now if you want anything at all left on the table of your matron-saint’s textbook from the trashing that is going to happen in the near future, I suggest you assist in noting and preserving the nuggets of truth. Just as importantly, recognize that Dr. Wood is only human and makes mistakes. Errors have been and will be found. You do truth, Dr. Wood, and yourself no favors if you refuse to acknowledge them. If we are lucky, those mistakes and errors will be few and far between. But by being honest about the good, the bad, and the ugly, we will go a long way into vindicating Dr. Wood’s efforts. The trimmed fat version will be hard for the thinkers of the world to ignore.

    2. jammonius says:
       “True, there is much more that could be said about whether the cars were towed or not; that is an argument that probably has no end.”
       It is only “an argument that probably has no end” For those who dismiss the facts that it has been proven without a reasonable doubt that the cars were towed to FDR Drive.
       See: Dr. Greg Jenkins, “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 8 (February, 2007)
       Also: Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics, DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
       By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
       ww

69. Dear Craig McKee
    Until now, I have been content to take you up on your opening suggestion to treat the comments as the focus of this thread, not the introduction. However, i think I, speaking for me, would be remiss in not directing a comment, and a thank you, in your direction for coming up with the thread at this time.
    It has been very useful I think. To me, the point that it has succeeded in making is that if there is an enigma associated with Dr. Judy Wood, it is not that she or her work is in any way enigmatic. Rather, the common and typical response to her work and the keenly felt desire among some to devote themselves to attempts to debunk her work is, indeed, the enigma.
    Criticism of Dr. Wood almost always includes early and enthusiastic banding about of “the Greg Jenkins video.” That video was done in early January, 2007. Some like to think that video debunks Dr. Wood. Having seen it–early and often, as it were, in fact earlier than almost everyone else–I know it does not debunk. Jenkins argues with Wood. Argument is not debunking.
    More importantly, the main tenets of the 9/11 work done by Dr. Wood came after, not before, that video was done. After January, 2007, Dr. Wood:
    Filed a Request for Correction with NIST and followed it through to its logical conclusion. The strength of the RFC was that it put into the public record, at a governmental website, the essential proof of what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11; something no governmental website otherwise does.
    She then used that RFC process as the cornerstone for being entitled to sue Science Applications International Corp (SAIC), Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA), Underwriters Laboratory (UL) and several others. That case did not end until 2010, with the denial certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a great deal more vital information was put into the public court records, including information that the 17 lawyers and law firms arrayed against Dr. Wood FAILED and failed utterly to get sanctions or costs against her for suing them.
    Keep in mind, Dr. Wood claimed they committed fraud for ignoring the evidence that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.
    That is a strong claim to make. Absent some basis for making it, it is likely Dr. Wood would have been leveled with penalties, as have been some others who have challenged the common storyline of 9/11, in some way or another, in formal court proceedings. In short, those 17 law firms had to get their fees (substantial) and their costs (rather large) paid for by their clients.
    Looked at from their perspective it was probably worth it. Had Dr. Wood gotten to the next level in her litigation, she likely would have won, in my humble opinion. Thus, the cost of keeping a lid on what destroyed the WTC complex was high, but probably worth it to those that want to keep that information hidden as much as possible.
    Then, again the year 2010, her book was first published.
    As of the present, her book is being recognized for quality and for accuracy. True, much of the praise has been muted, grudging and slow to come out. But the book has really, really put paid to the name calling and the ridicule she had endured. WDTTG? is not the ranting of someone who does not know what she is talking about. Not by a long shot. The book is a masterpiece of 9/11 writing and will very likely be of historical significance, rising in importance as time goes on. It is already doing just that.
    So, if Greg Jenkins and his video is the starting point of opposition to Dr. Wood, it is a sorry excuse for debunkers in my opinion. Earth to debunkers: What has Greg Jenkins done for you lately, one might ask?
    Answer: Nothing.
    So, Craig, thank you again for posting and for introducing the thread. It is turning out to be a valuable addition to the process of coming to understand that Dr. Judy Wood has, indeed, proven what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.
    For that, we can all be grateful.

    1. Jammin’ says with a question:
       “So, if Greg Jenkins and his video is the starting point of opposition to Dr. Wood, it is a sorry excuse for debunkers in my opinion. Earth to debunkers: What has Greg Jenkins done for you lately, one might ask?”
       This video was not my starting point in my critique of Wood. My critique of Wood begins with my own thinking when reading her papers attacking the work of Prof. Jones.
       As far as, “What has Greg Jenkins done for you lately” – his written works {which I have provided the titles to” did most all the work that needed to be done as far as the gross errors in not only Wood’s “science”, but also her faulty assertions involving the ‘toasted cars’.
       This is a tall claim: “Dr. Judy Wood has, indeed, proven what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.” that you – ‘you’ ‘yourself’ – personally have not backed up in any substantial sense the whole time you have attended this discussion.
       ww

       1. Am I really going to have to go to Jenkin’s paper and copy and paste the relevant passages having to do with the news accounts of those cars being towed to that area after being toasted while under the exploding towers?
          There is simply no reasonable argument against this evidence.
          And no one has come close to addressing the obvious huge piles of metal debris in the aftermath. The “oh are you kidding me there’s not really that much,” is twinkle toes balderdash.
          I sent a jpg of the FEMA Debris Map to Señor that I had hoped could be passed on to Craig, as it is a great visual aid to get a sense of how far this debris field is spread out and beyond the plaza acreage.
          And for all of those claiming only the aluminum cladding was blown at such distances, the partial box columns buried in the sides of buildings across the street prove that the cores were blown great distances as well.
          ww

       2. Hybrid,
          I’m afraid we’re not making any progress here. I am content if you are not persuaded by Dr. Wood’s proof of claim and never have been. It’s also fine with me if you think Dr. Wood has been debunked by Greg Jenkins.
          As to the following statement made by you I have another response:
          This is a tall claim: “Dr. Judy Wood has, indeed, proven what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.” that you – ‘you’ ‘yourself’ – personally have not backed up in any substantial sense the whole time you have attended this discussion.
          That claim is false.
          You are not convinced of Dr. Wood’s proof. You have said that. You never have been. To quote you:
          “My critique of Wood begins with my own thinking when reading her papers attacking the work of Prof. Jones.”
          I’m content to leave it at that, Hybrid.
          From a perspective such as yours that appears to date from circa 2006, (and it could be later, I’m not concerned about how long you’ve held your view, ultimately) it follows that you would disagree with my claim that Dr. Judy Wood has, indeed, proven what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.
          I do not aspire to receive your approval for my claim. I am also not here to obtain your concurrence with what I claim is sufficient proof of claim. I am here to make note that you have a perspective that would make it difficult for you to accept Dr. Wood’s proof and you have said as much.
          Thank you for that.
          Blessings

       3. Jammin’ says:
          “I do not aspire to receive your approval for my claim. I am also not here to obtain your concurrence with what I claim is sufficient proof of claim. I am here to make note that you have a perspective that would make it difficult for you to accept Dr. Wood’s proof and you have said as much.”
          I have a perspective that is open to reasonable claims and proofs. I have yet to be persuaded, before this thread began, and still at this point in the discussions.
          What ever you aspire to here dear Jammin’, you are part of the general discussion here, and your remarks are open to critical commentary by anyone attending this board.
          You also say; “That claim is false”. Which claim? that you said:
          “Dr. Judy Wood has, indeed, proven what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11,”
          Or
          That you haven’t made substantial argument to back it up?
          I copied the quote of you saying Wood has proven her case. And whatever arguments you believe to have been substantial have certainly not been made to me. All I ever get from you is this rhetorical buzz about my thinking habits.
          So whatever your aspirations are here, they are going to have to be adjusted to fit the reality of what takes place here on this board. I am a doubter here – if you haven’t the desire to convince me, that’s fine. But this still yet does not exclude you from anyone’s critique.
          ww

       4. I’m afraid we’re not making any progress here.
          Let me ask you bluntly Jammin’, what do you consider “progress” to be?
          Is is progress to gather in the fold? A mission to find more Disciples?
          Or do you view progress as getting towards the truth?
          You claim that I am closed to accepting Wood’s hypothesis, I am not closed to any discovery that convinces me it is true.
          You on the other-hand present yourself in an evangelical posture, regardless of your protestations, this is too obvious.
          ww

70. So, how are we doing with this thread? Have we resolved anything? Does anyone understand something they didn’t before? I’d like to see some comment on what the key issues are and what needs to be done to move the general discussion of Wood’s work forward. Or will we remain in a loop of entrenched positions on her work?

    1. I’d like to start a chapter-by-chapter review. The good, the bad, the ugly.
       I’m willing to give some of the early chapters about basic physics a thumbs-up. They’ll be hard for people to find fault with. The more interesting chapters are those like whether or not hot spots exists.
       Getting a different take on the wilted front of the fire truck was enlightening and fed into earlier niggly errors that I discovered. Looking into her poof map this morning and follow-up into Seaport also highlighted more errors in Dr. Wood’s innuendos.
       Trimming the fat, that’s where it’s at.

       1. @ El Once Mr. El Once has MAJOR ERRORS in his analysis of Dr. Wood’s book. He has found no errors in Dr. Wood’s book, but he is so fixated in finding errors that he “believes” that Dr. Wood must have intended to say….(errors) and then proceeds to accuse Dr. Wood of these errors that Mr. El Once has projected onto Dr. Wood.
          Now this is getting a bit silly. Why is Mr. El Once so fixated with finding “errors” in Dr. Wood’s book that aren’t there instead of doing his own research? If he truly believes Dr. Wood is wrong, why doesn’t he show us what is right? Mr. El Once has not found any real errors in Dr. Wood’s book, only imagined ones. Is it his objective to create the “uncertainty” that Andrew Johnson wrote about?
          http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_cont&enttask=view&id=350&Itemid=60
          That nothing is knowable? Is Mr. El Once trying to convince us to, “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

       2. Dear Señor Naus,
          Please read my posting to Señor Jammonius because it applies to you as well.
          I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood’s efforts in these here Truth & Shadows forum, but I will be your worst enemy if you try to defend her work as a non-questioning religious zealot. All you end up doing is shooting her work in the foot when trimming the fat while preserving the good are worthy.
          [I’m the resident champion of September Clues, too, but was fragging Mr. Shack and his little buddy OneBornFree for their stilted arguments even before their disinformation agenda came into clearer focus for me leading me away from NPT not all that long ago.]
          Nuggets of truth I am more than happy to mine, refine, and re-purpose from Dr. Wood. This has been my purpose for urging Mr. McKee to start this thread. You should be helping in this endeavor.
          Nuggets of error I and you should also be happy to get quarantined, excised, and corrected in subsequent copies of Dr. Wood’s textbook. If you aren’t willing to consider where mistakes were made in Dr. Wood’s book, well… Let’s just say it doesn’t reflect well on you as an objective, truth-seeking, individual and you will have the displeasure of me rubbing your nose in it.
          Deal with the fact that Dr. Wood’s efforts have merit, but also that occasionally her detractors make valid claims.
          Stop attacking me personally and objectively review the evidence for and against.
          P.S. When I finished reading Dr. Wood’s textbook about a year ago, I couldn’t find any errors except in consequential niggly ones. Upon more reflection and review, bigger ones have come to the forefront and I expect bigger ones still will become apparent in a rational discussion here. Doesn’t mean we should stop championing her work. It just means we need to be wiser and selective.

       3. @ El Once
          I stand by my last comment and your trash/fear words (non-questioning religious zealot, worst enemy, rubbing your nose) don’t affect me.

    2. Craig asks:
       So, how are we doing with this thread?
       As I replied above just a few posts up, we are dealing with a certain number of Wittgensteinian thinkers here on this thread, who seem not to grasp the true nature of cause and effect.
       Reason does not sway beliefs instilled in a cult-mind meld. I see a lot of denial of prima facea evidence in this thread. If it cannot register through ones own mind, no amount of rational argument is going to make a difference.
       ww

       1. Mr. rogue has let us know he’s a “doubter”, and undoubtedly that’s why he brought up ‘Hegel’ in another thread.
          Hegel told the Germans that “all ‘new’ philosophy should start with ‘doubt'”! He probably “stole” this from Descartes, who said pretty much the same thing, except he didn’t use the word “new”!
          Socrates and Søren Kierkegård on the contrary, both exclaimed to all of mankind that all philosophy instead should start with ‘wonder’.
          “Doubt is the bane of mankind”, and we find its origin in the deepest of Darkness.
          The origin of ‘Wonder’, on the other hand, we find firmly embedded in the highest of Light.
          I trust that all discerning posters and visitors unhesitatingly follow the much much wiser “exclamations” coming from the latter dear pair of true ‘philosophers’. ;o)
          Cheers

       2. Tamborine man says:
          “Mr. rogue has let us know he’s a “doubter”, and undoubtedly that’s why he brought up ‘Hegel’ in another thread.
          Hegel told the Germans that “all ‘new’ philosophy should start with ‘doubt’”! He probably “stole” this from Descartes, who said pretty much the same thing, except he didn’t use the word “new”!”
          My Reply:
          This misframes my comment on “doubt”, as I made the comment specifically to doubting the Wood hypothesis. To draw the conclusion that it is at the base of my epistemology is an unsubstantiated leap of logic.
          I will also note in all of my commentary concerning Hegel, it has been in opposition to the use of Hegel’s dialectic, to manipulate society. To then draw from this that I am somehow a follower of Hegel is absurd.
          ww

    3. Andrew Johnson says: June 7, 2012 at 8:44 am
       New article about how debate about what happened to the WTC is being used as part of the criminal cover up –
       http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=60
       The Vancouver 911 “Hearings” – Encouraging Conjecture, Discouraging Certainty, Obscuring Known Truth
       Michael Tu-Seeds say’s: 911 was remote viewed in great detail back in Jan and Feb of 2001. I strongly support Dr Judy Wood / Andrew Johnson and there support group. They truly are very brave world class heroes!
       I have learned from Andrew Johnson’s article much of Jim Fetzer. I met Jim Fetzer / Alex Jones etc. etc…at the June 2006 Symposium in downtown LA CA. I now believe that most of the people at this event are limited hang-out/ left gate keepers for PSY-OPS! I will be posting world wide the truth what Dr Wood and Andrew Johnson have to say on my web site @…
       http://www.facebook.com/pages/-Remote-view-this-Aha-Moments/216808478342115

    4. As per how we are doing on this thread; I don’t think it is mere coincidence that the more lucid regular commentators on Truth and Shadows have abandoned this thread on Judy Wood.
       ww

71. nausmr says: “If you can’t figure out what empirical evidence I point to which concludes that over 50% of the towers turn to dust I seriously have to wonder if you have short term memory loss from my previous posts.”
    More unsubstantiated assumptions ? Why would you automatically assume that I had read your previous posts, nausmr , or you mine ?
    I do skim through the thread but I only usually reply to posts addressed directly to me [and many of those, if impolite to my standards, I simply ignore]. So although I was aware of your name, and the fact that you had posted here, I had not thoroughly read through your prior posts in the thread. Clear enough?
    Regards, onebornfree

    1. @onebornfree
       I replied to you about Dr. Judy Wood on June 7th, 11:29 pm. You replied to that post on June 8th 3:01 pm. This is why I automatically assumed you read my post. By the way,in my June 7th post at 11:29 pm I mention Dr Judy Wood and the words empirical evidence. I would hope that in the future you thouroughly read my posts if your going to address them in a reply to me. Crystal clear enough?
       Regards, Mr. Naus

72. Craig McKee says:” Or will we remain in a loop of entrenched positions on her work?”
    I’m inclined to stick with the loop of entrenched positions “position” : -)
    regards, onebornfree

73. ADVICE:
    As this thread is now 335 posts long, I would suggest posts be made at least three quarters down, even if answering a post higher up. The Reply buttons become far between after a number of answering posts attend them. This way we can avoid having to scan the thread from beginning to end to catch a comment.
    If someone feels the need to answer I post higher up in the thread, simply copy the time tag, and quote you want and post it down further on the thread.
    \\||//

    1. Good idea. By the way, your 3:29 comment is just a shot and adds nothing to the discussion. I much prefer respectful responses to sarcastic put downs. But even sarcasm (which I use all the time) has to have substance.

    2. It isn’t the length of postings that will cause problems. Those embedded videos are what will bring the thread to its knees. They should be avoided.

74. nausmr says: “I replied to you about Dr. Judy Wood on June 7th, 11:29 pm. You replied to that post on June 8th 3:01 pm. This is why I automatically assumed you read my post. ”
    I did read it and just re-read to double check. I still see no link to the mysterious “empirical evidence” you twice referred to in it .
    Am I supposed to read your mind, or somehow take a wild guess as to exactly what you are referring to? 🙂
    regards, onebornfree
    Below, for reference is that entire post of yours. Please enlighten me as to what I am missing:
    nausmr says:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm
    @onebornfree
    Dr. Wood addresses evidence, not beliefs. Dr. Wood does not entertain speculation.
    It doesn’t exist because you don’t believe it exists. Hmmm… strange
    logic. Instead of using speculation and hypotheses to discount empirical evidence, perhaps you should retake the pop quiz.
    1.
    Were the towers once there? (yes or no)
    2.
    Are the towers still there? (yes or no)
    3.
    Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust? (yes or no)
    4.
    a) If your answer to question #3 was “no,”
    •
    Please review the empirical evidence more carefully or find someone who can.
    b) If your answer to question #3 was “yes,”
    · Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this? (yes or no)
    If your answer to question #4b was “yes,” we are in agreement.
    If your answer to question #4b was “no,” please explain your contradiction, claiming something occurred that was impossible to occur.

75. My proximate base for rejecting the Wood premise is the features of the destruction of the towers, which have all of the appearances attendant to explosive demolition. There is note of the obvious squibs running under the dust cloud and revealed by gaps in the cloud.
    This is backed up by countless witness testimonies of the sounds and effects of explosions. And anyone denying that there are indeed sound recordings of not only the “freight train” roar and rumble, but of the rapid successions of blasts as well as deep rumbling booms accenting these.
    There is also the issue of all of the pre-eruption bombs going off during the time between the plane crashes and the final event.
    Couple this with the visuals of the debris itself being blasted laterally through the churning dust clouds, and the clear falling of larger sections of box columns and portions of cladding and the steel they are attached to.
    Simply put, what I see is an ‘explosive’ event in all the classical senses of the word.
    This is a tall hurdle for anyone trying to convince me that it was anything else.
    ww

76. As addendum to my previous post, I will say that although Griffin makes some of the points above, I had already reached that position on my own years before.
    And by the time Griffin did address these points, he was still speaking TVTalk, repeating the mantra “the towers collapsed into their own footprints – which is clearly not true as shown in the visual evidence. These eruptions are clearly blowing far beyond the frame of the buildings from a parallel POV. And of course the aftermath debris is/was physical evidence of this. The compound crime being ‘destruction of a crime scene’.
    I am intimately knowledgeable of the architecture and structure of the of towers and bldg7. I am knowledgeable of almost all of the developments of the vast citizen internet investigation. And I feel that I am familiar enough with Wood’s work {pre-book} to speak intelligently to this matter.
    When the book arrives, I shall attend to it, first a quick skim, and back for a concentrated read.
    If anything catches my attention as viable, this forum will be the first to know about it.
    ww

77. The RJ Lee Group performed an extensive study of the Banker’s Trust building at 130
    Liberty Street to assess structural damage as well as dust contamination. The dust
    analysis this group performed is, as it is self-proclaimed in the reports, one of the most
    extensive dust studies performed costing 33 million dollars. Within one of the reports,vi
    they state:
    “The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings’
    mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and
    abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker’s Trust]
    Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to
    affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent
    failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five
    percent of the volume.”
    “Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might
    spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules
    (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many
    cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical
    conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in
    higher electrical conduction. This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot
    and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from
    the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse.
    Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire
    caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to
    high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.
    The already oxidized and exposed metal corroded at an accelerated rate after the fires
    subsided and the corrosive ambient dust resettled upon the vehicles. Fine dust is easily
    agitated becoming airborne.”~Study
    Pg. 4 -5 Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
    By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
    ww

78. The thread grows so long, and most people here continue to snipe at each other and me.
    Does no one understand the substance of these issues well enough to address them, rather than pointing out the runs in each other’s pantyhose?
    I am sick of pointing this out individually each time someone bitches at me about trivial crap.
    I have posted a host of substantive points that no-one has even attempted to address here. Do you people take this for a carnival? Let’s cut the jejune crap and get down to business.
    ww

    1. Willy,
       You mention that the thread grows so long, but aren’t you responsible for a disproportionate amount of that? There is indeed something not working here, and one could look in a number of areas. But one thing I’ve been hearing from some of those lucid contributors you mentioned earlier is that you are hurting the thread by flooding it with comments. As Senor El Once has pointed out (no, he’s not the only one), you post two or three times as many comments as anyone else. Including two comments that haven’t been approved yet, you’ve produced eight of the last nine I’ve received. This doesn’t work.
       That’s not to say you don’t have a lot to say; in fact, you seem to be an expert in just about everything. But having you paired off with each of the Wood supporters for a series of one-on-one debates seems to be stifling other interactions. I’m not sure how to best deal with this, because I don’t like restricting people unduly. I may have to come up with some kind of formula for how often someone can comment.
       Another thing is that you can’t make others respond to your points. You can point out when certain things have not been answered, but you seem to want to remind us repeatedly how your commands are not being followed. There’s only so much scolding of the Wood supporters that I want to read. I’m sure I’m not the only one. The length of posts from a variety of people is a problem too.
       I’m open to suggestions.

       1. Craig I can hardly “demand” anything of others, what I am doing is pointing out that little of substance is being addressed. And most of my posts to others sniping at me is that they are not addressing substance.
          I am through for the time being unless there is something said attempting to actually counter my points. If all anyone else wants to do is blow raspberries at each other, I couldn’t care less.
          If you would rather I not respond to empty taunts, I would suggest the answer is to make a determination as to whether there is anything beyond such taunts being thrown at me, and not post the taunt – rather than complaining after the fact when I make a response pointing out it was nothing but a taunt.
          That is a suggestion, and you said you were open to them. But this is your blog to handle as you see fit.
          ww

       2. I think what hybridrogue1 is most expert in is destroying consensus within a group, which I believe is the ultimate purpose of his assignment here. Apparently Dr. Wood, and like-minded thinkers are on to something threatening enough to have warranted this type of deliberate and expert sabotage.

       3. One might ask, what is the difference between “consensus” and “conformity”?
          \\||//

       4. Craig,
          I suggest limiting the number of posts by any one person to a specific number per day. You could try 5 at the beginning and adjust from there.
          The result should be some necessity for self-discipline, i.e., not answering every single thing all the time or answering several messages in one message. Basically, slowing things down and perhaps helping to relax a poster a bit before another message.
          Frankly, as it is, I’m getting a bit worn out, particularly since your blog is not organized by threads. My practice, by necessity, has been to search yesterday’s messages today and today’s tomorrow using the dates of posting. (Some on this list seem to be on 16 hours a day just waiting to write something; if it continues I may have to drop out. Just saying … I have other commitments.)

          1. Paul,
             Your idea is an excellent one, and it’s one I’ve been thinking about implementing myself. I do think that the problem with having such frequent posting is that it becomes too much for people to follow – or to want to follow. It ends up only being of interest to those writing. You’re not the only person I’ve talked to who was finding it too much.
             I suppose I initially thought that an active comments section was a great thing; I didn’t consider the downside.

       5. The difference is a reasonable standard of Truth. However, it’s evident that your self-appointed roles here have been to persist in raising that standard so impossibly high that no consensus can possibly be reached – and, as Craig politely puts it, to “scold” others who don’t meet your imposed standards. If any of us here were truly “conformists”, we would be still be parroting the official narrative of the events of that day in question.

       6. My reply to, Sherif Shaalan’s remarks on June 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm,
          First off, my standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is that simple.
          The issue of finding the truth has nothing to do with ‘consensus’. Consensus is merely a shared opinion. Opinion is not fact.
          On the issue of ‘conformity’ – as in all issues, it is a matter of qualifiers. One who conforms to the dictates of the larger society is but one type of conformist. One who conforms to the dictates of any other form of dogma is a conformist in that particular sense. A full fledged true believer in the dogma of the Catholic church for example is a conformist in this sense.
          ww

       7. @Willy: I discovered you were, at one time, involved in the film industry. I imagine producing a 60-minute 9/11 Truth video that would begin as a documentary of the brilliant Nikola Tesla and his amazing scientific discoveries and inventions – highlighting the many, but little known, modern manifestations of his technology; like A/C and Directed Energy Weapons – leading right into a presentation of Dr. Wood’s evidence for the recent use of DEW’s – and concluding with a plea of the necessity to better use the enormous potential of this technology. Thoughts?

       8. Sherif,
          I certainly agree that Nikola Tesla was brilliant. I have read everything I could find on his life’s works, and the controversies arising from his death, and the mysteries surrounding his missing research papers.
          But I was interested in understanding his science as well.
          Do you have any interest in theoretical physics Sherif? Beyond what you have read from Ms. Wood? If so, I hope you will apply your knowledge of that subject to addressing the specific issues this thread is supposed to be about.
          Perhaps we can ruminate on the possiblilties of film making another day.
          ww

       9. @Willy: Physics? Enjoyed my high school class, picked the brain of my college roommate a lot – a PhD candidate in Accelerator Physics, and am always interested in the latest things that theoretical physicists have to say. I’m more of a creative personality with a nose for genius, but couldn’t reconstruct the elevator I use everyday if I had to.
          So, my contribution to this thread would be as a layman with enough of a basic understanding and genuine interest in the topic that led me to actually buy, read and comprehend Dr. Wood’s book, an expression of my resulting overall feeling that she’s on to something here and perhaps a search for confirmation of that.
          Is her collection and analysis of evidence absolutely beyond reproach? Probably not. But I’m very grateful that someone with her specific qualifications and unique vantage point, went through all the effort, expense and hardship to provide that information for our consideration – all as a result of some the nagging disconnect she, as an engineer, experienced that day.
          BTW, you’ve mentioned that you yourself were also suspect of this event from Day One – what was it that set you on your quest for truth?
          I myself am a relative late-comer in the quest for 9/11 truth, brought upon by the catalyst of personal family tragedy in 2006 that forced me to confront my unexamined myths of how the world works and who is really running the show.

       10. Mr. Shaalan,
           Running the risk of posting beyond the limit of our daily posting privileges [as yet unstated] I will answer your last question to me today;
           Being a long time researcher into the structure and architecture of modern political power, I knew within an hour of the event that it was a Public Relations show. All the usual suspects of talking heads lined up in a row to blab the party line, was the first clue.
           Being aware of the technique of false flag operations reinforced my first observation, as the script book was clear in the consensus of the commentary towards immediate presumption of blame as to the perpetrators even before the towers were destroyed in toto.
           The final point of ‘certainty’ came when I saw the first tower disintegrate, totally dissociated on television. I knew immediately that the plane crashes could not possibly be responsible for such total destruction. And the fires were certainly no ‘flaming inferno’ so that explanation failed prima facea.
           Craig has indicated that he will post an article dealing with the Mossad/Israeli/Zionist connections to the 9/11 event. At that time I will address the larger historical information that illuminates the true nature of the mythos of the present paradigm, and the true architecture of modern political power.
           Until then,
           ww

79. Just one final note this evening Craig,
    I hope you don’t take me wrong, I am not stomping out and leaving the thread in anger, I am just pulling back as per your request.
    I’ll just chill out for awhile.
    Thanks, Willy

80. Greg Jenkins refutes “space beams” or “laser beams from space.” Since Dr. Wood does not present any indication that “laser beams from space” were involved, what Jenkins refutes does not relate to what Dr. Wood presents. So, Greg Jenkins does not refute Dr. Wood’s work, he merely refutes his own propaganda. Someone relying on the propaganda of Greg Jenkins to claim Dr. Wood’s book has been refuted has done nothing more than expose that they were duped by Greg Jenkins’ propaganda.

    1. Robert E. Salt says:
       “Greg Jenkins refutes “space beams” or “laser beams from space.”
       My reply:
       I would suggest that Mr. Salt actually study what Jenkins presents in his papers, rather than rely on hearsay. He refutes much more than the notion that the “beams” were from space.
       You will not get far in ignorance of the counter argument, and will have nothing available but arguing against your own misperceptions rather than that actual counter argument.
       You would do well also to comprehend that any statements made to propagate a specific idea is in fact “propaganda”. The issue is whether that which is propagated is true or false.
       As to the point of who has been duped is yet to be proven here to any objective standard.
       There have been a penumbra of assertions made as per the claims of validation of the Wood hypothesis, but nothing to counter with any specificity the arguments made against her thesis.
       ww

       1. In reply to:
          hybridrogue1 says:
          June 10, 2012 at 11:45 am
          Hello again, Hybrid,
          My, my, it would appear you are still championing what I am afraid is a lost cause.
          I refer here to your dogged determination to hold onto Gregory S. Jenkins as a source for debunking Judy Wood’s book, other published challenges and current website, be it with respect to Toasted Cars, or anything else.
          It is pointless for you to do so, disingenuous for you to constantly repeat the premise that Jenkins refutes anything, let along constitutes a valid source of debunking. This is a hopeless endeavor on your part for a variety of reasons.
          Perhaps the most obvious and irrefutable one “The Greg Jenkins video and the Greg Jenkins article that keeps getting posted over and over again are utterly outdated, outmoded, useless and misleading when cited as sources of debunking research, material and publications of one sort or another done by Judy Wood long after the Jenkins materials sought to be relied on had appeared.
          Here is an example. Apart from “The Greg Jenkins Video” done in early January, 2007, well before any of the significant publications of Dr. Wood, other than what appeared on her website at that time and the discussion she had with Jenkins, the next most frequently cited Jenkins article was done at about the same time–UPDATED as of April 12, 2007.
          Well, if updated to April of 2007 is the best you can do with respect to actions taken well after that, including publication of her most comprehensive work; namely: “Where Did the Towers Go?”. I must here remind you the book was published in 2010 and cannot be said to have been debunked by a measly article UPDATED TO APRIL 2007!
          Surely you jest, Hybrid.
          Greg Jenkins may be frozen in time, relegated to winter, latest spring of 2007, but Judy Wood is not.
          Jenkins’ article “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish
          the World Trade Center Towers” plainly states that it was “(Updated 4/12/07)”
          Source:
          http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
          With respect to the TOWED CARS issue, the Jenkins article has one sentence, stating:
          “Evidence suggests that the charred cars that were located on FDR drive were
          towed to that location from the vicinity of ground zero.24” Source Id at pg. 13
          If language as tentative, conditional, weak, equivocal as that is what constitutes debunking, then I’d sure hate to see what you folks call proof. Sheesh!
          The reference to “24” in the preceding quote is Jenkins’ footnote to his source. That source is obviously even earlier dated and consists in another paper published in what was then called the “Journal of 9/11 Studies” but which would seem more appropriately titled “The Life and Times of the Critics of Dr. Judy Wood” as is seems that every issue of that Journal at that time had some feverish attempt to refute Dr. Wood.
          Some journal.
          It seems its sole purpose and function was to try to get something, anything it could, written about Wood; that, and nothing more. Perhaps, the significance of Dr. Wood can be measured, in part, by the fact that a so called “Journal of 9/11 Studies” spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to refute her.
          They failed.
          For sure, they stopped trying; and that as of a long time before any of her major works appeared.
          In any event, the source for Footnote 24 is an article by one James Gourley that does nothing more than carp, argue, nitpick that there might be another way of interpreting the FDR towed car evidence. That is not debunking. That is not refutation. That is mere argument.
          And, it is argument that has been completely superseded, bypassed and rendered meaningless by Ch. 11 in WDTTG?
          Let us, once again, take a look at the essence of Ch. 11 of Dr. Wood’s book, shall we?
          Please note, in the book, Dr. Wood does not find it necessary to say the cars under FDR Drive were either towed or not towed. She actually only says what she knows by way of the evidence. She does, however, confirm that some were not moved, namely the toasted car lot and West Broadway that she refers to as “the swamp.” She also knows of Alan Cooke’s testimony and she knows of Renae O’Carrol’s testimony (felt heat on the bridge) and she knows of Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony…and others.
          There is more in the book: Wood points out there is something wrong with the toasted pattern, including the abrupt boundary lines; the non-melted roof lights; the non-exploded gas tank despite the front end being completely toasted; and the appearance of a new “waxed job” on the back end (i.e., in near pristine condition) along with the “waxed spot” on the rear left.
          Patrick Connolly had cars “lighting up” as he walked past them (WDTTG?, bottom of page 230). Looking at the picture on page 232, along the path he walked, one must wonder why “burning debris” would not land on any adjacent rooftops, but only on cars down in the canyon–and not even the trees down in the canyon, or the paper.
          On page 233, Figure 239a shows a car being toasted and Figure 240 shows it after it was toasted. It’s still in the same place. That is the corner Patrick Connolly walked through and described cars “lighting up.” You can look down several blocks to see how far that
          was from the WTC and nothing but vehicles were toasted. (Toasted = beyond repair, “it’s toast, it’s history” — not necessarily burned.)
          So, the toasted car issue does not depend on the FDR towed/not-towed issue.
          There is much more that could be said about this, for instance, it didn’t make a lot of sense to store cars down there and then bring them back to the WTC to load onto the barges. Another seldom mentioned factor is the location of the nearest police precinct to the FDR drive. As the toasted car in question looks as much like it was parked as anything else, it behooves debunkers to take a look at the location of the nearest precinct. (Hint: 19-1/2 Pitt Street.) Note, I am here just offering a suggestion for further thought about the matter; I am not saying the car at FDR Drive was from that precinct.
          There is no error major or otherwise; and, there is no existing ‘debunking’ of Dr. Wood’s claims about the toasted or towed cars.
          Blessings

       2. In Reply to;
          jammonius says on, June 11, 2012 at 10:10 am:
          As Per Towing of FDR “Toasted Cars”:
          First a note: As all of these news reports were published as far back as September 2001, I am sure Jammonius will object that Judy Wood’s book came out much later than that and so the information is dated and will not do for our argument. Regardless, here are some of the news reports concerning towing autos and equipment by dump truck and tow truck to clear the area to have access for investigation and cleanup;
          “News reports confirm that tow trucks were operating in the days after 9/11 to haul damaged vehicles away from the disaster area. For example, one article from The Philadelphia Inquirer dated September 13, 2001 and entitled “Workers removing debris – and bodies” states, “Mangled or burned vehicles littered the disaster scene. … Cars mangled by the explosion were towed away to make room for recovery efforts. At the corner of Duane Street and Broadway, about eight blocks from the World Trade Center, a car burned beyond recognition was stacked on top of a flattened Cadillac Seville. Next to that steel sandwich were a bent Port Authority Police van and charred police, fire and emergency vehicles.” Also, Governor Pataki was quoted on Larry King Live on September 11, 2001 (transcript available here) as saying “We have national guard heavy equipment, wreckers and tow trucks and others trying to help out with police and fire who are going through the rubble and trying to just find as many people that we can save and rescue and help those who need our help as possible.” Firehouse.com quoted Tom McDonald, Assistant Commissioner of Fleet and Technical Services for the FDNY regarding Ground Zero on 9/11: “It was not until late in the evening of September 11 that McDonald was able to get eight to 10 tow trucks and drivers into the area to start moving equipment out.” On September 12, 2001, CourtTV News reported here that “Abandoned and damaged cars were being towed away. Cars parked closest to the trade center were crushed.” The Hampton Union, in a news article covering a local Towing Association trade show in May, 2002, lamented that the Staten Island Garage, which one Best of Show at the previous year’s show, was unable to attend this year because, “They’ve been at ground zero since last September.” A reporter for the Chicago Sun Times stated that on September 20, 2006, “Tow truck drivers zip down quiet streets in the dead of night, carting ash- covered, badly crumpled patrol cars.”
          An American Public Works Association article, available here and cited in the WR paper, proclaims that approximately “1,400 vehicles were recovered” from the disaster area and “carefully stockpiled in a separate area near the edge of the” Fresh Kills Landfill, which is located in Staten Island. The same APWA article also states that all of the materials that were transferred to Fresh Kills went through temporary transport stations located at Pier 25 and Pier 6. FDR Drive, coincidentally, runs right past Pier 6. It is logical to assume, therefore, that the cars depicted near FDR Drive in Wood’s pictures were towed there near the temporary transport station at Pier 6 before being taken to Fresh Kills.
          Moreover, an examination of the pictures of toasted cars on FDR Drive shows that several aspects of the cars along the side of the road that suggest they were towed and deposited there. Notice that the cars are all facing different directions relative to the roadway. This indicates that they were not driving in the same direction, nor were they caught in traffic when the destruction occurred. Second, the cars are off to the side of the road and at an angle relative to the roadway. This is also indicative of tow trucks dropping them off. Third, notice the significant amount of WTC dust still on top of the cars and the apparent lack of WTC dust on the ground around the cars. This suggests that they were taken from near Ground Zero and deposited in a new location. All of the evidence indicates that the cars depicted above were towed away from Ground Zero as part of the recovery and clean-up effort and deposited near FDR Drive and the temporary transport station located at Pier 6 before being taken to Fresh Kills.”
          ~Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon”
          By: James Gourley
          And as Jenkins notes, the ‘anomalous damage patterns’ aren’t so mysterious at all.
          Just one example:
          “Furthermore, she erroneously presents a picture of a police cruiser in Figure 43 within her
          RFC to NISTiv whose causal mechanism responsible for the rear-end charring of the
          vehicle was previously presented in photographs and published.v There were flames from
          another vehicle immediately behind the police car. Before and after pictures show the
          highly likely cause and effect, yet she insists on continuing to promote her
          misinterpretation by ignoring the published evidence.”~Jenkins ‘Fe-DustSup
          Now further, from my own perspective Mr. Jammin’, it is clearly a spurious argument to claim that anything critiquing Wood before her book was published is merely handwaving rubbish.
          Again, the evidence from the 9/11 event is general – it is not Wood’s exclusive evidence to explain as she wishes. The evidence has been with us from the time of the event, forward to the discoveries thereof.
          I will also note that this issue of the towed cars is but one minute issue in the critiques of Wood’s science, which will be discussed here.
          ww

       3. Dear Mr. Jammonius,
          Nearly all of your points I have made to Mr. Rogue at one time or another since he entered this forum several months ago and when I had the opportunity to squeeze off a Dr. Wood reference. Thank you.
          However, under the guise of objectiveness, we should still consider Dr. Jenkins efforts, just as I’ll be having Mr. Rogue consider Dr. Wood’s. In fairness, Dr. Jenkins in his dated materials does bring up some valid points. Just not enough in my opinion to make debunking Dr. Wood a slam-dunk. And often times he bites off just a tad too much, like his energy calculations into total steel vaporization. It is a framing into the ridiculous.
          On the theme of valid points by Dr. Jenkins as well as the timing of their individual publications, one could view a weakness in Dr. Wood NEWER textbook that she didn’t devote independent NEW chapters to address some of the OLD criticisms. Moreover, some of her website re-use should have under gone more thought and analysis via feedback from others. I was disappointed to see errors from her under-construction-since-2006 website more or less carried over.
          For example, take the criticism of the cars being towed to the FDR bridge. The main basis for my criticism of this nature is police car 2723 that I found (say, in 2011) pictorial damage of it in another location. Dr. Jenkins may have had other substantiating information in 2007 for the same charge of vehicle towing. Dr. Wood re-purposed information from her website and gave short change to addressing those points, leaving her flank open.
          In fact, as given to Mr. Naus on Sunday, I found her attempts to dismiss the towing of cars to the FDR bridge as a staging area to be pretty weak. Doing dishes or moving your household are two tasks that often result in objects being handled & moved multiple times before finding a home.

81. Craig McKee says: “You mention that the thread grows so long, but aren’t you responsible for a disproportionate amount of that? ” 🙂
    Craig McKee says: ” you seem to be an expert in just about everything.” 🙂 🙂
    Craig McKee says: “Another thing is that you can’t make others respond to your points…but you seem to want to remind us repeatedly how your commands are not being followed. 🙂 🙂 🙂 yuck, yuck yuck, chortle, chortle !
    Craig McKee says: “I’m open to suggestions.”
    Not sure if doable within the forums limitations, but how about either a word count limit per post, per poster, per thread, or, a total number of posts per person limit? Probably not doable.
    regards, onebornfree.
    P.S. Personally Craig, I think that you are “flogging a dead horse” with regards to this individuals ermm, “netiquette”[?] .What was that famous “Forest Gump” quote? Hmm, let me think……..

82. This particular individual also wonders what the purpose might be in posting gloating commentary concerning my reprimand.
    There still as of yet nothing being said as to the substance of the issue of how the towers were destroyed.
    If the purpose of this thread has some other agenda, I would like to know what it is in clear language.
    “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”~Jefferson
    ww

83. The 9/11 event in NYC was the demonstration of a new weapon as well as a test. The weapon was used to dustify the Towers. It was used a second way to drop Building 7. It was used a third way to hollow out WTC-6, and it was used a fourth way to destroy WTC-6 much like the Oklahoma City building. It may also have been also been used to destroy a bridge and a plane in flight at a later date. What a great discussion! I’m still learning. Keep talking, guys. I’m not sure how it was used to destroy WTC-3 and WTC-5. Does anyone know?

    1. Dear Señor Salt,
       I urge you to use caution when trying to wrap the destruction of all of the buildings in the WTC complex under the same umbrella of a destruction mechanism. Each building should be viewed independently. Yes, we will find overlap in how certain buildings were likely pulverized, but we may also find “overkill” and “redundancy” in the form of additional “backup” and “secondary” mechanisms at play (e.g., nano-thermite, conventional explosives, etc.)
       WTC-7 seems like the odd-man out, as if its destructive mechanisms failed to decimate as planned at or about the decimation of either tower. The job couldn’t be completed until late in the day and very suspiciously in terms of media and emergency service foreknowledge. Had it gone down earlier, we wouldn’t have had the late Barry Jennings as a survivor and telling us about explosions at lower levels of WTC-7 before either tower fell.

    2. What Robert E. Salt says [June 10, 2012 at 7:25 am] above, is a circular argument.
       He is saying that the proof that this new weapon exists, is that it is what destroyed the towers, without proving it is what destroyed the towers.
       This is false argumentation, again standing on pure assertion.
       And I again urge Mr. Salt to attend to an actual substantive argument to make his case, rather than relying on bald unsubstantiated assertion.
       ww

84. @Tamborineman:
    Thank you for reply/thoughts [06/09/12]
    As I would say to anyone else here [including you know who 🙂 ] . It is probably best if we both just concentrate on what we do agree on, rather than what we don’t, because obviously we have very different opinions on just how deep the “rabbit hole” really is in the case of 9/11.
    As with everyone else here, it seems,you do not personally believe in direct, deep-rooted media complicity that goes to the extent of deliberately faked “live” 911 footage[ including all of the tower collapse imagery], whereas I do.
    Let’s just leave it at that. If you wished to explore that particular [slightly off topic] discussion further with me then you could contact me at my problem-solver blog here : http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/
    As to what we might agree on, concerning Prof. Judy Wood’s research, and as with most here, regardless of whether or not they are actually Prof. Wood “fans”, I would suggest there are 3 points where we actually probably see pretty much see eye to eye:
    1] 9/11 was an “inside job”, that is, a “psyop” specifically instigated by the US government and various associates in order to create an excuse to go to war etc. etc.
    2] As a major “psyop”, it was necessary to induce maximum “shock and awe” on the general population [“boobus americanus”] in order to sell/justify/start any war and all war associated government actions [e.g. the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act etc.] as quickly and easily as possible.
    3] As a part of that necessary maximum “shock and awe” psychological effect [probably the major part] , it was critical to appear to bring the twin towers down in an unbelievable, super fast time, and, as most here already know, according to the “testimony” of the alleged “live” network videos [if believed 🙂 ], both towers collapsed in under 20 secs. flat, top to bottom.
    I see no need for us to agree to any more than those 3 points, however, if you find that you agree with those three points, then you, [as a Judy Wood “supporter”] may or may not be interested in the “logic” I followed, based on those three points [ assumptions actually] , to convince myself that Prof. Judy Wood’s research conclusions to date are little more than wild speculation, and not really personally valid for me any longer [although extremely imaginative! ].
    My personal “logic” is on display in a post to Mr Mckee dated June 7, 2012 at 6:47 pm , and in my reply to his subsequent reply.
    regards, onebornfree

    1. @onebornfree
       Dr. Wood addresses evidence, not beliefs. Dr. Wood does not entertain speculation.
       When the student is ready the teacher will come. Evidently you’re not ready yet.

    2. Hi onebornfree,
       you write:

       As I would say to anyone else here [including you know who 🙂 ] . It is probably best if we both just concentrate on what we do agree on, rather than what we don’t, because obviously we have very different opinions on just how deep the “rabbit hole” really is in the case of 9/11.
       As with everyone else here, it seems,you do not personally believe in direct, deep-rooted media complicity that goes to the extent of deliberately faked “live” 911 footage[ including all of the tower collapse imagery], whereas I do.

       Actually i do think that the “rabit hole” goes very deep, and i do believe in “deep-rooted media complicity”!

       As to what we might agree on, concerning Prof. Judy Wood’s research, and as with most here, regardless of whether or not they are actually Prof. Wood “fans”, I would suggest there are 3 points where we actually probably see pretty much see eye to eye:
       1] 9/11 was an “inside job”, that is, a “psyop” specifically instigated by the US government and various associates in order to create an excuse to go to war etc. etc.
       2] As a major “psyop”, it was necessary to induce maximum “shock and awe” on the general population [“boobus americanus”] in order to sell/justify/start any war and all war associated government actions [e.g. the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act etc.] as quickly and easily as possible.
       3] As a part of that necessary maximum “shock and awe” psychological effect [probably the major part] , it was critical to appear to bring the twin towers down in an unbelievable, super fast time, and, as most here already know, according to the “testimony” of the alleged “live” network videos [if believed 🙂 ], both towers collapsed in under 20 secs. flat, top to bottom.

       Yes, i pretty much agree with all your three points.

       I see no need for us to agree to any more than those 3 points, however, if you find that you agree with those three points, then you, [as a Judy Wood “supporter”] may or may not be interested in the “logic” I followed, based on those three points [ assumptions actually] , to convince myself that Prof. Judy Wood’s research conclusions to date are little more than wild speculation, and not really personally valid for me any longer [although extremely imaginative! ].

       Well, as i haven’t yet read Dr. wood’s book, i can hardly be called a “supporter” of her work!
       But as i too believe that some kind of “exotic” weaponry has been utilized in the destruction of the towers, i certainly agree with her on this very important point.
       A “defender” of Judy Wood, and her extensive and detailed work overall, would be a more appropriate description, i think ……a ‘defence’ especially directed toward the relentless vitriol and vindictiveness she has been the recipient of over the years; and from very unsavoury characters who were never able to come up with, even approximately, anything more persuasive than what she so far has been presenting to us.
       Yes i know – i’m a little bit of a ‘Romantic’!
       Cheers

       1. Media integrity is an interesting topic. The problem goes a lot further than 9/11. When one watches the news, one must think rather than absorb. Why all the fuss about Iran? Could it be they are one of the few nations not controlled by the NWO? Even China has not bothered to develop free energy. There’s been a big turnaround in network news personnel in just a short time. We lost Peter Jennings shortly after 9/11. Dan Rather left CBS. Charlie Gibson left ABC after just a few years. Tom Brokaw left NBC around the same time, and Katy Couric left CBS after a brief stay. Not everyone is comfortable lying to the public.

       2. tamborineman said: “……..i too believe that some kind of “exotic” weaponry has been utilized in the destruction of the towers, i certainly agree with her on this very important point. A “defender” of Judy Wood, and her extensive and detailed work overall, would be a more appropriate description, i think ……a ‘defence’ especially directed toward the relentless vitriol and vindictiveness she has been the recipient of over the years; and from very unsavoury characters who were never able to come up with, even approximately, anything more persuasive than what she so far has been presenting to us.”
          OK, but if you believe my point [1] as you say you do , why does it even matter to you [or to anyone else for that matter] exactly what destroyed the WTC complex?
          I don’t get it- why is that even important? Who cares?
          How does yours and others endless, infighting/arguing over, and supposedly definitively “proving” whose particular favorite pet theory about the exact methodology used for demolition is actually correct change the fact of my point[1],or even numbers [2] and [3]?
          [When, in any case,it is virtually impossible to definitively “prove” _any_ one of these competing theories one way or the other or to the exclusion of the other theories to anyone who does not want to be so convinced, as any reasonably intelligent person should be well enough aware ].
          Wouldn’t it be more useful for all of these different, fanatical “tower destruction methodology theorists” to instead find out and then emphasize what they _could_ actually agree on [ i.e . my point {1},that it was an inside job, plus maybe point [2] and [3]], and forget trying to convince everyone else that the particular destruction methodology that _they_ happen to champion is unquestionably the right one, and then move on from there? [i.e. move on starting from what they all agreed on, rather than remain mired in a never ending circle of internal disagreements concerning destruction methodologies etc. etc.]
          Regards, onebornfree

85. “Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved