This is a video and picture enhanced radio show interview between Dr. Judy Wood and Regina Meredith on Conscious Media Network at http://www.cmn.tv/radio/judy-wood/
Where Did The Towers Go is Dr. Judy Wood's book which is a summary of the physical evidence submitted in her federal qui tam case accusing the defendants of science fraud. NIST was mandated by congress to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed..." yet NIST admitted to me that they did not analyze the "collapse." The contractors they hired with taxpayer money knowingly allowed the fraudulent report to become final.
Sadly, this case had no support from the "Truth movement," leaving the judges free to ignore the law in order to dismiss the case (which they acknowledged they did) so they could sweep it under the carpet. Had this case been allowed to move forward, the defendants (whose expertise is energy weapons) would have been put under oath (equivalent to subpoena power).
This book contains physical evidence, not theories or speculation, but physical evidence that is overwhelming and conclusive as to what happened. But for the record, Dr. Wood does not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01; nor does she believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01.
This is not a case of belief. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, thenLet us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don't even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you'd better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.
Dr. Wood's own research is not speculation. It is a forensic investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01. She doesn't address who did it, nor does she concern herself with that question right now. Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.
By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with a "conspiracy theory" of any kind. The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to her research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.
Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, "9/11 was an inside job," is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that "19 bad guys with box cutters did it." Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.
What is presented in this book is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence. It is the body of empirical evidence that must be explained in order to determine what happened.
For more about Dr. Judy Wood, go to www.drjudywood.com.
To see more about the book and order your copy, go to www.wheredidthetowersgo.com.
Reader Comments
Dr Wood has many useful and scientific observations and has a powerfully impressive confidence in what she sees as likely to have occurred. For example, her explanations of free fall and conservation of energy -- are well worth reading -- and quite useful -- as far as that goes.
WHAT OBJECTIVITY
However, her objectivity is absurdly missing when it comes to the delivery and storage of what the physics tells us is the HUGE amounts of missing energy, that was necessary to bring the buildings down and pulverize the concrete into dust. The buildings collapsing as observed must be consistent with physical law -- and that is completely unexplainable through the mere superposition of plane crash damage, gravity and/or low temperature fires acting ( when designed to withstand all of that ).
WHAT ENERGY
For example, the dust particle size is proportional to the 3rd power of the energy used, which explains why most commercial demolitions have huge chunks of concrete in the ruble, as expending ANY more explosive power is directly proportional to huge increases in unnecessary costs for explosives and time equipment to rig and make that work properly together.
WHAT COST
That is, unless the cost is not an issue at all, but where the traumatizing and melodramatic theatrical impact is a primary concern -- to terrorize, deeply ingrain and re-program people's ways of thinking -- then making appearances and statements contrary to physical law and our intuition is a good thing to further derail our reason …
WHAT SCIENCE
With definitive peer reviewed science of nanothermite residues in the WTC dusts, now 11 years later still as explosive as dynamite, we know categorically that energy was delivered to the buildings in trucks, likely transporting what was supposed to be spray-on fire-proofing but really was a high explosive.
Dr. Wood appears oblivious to the facts of this, and instead promulgates an absurd theory of energy being delivered via projected energy beams, instead of chemical explosives ( which are clearly very easy to transport the many tons of such ).
The appearance of being all so plausibly objective as this article buttresses, is an illusion, that acts as flying support members to hold up the patently and exceedingly unlikely hypothesis that NYC electric power was used, to disintegrate the buildings -- through the use of directed energy weapons ( and/or mini-nukes, depending upon who you listen to ).
WHERE's the BEEF
The sheer size and complexity of Mega-Joule directed energy beam weapons systems, means that entire buildings would have to have been hollowed out and filled with various electronics like power conditioning storage / capacitor banks and laser pumping systems -- or massive superconducting magnets looped together to accelerate high energy particles. Building this, aligning and testing this, operating, collimating, and directing the beams -- and then hiding of all this -- is hardly more likely than the use of high explosives and trucks.
-- -- --
Basically, Dr Judy Woods is either directly complicit or a pawn in a very devious and systematic COINTELPRO program, that is purposefully attempting to undercut actual science about real explosives used, detected chemically, microscopically, and seismically.
Anything that erodes the most likely theory, is much like creating unfounded but nonetheless plausible doubts ( like what got OJ off ).
If Dr Woods were in fact objective, she would have calculated the weight of the explosives needed to explain the buildings collapses, and found that far easier to explain -- than how somehow several LLLs were imbedded and made operational inside of several NYC buildings circling the WTC ( LLL has the world's largest directed energy LASER, and even that is not up to the job )
"With definitive peer reviewed science of nanothermite residues in the WTC dusts, now 11 years later still as explosive as dynamite, we know categorically that energy was delivered to the buildings in trucks, likely transporting what was supposed to be spray-on fire-proofing but really was a high explosive"
the "nanothermite residues" that were found were, more specifically, "iron-rich spheres", which do not necessarily require nano-thermite. Most of the mass of the buildings were pretty clearly turned to dust, which included a lot of iron. See?
Your theory here is based on current public scientific theory. There clearly is much about physics, specifically electromagnetism and gravity, that is not understood by mainstream and 'official' science.
MY AMBIGUITY
I apologize, I mistakenly used an ambiguous word that for most refers to the aftermath combustion remnants of said explosions, as I wasn't clear enough about my referring to the unexploded still ACTIVE nanothermite explosive materials.
In fact, the undetonated portions of an explosive of this extremely small size, are properly called residues, although you clearly understood that to mean explosion by-products.
Yes, with absolute honesty the explosion by-products in the dusts, did contain many "iron-rich spheres," which can only be explained as being created at extreme temperatures ( far above diesel fuel ), or by events like asteroidal impacts.
If you'd take the time to read the science and paper about nano-thermite evidence, you'd be able to conclude that this was about far more than merely " specifically, "iron-rich spheres"."
I will give you credit that the material that we're both referring to, does contain iron … and you're entirely correct, that balls of iron ( of themselves ) are not explosive.
CONTRAST WHAT IS NANO-THERMITE
The well known macro-scale thermite reaction is merely incendiary ( not explosive ) for normal grinds of iron and aluminum ( sometimes magnesium ) powders.
Nano-thermite material has a significantly higher surface area to weight ratio, and thereby is able to release far more energy quicker ( exponentially so ) because of the very close proximity of reactants AND the because oxygen is included in the material ( not provide from the surrounding air ).
In a way, this much like the qualitative differences of air-breathing jet engines ( needing air to burn fuel ) from rocket engines that carry on board, both fuel and oxidants ( able to burn in vacuous space ).
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE
Look at the actual photomicrographs of the nanothermite high explosive material found ( and exploded ) in the dust and please do explain how those images are not in any manner spherical ?
See red/gray chips of Fig. (2) & (4.) in "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" -- [Link]
It's far more than just the visual evidence, of unexploded laminated ( layered ) nanometer sized and ( tinier than micro-fabricated ) high explosives, that can still be detonated 11 years later, as the chemical analysis proves that this is not mere "iron-rich spheres."
WHAT ELEMENTS
For elemental analysis, the article states that :
"X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and a significant carbon (C) peak as well."
-- -- --
So it now appears that your unsubstantiated claim I make "lots of assumptions," is w/o much basis -- while I demonstrate the science and reasons for what I've stated as part of the scientific consensus.
You are correct about how the "mass of the buildings were pretty clearly turned to dust," which I do agree with, so we are both clearly viewing the situation as being far beyond the official 19 hijackers w/ box cutter narrative ( w/ minuscule diesel fires and gravity collapse alone ).
QUALITATIVE AGREEMENT
The good news, is that we both agree that massive amounts of energy had to be added to the WTC buildings to cause the collapses -- which is the key take away, and QUALITATIVE result as far as I'm concerned. The govt's theory is totally a worthless collection of lies and misdirections.
This qualitative idea is particularly important, when we're not getting down to the actual low-level details exhaustively and systematically.
I know what the equations require of the energy needed to pulverize steel and concrete, and even more energy is needed to make "iron-rich spheres," as that requires vaporization of the metal, far beyond its melting point.
---------
The real question to consider is essentially from Occam's razor ( wikipedia: principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected ), as the simplest theory that explains the evidence, is more likely.
Why do we need to use fantastic directed energy weapons, when simple explosives ( and trucks ) are more than enough to do the job ?
---------
ALIEN TECH
I will concede the argument, that IF there were batteries capable of storing the output of nuclear power plants, that were the size of star trek phasers -- then phasers would be much more possible.
Those that wish to believe that such technologies exist on the planet, and the military has yet to use them, may be correct that their are forces more powerful than what human empire has, working the planet so as to say.
PREDICTABLE MILITARISTIC URGE
I suppose the military might want to make the appearance of spending uncounted billions on somewhat portable 10 kW laser systems ( the power of ten regular microwave ovens - oh Wow ), while all the time having millions of times more dangerous weapons -- but that that strains credibility, and how the military always makes use of what is has, as soon as it can, to impress the others to submit to domination.
To quote a famous movie about atomic apocalypse :
___ " what's the use of a doomsday device,
___ if no one knows you have it " ?
Everything that I stated, was based upon the assumptions of human devised demolitions, and available technologies.
If humans have the tech and will power, why do we need to presume that necessarily more knowledgeable and powerful beings and technologies were involved ?
QUINTESSENTIAL RISK MANAGEMENT
For my own responsibility and empowerment, I choose to believe that whatever non-physical reality exists is benevolent, or that we are protected -- and that they leave our choices and consequences up to us.
I can compassionately understand those who have given up on the human ( and psychopath ) race to destruction and oblivion, and see that alien intervention is our only possible remedy -- but that is their choice on how to see things, not mine.
What is we really are alone ( or left that way ), and more and more people give up on being part of any solution, is the risk of that worth taking ?
But what do I know, I'm just an egg …
of how the towers just blew away in the wind.
This also explains why no massive 'conspiracy on the ground' was required. And the torched cars a mile away on FDR Drive. And why things spontaneously burst into flames. And countless other anomalies in fact.
The implications are staggering of course. For the past ten plus years the whole '9/11 truth movement' has been barking up the wrong tree!
Well you have definately not read Dr Judy Wood' book, because if you had, you would understand the effort and sheer amount of data that she has accumulated.
There is absolutely now no doubt, that someone on this planet has a weapon of unspeakable power, and they used in on 9/11.
If Nicola Tesla were alive today................vindication my friends, vindication.
Thank you for replying, but I've no need to read any more of her stuff.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am a firm believer in Tesla's genius and know better than most, how much of his theories have become the practical foundation of our technological society ( AC, wireless, drones, high-voltage, … ). With the carcinogenic dangers of cell phones now a matter of fact, I sincerely doubt that Tesla's ideas about 'free' energy distribution ( if ever released and implemented ) would have been w/o serious health issues, of course inconceivable to people when he lived.
I am somewhat amazed that some folks wishfully think that Tesla's technologies would ( somehow ) of course solve many of mankind's problems ( b/c he was anti-authoritarian ), when who knows how many people are dying every year from high tension AC electrical lines passing near their homes and offices. Yes, he did beat the pants off of Edison's competing idea of DC electrical distribution, but now in hindsight -- if we revered life more than saving expensive power losses over great distances -- I suspect we'd use superconducting DC distribution.
I am very favorably impressed with how well Dr Woods uses physics to properly address the issue of unimpeded free-fall acceleration, which clearly proves that massive amounts of energy were added to cause the WTC buildings to collapse and become pulverized. She's a very useful source, to rebut those claiming collapses were due to strictly to airplane impact, low temperature fires, and gravitational energy release.
I do not doubt that she's accumulated a huge collection of "data," nor that there's a lot of truth in her book and web site.
But I do doubt that anyone ( yes, anyone ) has enough objective and verifiable data, to conclude that "There is absolutely now no doubt, that someone on this planet has a weapon of unspeakable power."
Millions of pounds of high explosives, meticulous systems engineering, deceitful orchestration, and trucks -- are perfectly & plausibly ALSO a "weapon of unspeakable power."
__ Particularly, when none
__ on this forum
__ want to speak
__ about them …
As far as I found looking at her web site, some time ago -- Dr Judy Wood ( then ) lamely dismissed even scientifically peer-reviewed and independently proven nanothermite high explosive evidence, that demonstrated that pulverization was intimately and pervasively connected to the use of likely painted on ( e.g. ploy: fire-proofing redone throughout ) nanothermite material.
That she found absolutely no credence to the unquestionable evidence of many other scientists, is hardly proof of her objectivity and pursuit of truth. That she mimics the establishment's evasions and denials about the use of high explosives ( particularly nanothermite ) is to me, a huge unresolved and contentious issue.
She's got a lot of explaining to do, and if she has done so -- I've yet to find it … Please do provide the links, if she's become responsive to the broader reality, that ( to me ) supersedes and conflicts with her pet 'exotic' theory.
Any scientist that blatantly ignores other parts of the consensus science, w/o providing a shred of counter-evidence and analysis, is clearly touting her own horn ( while acting as if deaf to objective reality )
Or a disintegrating ray, would require enormous amounts of energy, and such energy sources would have to be on the planetary/stellar level momentarily redirected. Possible, but how is it done and does the technology exist to implement?
Dr. Woods explanation does answer some intriguing questions, but then raises more. With so many theories flying about, her's is as good as the next just on face value.
Her enthusiasm for free use of unlimited power is in the face of humanity's lack of discipline and wisdom. If it was used for a weapon once, it will be used again. The quesion that science doesn't seem to have in thier vocabulary is this: "Should we be doing this?". NO.
Because...if it is possible to do, someone did do that. Coming full circle, the MAD doctrine has to be applied if such a weapon exists. If you can pulverize large surface structures, you can also crack open faults by only vaporizing a thin veneer between rock strata. If you can de-spin a hurricane by siphoning off energy, then you can likewise rob energy from another planetary/stellar source to ramp up one.
Man does NOT possess the discipline or wisdom to handle such a device, not at this point. He should not mess with the weather or climate, he should not tinker with genetics, etc.
Thank you for your voice and experience in this.
You're more credible than I was, stating that "disintegrating ray, would require enormous amounts of energy," while I made fun of somehow locating several LLLs inside of NYC buildings. LLL = Lawrence Livermore Labs
In fact, even hundreds of LLLs, with many standalone and dedicated nuclear power plants' electricity -- would likely be required to disintegrate WTC1/2, as energy pulses are of stupendous power output, over very brief time spans. These devices when fired ( which takes days to build up to ), triple the entire world's output of energy, for that slice of a moment.
Imagine hooking up three Earths together, and re-directing all of that energy elsewhere than those 7 billion people were using it -- you'd think someone might notice, right ?
Many millions of pounds of explosives ( ~ 2 or 3 Megatons, per tower -- of seismic energy recorded ) is hard for me to accept and visualize, but that is far easier than the alternative theories.
I agree, that if mankind already has this level of destruction, we'd likely be missing huge parts of Antarctica, or the moon … and such God-like power needs to be reserved until we become at least human. As Mahatma Gandhi quipped in answering what he thought about Western Civilization -- " I think that it would be a good idea."
Is it even possible, that the military has been vaporizing comets and asteroids, and not telling us ?
If we take Iron 26 and split it evenly we come up with Aluminum 13.
If we take Carbon 6 and split it evenly we come up with Lithium 3.
If we take Calcium 20 (the lime in the concrete) and split it we come up with Neon 10 and then Boron 5.
Just what was the elemental composition of the Twin Tower dust?
[Link]
The problem is a lack of imagination
If you soak beryllium in a nuclear reactor and later bombard it with x-rays, you get a neutron shower of high intensity. By placing such loaded beryllium targets on the building, you could use a high power x-ray beam to unleash enough energy to pulverize the towers. The stored energy is enormous. High heat would be a tell tale sign. But such a plausible theory is only needed if the tons of thermite were found inadequate for the job. If people had sufficient knowledge and imagination, they wouldnt put out these endless arguments that controlled demolition or Judy Woods "energy beams" are not possible. A child can see from the photos that there was an explosive event. The mystery lies in the blindness of the "educated"
It is the association with Judy Woods that can serve to discredit the plausible explanations of controlled demolitions. Please be careful not to jump to conclusions about this woman's imaginative suggestions. Stick to known science. That is all that is needed to know that it was a false flag and to be seen a probable cause for a new investigation. That is what we need. If that succeeds, then we might learn other facts as well.
Point taken, however. False-flag is false-flag. If enough people can just wrap their head around that, we'll be getting somewhere.
I greatly appreciate your concise and wise objective reminders :
_1._ "Judy Woods serve
to discredit the plausible explanations of controlled demolitions"
_2._ "Please be careful not to jump to conclusions… [&] imaginative suggestions"
_3._ "Stick to known science."
_4._ "[use] false flag … [proof as] a probable cause for a new investigation"
_5._ "If that succeeds, then we might learn other facts as well."
I would like others to better understand that even Dr Judy Woods' approach to science, must inevitably follow the empirical path of validated hypothesis, demonstrated in uncontested facts, and independent corroboration.
What you provide for ( and recommend ) is the very basis of the scientific method, where we nail down what we can when we can, and wait for further details as both time and theoretical tools advance. Those that want to jump to bizarre conclusions, not yet established and substantiated by some form of consensus -- are not acting scientifically.
Science is a method that may be initiated in what feels correct, but that process depends upon a rigorous treatment of details that can be proven, over time. Many subject matters are as yet, outside of the current consensus view of what science entails -- but that absence doesn't prove that those subject matters are false ( only as yet unproven, or understood ).
HOW MUCH ENERGY IS THERE
I will admit, that Dr Woods may be onto something, as the Zero-Point energy can be conceptually seen as unimaginably powerful, but so far pragmatically it literally ranks as a "Zero".
[ "Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields.
…
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial although the ability to harness it is.[9]
…
The requirement of Lorentz invariance at a statistical level then implies that the energy density spectrum must increase with the third power of frequency, implying infinite energy density when integrated over all frequencies.[10] However, as pointed out, this energy can't be withdrawn from the system.[9]"
-- Wikipedia ]
[Link]
SCIENCE IS ALWAYS EVOLVING
>”
See "Einstein Thought Dowsing Was Genuine and Now 17 Experts Will Explain Why"
[Link]
key price,
My Einstein quote was accidentally zero'd out by my errant use of HTML tags
QUOTE
Einstein himself respected dowsing and what it implied. He said: “I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."
/ QUOTE
[Link]
Point well made. Notwithstanding ALL of the circumstantial evidence that DEFINITELY points to a FALSE FLAG ATTACK, the sheeple have got to wake up and get off the boat floating down the river of denial.
Not only the circumstantial evidence, but the hard forensic evidence as well.
If I could take Iron (main component of steel of which the WTC towers had more of than most other skyscrapers) and split the atoms into Neon and Sulfur, the Neon would not react but escape as a gas, and the Sulfur would continue to react with the Iron (iron sufide aka pyrite), plus the Atomic Weight would be reduced.
Disintegrated by frequecy wave.
Or, if I could teleport the molecular bond splitting frequecy in and the Iron out to another place, the Steel framing sections would disappear as they fell....into thin air. Quite the trick.
Don't know about the rest of you, but this is one subject that I find intriguing, and were it not for the lying tongues that fed off the loss of 3,000 souls, I wouldn't feel so bad about it. The Propaganda Ministry must be overjoyed.
Has anybody read this report?
I looked up 2018 in Wikipedia and read about The Kingdom Tower, a Kilometer tall building making it the tallest in the world. Saudi Arabia.
Look up 2020 in Wikipedia. Notice the last entry under Dates Unknown.
We need several honest people from the inside who can give us the facts, one with a conscious who knows all the facts, one with a conscious who is in the media that can make sure the story could be told.
Oh, and of course, several million shepherds to make sure the Sheeple are paying attention. Even then what are the chances of them waking up?
Maybe if extraterrestrials landed and said "911 was an inside job"!
Finally, nearly two whole YEARS after the publication of her book, SOTT gives some recognition to Judy Wood’s unparalleled forensic investigation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.
Nine months ago when I complained on the forum about SOTT’s lack of coverage of her work, as well as its promotion of the Jones/Gage thermite/thermate/spray-on-super-duper-nanothermite distraction, I was severely upbraided by Joe and told by Laura (who had shamelessly used Dr. Wood’s work in a blog post without proper accreditation) to leave SOTT alone and start my own website. [Link]
In addition, I was disbarred from answering criticisms leveled at me in the thread by disbarring my username from PM’ing or replying to practically all topics on the forum. Although effectively banned from the forum, the word “banned” did not appear over my avatar, apparently to deceive others into assuming I had been appropriately shamed into making no further response to my accusers.
Also links were deactivated where I referred to articles on Andrew Johnson’s website www.checktheevidence.com which showed how SOTT-promoted fraudsters Jones and Gage and others were mischaracterizing and ridiculing Dr. Wood’s work.
Other links I posted pointing to sites discussing new free energy technologies were also deactivated. Even though the subtitle of Dr. Wood’s book is “Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11,” SOTT has no interest in free energy technologies, claiming they are “tar babies” and “red herrings,” and that “we’ve done extensive research” on them.
However, when I asked for links to this “research,” my request was summarily ignored and I was called naïve for thinking that such technologies could ever have a possibility of coming to fruition.
Which is why, for example, you will find no investigation or even mention by SOTT of the work of Defkalion, Steorn or Mehran Keshe at www.keshefoundation.org who has committed to delivering 3-4 Megawatt free energy generators NEXT MONTH.
The availability of cheap free energy technology across the planet would do more to undermine the psychopath’s hold on humanity than any other single development I can think of.
Why aren’t these technologies a subject of discussion at the sessions with the C’s?
Joe snidely told me I was unable to see the “big picture” due to my “comical naivete.”
But who is really missing the big picture here? Who is evincing a critical lack of discernment and regard for a subject with vast implications for the brighter future for humanity which SOTT claims as its primary goal?
Nevertheless, I'll address your point. We have suspected since 2002, based on session material, that 'exotic' technology was used in 9/11. Our point all along has been that the nature of this technology is not publicly known by scientists. There are no books that describe it, there is no evidence that anyone on earth has the ability to wield it to the extent of destroying the WTC towers.
People have a hard time believing that 9/11 was an inside job, let alone accepting that the deed was done via 'unearthly' exotic technology. We've always thought that Wood's explanation was the closest to the truth, but trying to use it to convince the average person would be pointless since, as I said, the average person can't even accept the basic premise of 9/11 being an "inside job". So, we chose to focus on more palatable ideas that would have a better chance of opening a chink in the closed minds of the people.
You didn't accept this, and with rude and ignorant persistence, accused us of all sorts of hidden agendas. In short, you shot yourself in the foot because apparently you don't know how to be civil. You can harp on about any subject you like, but until you learn some manners you're unlikely to get very far, at least not here.
I heartedly agree that there is plenty of room for all sorts of suspicions, and I would submit that creating that ( see quote next ) particular result, was carefully researched, planned, orchestrated, and accomplished.
"We have suspected since 2002, based on session material, that 'exotic' technology was used in 9/11"
I wish you'd consider that those suspicions are only justified, when and if, the sum total of the best of more plausible explanations are unable to provide, any alternative to "exotic" and/or non-human enterprises.
UNDERESTIMATING THE PSYOPS
My point elsewhere, never really addressed, if that these supposed 'masters of the universe' and 'titanics of wall-street' have access to the very best and most effective tools of PSOPs manipulation and misinformation. Their very charter is based upon somehow making the masses of people not only ask for, but actually demand those policies that are the most self-destructive.
Why would the start of the worst of this, be any different ?
UNDERESTIMATING THE THEATRICS
It is not too strange nor difficult to surmise -- that the very object of deflecting worldly blame, away from the mass murdering war criminals, was to make it appear unworldly. But also somewhat within the bounds, of what the masses can be mind-warped into being convinced, is ALSO somehow natural ( and more likely than the use of explosives )
I submit that the perpetrators used perhaps ten times, it not one hundred times -- more explosive energy, in order to not only hide the next set of floor's explosive demolition under the ( very much desired and crafted ) clouds of the descending debris -- but to accentuate ( to those however receptive ) BOTH how plausible it was to be a force of nature and/or the use of exotic high energy weapons.
Layers of lies, made into webs of webs, all together stretching all credibility -- but ALSO encompassing matching sets of suggestibility and vulnerability, to many diverse recipients ( each of which look only at their preferred subset ).
UNDERESTIMATING THE SUGGESTIBILITY
I completely allow for the possibilities of energy storage and releases far beyond anything mankind has ever made use of, because we know factually of such existing at the center of every galaxy.
The problem is, that the universe itself needs millions of suns masses, multi-solar system sized mechanisms, and extreme rotational energies to make this happen.
UNDERESTIMATING THE BLOW-BACK ENERGIES
What seems to be missing is the balancing logic and validation of the likely consequences of essentially mini-nukes exploding next to people, in extremely confined areas. You need not believe my own experience, but please do consider that IF even a fraction of what energy released occurred, as is suggested my Dr Judy Woods -- then there would have been massive electrical storms of the Earth seeking to re-balance the ionization of millions of tons of matter.
BTW, EMP effects do occur from the use of massive amounts of high explosives, as nature's matter itself, does not go quietly into the dark.
Do any of you see the logical fallacy of ONLY believing in the existence of the outward destructive beamed energy, and somehow forgetting that for every force, that there's an equal and opposite one ( soon to come back at you ) ?
Do any of you see the logical fallacy of ONLY believing in the existence of the energy that destroys buildings, but somehow forgetting that people descending in the stairwells were literally next to this, and many still lived ? This seems like believing in the exact opposite to what Neutron Bombs do, that only kill people but minimize the destruction of buildings
We've all seen the videos, so where are the lightening bolts BOTH cutting through the dusts, going in and then back out ?
Even if it were invisible ( like ultra-violet lasers, neutron beams, or any other conveyances of energy ), do you think that this massive amount of energy would not impact the clouds of dusts falling everywhere ? If it were capable of passing through the thick dust and debris clouds visually undetected, then why would it suddenly decide to disintegrate the buildings' matter ? Isn't is more likely that if it successfully passes through dust clouds ( neutrino-like ), that it ALSO passes equally so through solid matter ?
UNDERESTIMATING THE LIGHTENING
Are any of you aware that Earth's lightening system is continuously firing from clouds back to Earth, because anything else would be impossible, as electric charge is always being delivered into the clouds ?
Nature is incapable of holding very long to huge accumulations of charge. Yet somehow -- for many of this site, there's a similar equivalency -- that astronomic amounts o energy can be directed and released with little of any traces left over. The huge dynamic energy flux of nuclear explosions, and power plant operation -- have many well known and automatic traces of energy release.
Where is the experience of people's hair standing on end, as is clearly present during high energy thunder storms, where huge amounts of charge are being transported and winding through the very air ?
For example :
"radiation does cause a light blue glow. This radiation is called Cherenkov radiation. When extremely radioactive material is placed underwater (like in a nuclear reactor) it can produce a blue glow. The glow is an optical shockwave, like a sonic boom that occurs when charged particles are emitted faster than the speed of light in water." wikipedia [Link]
Plastics and glass ( and even bricks ) act as if 'paper,' to record the passing 'ink' of high fluxes of energy.
----
In conclusion, I find it extraordinary that people would prefer to believe in things far beyond anything ever experienced, out of such exceptions events -- rather than take a balanced look at how Nature doesn't ever tolerate such huge energy releases itself, without compensating counter-reactions.
UNDERESTIMATING THE TSUNAMI
Some years ago, an earthquake under Indonesia caused a huge tsunami that killed 300,000 people.
If Dr Judy Wood is correct about the metaphoric 'earthquake' that demolished the WTC buildings, then where is Nature's other foot fall, that metaphoric 'tsunami' that propagated, balanced, and dispersed those huge releases of energy ?
The failure of physics, as it is currently taught and understood, to account for cars spontaneously catching fire a mile away from the WTC, people being lifted up then set back down a block or more away by the 'pyroclastic flow' of the Two Towers (which was actually cooler than the ambient air temperature), metal that glowed red but actually gave off relatively little heat (what everyone seems to have mistaken for 'molten metal') and countless other anomalies is not the fault of Dr. Wood.
All of your 'appeals to reason' are based on your strong beliefs, not least this one:
"I choose to believe that whatever non-physical reality exists is benevolent, or that we are protected"
In cataloguing the facts of what happened in lower Manhattan that day, Dr. Wood never even goes there. Isn't it interesting that YOU brought up the 'otherworldly' question?
Do you have some self-esteem issues, Joe? Is that why you keep projecting your own attributes on me? Is that why you banned me from your forum for simply asking inconvenient questions?
I'm actually surprised you haven't banned me here, since apparently my questions are so threatening to you.
Actually, you still haven't addressed any of my points, preferring instead (again) to go off on a tangent about justifying your promotion of fraudsters Jones and Gage and others by insisting that their thermite/thermate/spray-on-super-duper-nanothermite diversions are more "palatable" to the "average person."
So it's OK for SOTT to promote a fraudster like Steven E. Jones because he's more "palatable" to the "average person?" Are you really unaware that Jones, a deeply embedded government operative out of Livermore Labs, not only played the key role in discrediting Dr. Wood among truth activists (inventing the derisive term "space beams" to ridicule her work) but also played a key role in discrediting the Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion discovery in 1989?
Oh, but that's right, cold fusion, or as it's called in scientific circles today, LENR (low energy nuclear reactions)--that's just a "tar baby" and a "red herring," right, Joe? (You've got Laura's script there close by, don't you, Joe?)
And BTW I didn't accuse SOTT of any "hidden agendas." I complained that SOTT was snubbing Dr. Judy Wood's work (or, in Laura's case, stealing it without crediting Dr. Wood) and ignoring and failing to investigate any of the newly emerging free energy technologies.
You nor Laura never refuted those complaints on the forum and neither have you answered any of the questions I posed above.
But rather than honestly facing my complaint and answering my questions, just go ahead and attack me again, Joe, since that seems to be your favored coping mechanism.
"Do you have some self-esteem issues, Joe? Is that why you keep projecting your own attributes on me? Is that why you banned me from your forum for simply asking inconvenient questions?"
I think it's clear from your behaviour, in public no less, that you are the one projecting self-esteem issues.
"I'm actually surprised you haven't banned me here, since apparently my questions are so threatening to you."
This might come as a shock to you rawtruth, but we're not in the habit of banning people for asking questions. We do, however, draw the line at obnoxious behaviour, trolling or spamming.
"Actually, you still haven't addressed any of my points, preferring instead (again) to go off on a tangent about justifying your promotion of fraudsters Jones and Gage and others by insisting that their thermite/thermate/spray-on-super-duper-nanothermite diversions are more "palatable" to the "average person."
Where and when has SOTT "promoted fraudsters"? Going by your logic, you would label David Ray Griffin a "fraudster" too. Yes, he doesn't have the whole banana, but who the heck does? His books on 9/11 are an excellent primer for people WHO HAVE NO IDEA THAT SOMETHING WAS AMISS. It did LOOK like molten metal after all.
Many bizarre things happened that day, things that have not yet been accounted for, and that probably never will be, at least not for the general public. The point is that however normal people arrive at the fundamental understanding that there are wicked people who do wicked things and that they have misplaced their trust, they first need to get there!
This has been patiently explained to you before. In return, you were rude, obnoxious and made the same kinds of slanderous suggestions about SOTT you are making now. [Link]
"So it's OK for SOTT to promote a fraudster like Steven E. Jones because he's more "palatable" to the "average person?" Are you really unaware that Jones, a deeply embedded government operative out of Livermore Labs, not only played the key role in discrediting Dr. Wood among truth activists (inventing the derisive term "space beams" to ridicule her work) but also played a key role in discrediting the Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion discovery in 1989?"
I, for one, wasn't. Have you written an article about it? Have you shared that information freely? Or are you holding onto it for yourself, to pull out whenever you want to attack someone you disagree with?
"And BTW I didn't accuse SOTT of any "hidden agendas." I complained that SOTT was snubbing Dr. Judy Wood's work (or, in Laura's case, stealing it without crediting Dr. Wood) and ignoring and failing to investigate any of the newly emerging free energy technologies."
That's precisely what you're implying, that SOTT has hidden agendas. The only one with a hidden agenda here is rawtruth, whose Right Man Syndrome has blinded him from the truth.
"You nor Laura never refuted those complaints on the forum and neither have you answered any of the questions I posed above."
If I had a guest in my home who was rude and obnoxious, I too would exercise my right to not associate with him.
"But rather than honestly facing my complaint and answering my questions, just go ahead and attack me again, Joe, since that seems to be your favored coping mechanism."
Says the one who comes in here swinging his sword left and right!
Gads, people in the 9/11 Truth Movement constantly complain about 'infighting dividing the movement'. Well, yeah, what do you expect if this is how those who profess to speak for Truth behave?
What ARE you talking about? Dr. Wood's research has received favourable coverage in numerous articles on SOTT:
[Link][Link][Link][Link][Link][Link]
"Nine months ago when I complained on the forum about SOTT’s lack of coverage of her work, as well as its promotion of the Jones/Gage thermite/thermate/spray-on-super-duper-nanothermite distraction, I was severely upbraided by Joe and told by Laura (who had shamelessly used Dr. Wood’s work in a blog post without proper accreditation) to leave SOTT alone and start my own website. [Link]"
That's not how I remember it. I remember you being incredibly rude and obnoxious, resulting in the discussion quickly turning sour.
How's the website coming along anyway?
"In addition, I was disbarred from answering criticisms leveled at me in the thread by disbarring my username from PM’ing or replying to practically all topics on the forum. Although effectively banned from the forum, the word “banned” did not appear over my avatar, apparently to deceive others into assuming I had been appropriately shamed into making no further response to my accusers."
Disbarred?! Accusers?!
You are fooling no one but yourself, rawtruth. You are not the plucky hero, SOTT is not an evil empire, and this is not a court of law.
"Also links were deactivated where I referred to articles on Andrew Johnson’s website www.checktheevidence.com which showed how SOTT-promoted fraudsters Jones and Gage and others were mischaracterizing and ridiculing Dr. Wood’s work."
Well, that is usually done as a matter of routine. It's not necessarily the case that judgement has been passed. If we are unaware of something being linked to, then we are relying on the network to tell us about it, i.e. something YOU could have done to contribute to finding, growing, spreading awareness of Truth. Instead, your self-importance took over and you took offence.
"Other links I posted pointing to sites discussing new free energy technologies were also deactivated. Even though the subtitle of Dr. Wood’s book is “Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11,” SOTT has no interest in free energy technologies, claiming they are “tar babies” and “red herrings,” and that “we’ve done extensive research” on them.
However, when I asked for links to this “research,” my request was summarily ignored and I was called naïve for thinking that such technologies could ever have a possibility of coming to fruition."
A little exercise in logic: let's say some super-secret agency has this technology. They've had it for a long time. They use it on 9/11. Do you really think this agency is going to let others use it for the greater good?
"Which is why, for example, you will find no investigation or even mention by SOTT of the work of Defkalion, Steorn or Mehran Keshe at www.keshefoundation.org who has committed to delivering 3-4 Megawatt free energy generators NEXT MONTH."
That's all well and good rawtruth, but I'd wager that few outside your universe have heard of these things. Again, why don't you write articles, issue press releases, start your own website, print flyers, whatever, just do your part to help make the unknown known.
"The availability of cheap free energy technology across the planet would do more to undermine the psychopath’s hold on humanity than any other single development I can think of."
See exercise in logic above.
"Why aren’t these technologies a subject of discussion at the sessions with the C’s?"
Continuing the exercise in logic, if the Cs were asked how to build such a device and the instructions were followed, and it worked, and the technology began to be rolled out for everyone, what do you think would happen next?
"Joe snidely told me I was unable to see the “big picture” due to my “comical naivete.”"
No, he told you the truth. Then, as now, YOU are being snide.
"But who is really missing the big picture here? Who is evincing a critical lack of discernment and regard for a subject with vast implications for the brighter future for humanity which SOTT claims as its primary goal?"
Newsflash rawtruth: there isn't going to BE a "brighter future for humanity", and the lack of access to 'free-energy technology' will have had nothing to do with that outcome.
“Where and when has SOTT "promoted fraudsters"?"
I already pointed out several of these in my reply #7on the forum thread [Link] and I provided links where you can go to read about their behavior, and, in particular, how they have repeatedly mischaracterized and ridiculed Dr. Wood’s work. In this regard, there is an excellent book by Andrew Johnson called 9/11 – Finding the Truth which you may order as a paperback or download for free [Link]
“Going by your logic, you would label David Ray Griffin a "fraudster" too. Yes, he doesn't have the whole banana, but who the heck does? His books on 9/11 are an excellent primer for people WHO HAVE NO IDEA THAT SOMETHING WAS AMISS. It did LOOK like molten metal after all.”
David Ray Griffin has been given copies of Dr. Wood’s book, but he refuses to say anything about it. So apparently he agrees with you and Joe that, because the public “has no idea that something was amiss,” that means they can’t handle the truth and must be provided with “palatable” lies instead?
So please explain to me what the difference is between your and Joe’s and Griffin’s approach and that of the 9/11 Commission and NIST and the other promoters of the official 9/11 lies?
Niall, is there something about Dr. Wood’s book that you find hard to understand? That you think the general public could not understand? My 82-year-old 2nd grade schoolteacher mother had no problem understanding it. I did not have to feed her lies from the likes of Jones, Gage or Fetzer in order to “get her there.”
“I, for one, wasn't. Have you written an article about it? Have you shared that information freely? Or are you holding onto it for yourself, to pull out whenever you want to attack someone you disagree with?”
The information is not difficult at all to find, assuming you can google, but I’ll make it easy for you, Niall. Here’s a short video clip with links below it for further details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11twz70zyNE
“That's precisely what you're implying, that SOTT has hidden agendas. The only one with a hidden agenda here is rawtruth, whose Right Man Syndrome has blinded him from the truth.”
So my complaints about SOTT’s failure to cover Dr. Wood’s work as well as the emerging field of exotic energy imply a “hidden” agenda? Just what would that agenda be, Niall?
As I’ve pointed out, the agenda I see is that anyone who brings facts to the SOTT table that do not comport with the group-think enforced here is subjected to derision with terms like “rude” and “obnoxious.”
“What ARE you talking about? Dr. Wood's research has received favourable coverage in numerous articles on SOTT:
[Link][Link][Link][Link][Link][Link]”
Thank you, Niall, for proving my point. Those six articles do little more than mention Dr. Wood’s name, and NONE of them discusses the evidence she collected:
1. Promotes Wood detractor Gage’s group
2. Doesn’t discuss any evidence, offering up speculation, theories, etc.
3. Discusses presentations by fraudsters Gage, Jones, Fetzer
4. Talks only about controlled demolition speculation
5. By Fetzer who wrongly insinuates that Judy Wood supports his speculation that explosives were employed
6. Mentions Dr. Wood only as an early member of the Scholars group, before Jones, and later Fetzer, subverted it for their own disinfo purposes
“That's all well and good rawtruth, but I'd wager that few outside your universe have heard of these things. Again, why don't you write articles, issue press releases, start your own website, print flyers, whatever, just do your part to help make the unknown known.”
I posted links to five websites with extensive information on these topics, in hopes that a productive discussion might ensue, but the all-knowing forum moderators deactivated them all, and no one replying to me showed that they had even taken a cursory glance at any of them. I suppose that would include you, too, Niall, since you seem to remember my posts so well.
“Continuing the exercise in logic, if the Cs were asked how to build such a device and the instructions were followed, and it worked, and the technology began to be rolled out for everyone, what do you think would happen next?”
I think if the plans were published on the internet FIRST, before there were any working or demonstrable models, and subsequently downloaded to millions of PCs across the planet, the genie would be out of the bottle, and any attempts by TPTB to stop those millions from building and proliferating the devices would be futile.
“Newsflash rawtruth: there isn't going to BE a "brighter future for humanity", and the lack of access to 'free-energy technology' will have had nothing to do with that outcome.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, Niall, and I won’t call you “rude” and “obnoxious” for it. But it does raise the question, if SOTT doesn’t believe there will ever be a brighter future, what is the point of SOTT’s stated goal of raising mankind’s awareness?
Reply #7 "promotes", to use your term, Judy Wood's main point, that the towers turned to dust and blew away in the wind.
"David Ray Griffin has been given copies of Dr. Wood’s book, but he refuses to say anything about it. So apparently he agrees with you and Joe that, because the public “has no idea that something was amiss,” that means they can’t handle the truth and must be provided with “palatable” lies instead?"
There you go with those assumptions again.
"So please explain to me what the difference is between your and Joe’s and Griffin’s approach and that of the 9/11 Commission and NIST and the other promoters of the official 9/11 lies?"
Well that's a first, for me anyway. Now I'm one of the co-conspirators?!
"Niall, is there something about Dr. Wood’s book that you find hard to understand? That you think the general public could not understand? My 82-year-old 2nd grade schoolteacher mother had no problem understanding it. I did not have to feed her lies from the likes of Jones, Gage or Fetzer in order to “get her there.”"
Yes, we know the 9/11 Truth Movement was probably set up from the beginning, but just because someone doesn't accept that some publicly unknown technology was used on 9/11 doesn't make them "fraudsters". Your dear mother notwithstanding, can't you see how looney it would sound to most, regardless of whatever degree of probability you and I could assign to it, that some equivalent of Tesla's death ray 'dustified' the WTC complex??
"So my complaints about SOTT’s failure to cover Dr. Wood’s work as well as the emerging field of exotic energy imply a “hidden” agenda? Just what would that agenda be, Niall?"
You pretended to be interested in starting open honest discussion with an attack on SOTT for not living up to your expectations.
Regarding "the emerging field of exotic technology", do you mean stuff like this? [Link]
"As I’ve pointed out, the agenda I see is that anyone who brings facts to the SOTT table that do not comport with the group-think enforced here is subjected to derision with terms like “rude” and “obnoxious.”"
Group-think, ha! That's what they always say in the end by the time their little song is sung. What it really is at this point is trolling.
What would you like, a banner across the top of the page that reads 'SOTT.NET ENDORSES JUDY WOOD'S WORK! [This sponsored ad was brought to you by rawtruth]'
Talk about seeing a conspiracy where none exists! You're paranoid!
"I posted links to five websites with extensive information on these topics, in hopes that a productive discussion might ensue, but the all-knowing forum moderators deactivated them all, and no one replying to me showed that they had even taken a cursory glance at any of them. I suppose that would include you, too, Niall, since you seem to remember my posts so well."
Oh, so innocent! Your first post in that thread was you accusing SOTT of "snubbing" Wood and "promoting fraudsters"!
"You’re entitled to your opinion, Niall"
Well, we might just be getting somewhere. You too are entitled to your opinion. OPINION, not truth or 'raw truth'.
“What would you like, a banner across the top of the page that reads 'SOTT.NET ENDORSES JUDY WOOD'S WORK! [This sponsored ad was brought to you by rawtruth]'
"Talk about seeing a conspiracy where none exists! You're paranoid!”
I said nothing about a conspiracy. You offered those links as your “proof” that “Dr. Wood's research has received favourable coverage in numerous articles on SOTT.” And I pointed out that those six articles didn’t cover Dr. Wood’s research AT ALL.
So please tell me how my pointing out your obvious fraud makes me paranoid?
“Yes, we know the 9/11 Truth Movement was probably set up from the beginning, but just because someone doesn't accept that some publicly unknown technology was used on 9/11 doesn't make them "fraudsters".”
Correct, what makes them fraudsters is when they knowingly mischaracterize and ridicule Dr. Wood’s work, which SOTT’s most frequently featured 9/11 “darlings”—Jones, Gage and Fetzer—have all done. I have repeatedly provided you references in this regard which apparently you prefer to ignore. That’s your option, but don’t whine when I say that SOTT promotes fraudsters.
“Your dear mother notwithstanding, can't you see how looney it would sound to most, regardless of whatever degree of probability you and I could assign to it, that some equivalent of Tesla's death ray 'dustified' the WTC complex??”
What’s looney is to feed people lies about thermite/thermate/spray-on-super-duper-nanothermite or mini-nukes, which SOTT has done repeatedly. Please tell me, Niall, how you became so perspicacious that you are able to act as the supreme judge on how much truth “most people” can handle?
I actually think my dear mother was a good test case in this regard. Do you have some others to refute her experience?
“You pretended to be interested in starting open honest discussion with an attack on SOTT for not living up to your expectations.”
My initial post was a complaint about SOTT’s failure to recognize Dr. Wood’s work and to investigate and report on emerging exotic energy technologies. Joe chose to interpret that as an attack and proceed to return-attack the messenger rather than honestly assessing the complaints. And neither he nor anyone else responding on the forum gave any indication that they had actually READ the links I provided supporting my position. That makes it rather hard to have “open honest discussion,” wouldn’t you say?
“Regarding "the emerging field of exotic technology", do you mean stuff like this? [Link]”
No, I mean stuff like this:
[Link][Link][Link][Link][Link]
“Group-think, ha! That's what they always say in the end by the time their little song is sung. What it really is at this point is trolling.”
So now you add "paranoid" and “troll” to your catalog of ad hominems you and Joe have directed at me. Last time I checked, slinging out insults when faced with facts that challenge one’s belief system is a prime attribute of trolls.
You misjudge me, Niall. I can and will sing to expose fraudsters and those who promote them for a long time yet.
I'm going to pursue this further, unapologetically as you've over-generalized, and seemingly tainted your own credibility by insinuating that my underlying beliefs and only basis for posting here, is "all" dismissively " 'otherworldly' " and therefore w/o much meaning or useful need for you to respond to.
There is a huge difference between not responding to me, because of a simple choice not to do so ( needing no explanation ) as starkly contrasted to implying that there is nothing to respond responsibly and reasonably to.
REALLY, ALL ?
>
If this is so, please do explain how my appeals to the use of Occams Razor ( looking 1st to the simplest theory that explains the evidence ), is 'otherworldly,' suspiciously illogical ( faith based ), and/or lacking any pragmatic reason ?
Please do provide details, as how an [ as yet ] unverifiable, untested, and outlandish theory -- is so much more appealing and reasonable to you, than the use of high explosives ?
WHEN UNABLE TO ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS
From my way of looking at this, you play the " Isn't it interesting " ad hominem attack against my person, obliquely encased in a comment about a minor issue that is MUCH more a part of those wishing that Dr Judy Woods' ideas were solid science, than anything that I provided as my actual " 'appeals to reason'."
I will completely accept that pragmatically and explicitly "Dr. Wood never even goes there," but implicitly and theoretically she claims that energies were released that no one on Earth has yet to openly demonstrate, or provide validated experimentation of ( while simultaneously denying that explosives could ever explain what happened ). That is to me, is close enough to the definition of 'otherworldly' ( wikipedia: "relating to an imaginary … world" ).
WHAT'S REASONABLE
Just because Dr Woods can imagine it, and put some of the pieces together -- doesn't make it science -- and certainly doesn't make it reasonable ( wikipedia : "having sound judgment; fair and sensible" ).
Essentially all of my comments to this article are about suggesting the utility of first looking to solid ( Earthly ) science, and the already proven use of high explosives -- and if that is ultimately unable to meet the empirical demands of science, than we can look constructively into exotic sources of energy ( or question the validity of tacit facts, that may be part of a widespread campaign of mis- and dis-information ).
Why would you unsuccessfully attempt to taint my postings, as if I was ONLY advocating the superficial explanation of " 'otherworldly' " energy release, as what is demonstrably evident in my postings, is that I suggest we look first and for-most to the well grounded use of trucks and high explosives ?
-- -- --
Of course Dr Judy Woods is a scientist, material specialist, and she deals with facts ( and theories ) -- I hereby stipulate that that is her background, but that appeal to authority -- is only as good as the independently verified and validated quality of her work.
Of course the quantity of work, is less important than the quality of work.
WHAT'S SCIENCE
What is at issue here, is if her treatment of the events of 911 is BOTH objectively scientific and inclusive of ALL of the relevant evidence and science.
ULTIMATELY, it is her burden of proof to establish that her approach incorporates ALL of the relevant factual evidence and is an improvement over ANY alternate theories, by being more inclusive and thorough ( with greater predictability, accuracy, & consistent expected outcomes ) -- than any other.
OTHER EXPLANATIONS
Could it be that a few special forces operatives working stealthily ( while things are covered in thick dust ) might provide a more plausible and accurate explanation of a few cars being burned on FDR ?
Who could ever conceive of the instigators of 911, planting misleading facts and stories, and sowing dissent and divisiveness to tie people up in 'JKF-type' Gordian knots, so as to quell and derail the convergence of an accurate time-line and a truthful explanation of things ?
Or that the over pressures resulting from the basement structures being obliterated ( using of millions of pounds of high explosives ) might better explain why some people heard such and were tossed about like leaves ( before collapse began )?
Or that the huge already cooled pyroclastic downward flow of debris and dust, once meeting the horizontal street, was more than enough to sweep people off their feet … during and shortly after collapses ?
-- -- --
As far as that rust is concerned, the atomic level disintegration and making of swiss-cheese like razor-edged holes in 3" thick tempered steel, is readily explained by use of multi-thousand degree thermite explosives -- so I'm pretty sure whatever rusting Dr Woods observed is explainable by something other than what she claims.
Some of that structural steel is still available at NIST … but if they'd let it be released for testing, they'd likely be providing evidence of their own complicity in the treason against the USA people.
ERRATA ( from nspire on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:38 CST ) :
My quoting of Niall's quoting of me was lost :
REALLY, ALL ?
" All of your 'appeals to reason' are based on your strong beliefs, not least this one:
"I choose to believe that whatever non-physical reality exists is benevolent, or that we are protected"
In cataloguing the facts of what happened in lower Manhattan that day, Dr. Wood never even goes there. Isn't it interesting that YOU brought up the 'otherworldly' question? "
If Dr Judy Wood is correct about the metaphoric 'earthquake' that demolished the WTC buildings, then where is Nature's other foot fall, that metaphoric 'tsunami' that propagated, balanced, and dispersed those huge releases of energy ?
Modern Science is only 400 yrs. old. A drop in the bucket. Just because we cannot fathom how buildings vaporize before they hit the ground (no seismic signature to speak of) does not mean it cannot be done. We see how it went to dust and vapor. No bodies either, just remnants, like the steel structure.
At this point, all I can do is to speculate how molecules were driven apart then the atoms split into noble gases and lighter elements. Perhaps the mass of the building was taken into another density. All we see in the videos is a core vaporizing and outer shell peel off and turn to dust and rising smoke. The core was mostly steel, and jettisons black smoke rising, while the outer shell is steel and concrete and is whitish in color but flows downwards and outwards billowing like a pyroclastic cloud. It acts like pulverized rock.
The buildings didn't fall: they did something else.
You make a claim that "we cannot fathom how buildings vaporize before they hit the ground," but nanothermite used along with other high explosives does provides the answer, to those willing to consider it. Why is the extreme use of an over-whelming amount of meticulously coordinated high explosives, beyond your ability to "fathom" ?
Secondly, it is not "we" that "cannot fathom" that, and even though you are not alone -- that "we" certainly doesn't contain me.
To the claim of "they hit the ground (no seismic signature to speak of)," I am not at all surprised by that, as that is what is exactly expected from falling debris, nearly all of which was pulverized into dust.
On the other hand, there were seismic events recorded for both WTC 1 and WTC2, at the moments just before the tops of the towers started to collapse. This corresponded to the necessary obliteration of the towers' structural integrity subbasement connection to bedrock. Scientific analysis of those signatures corresponds to the use of approximately 2-3 Megatons of TNT for each tower ( before the pulverizing collapsing even began ).
NUCLEAR DISINTEGRATION ?
I doubt even Dr Judy Woods, is willing to support your odd imaginations about how "molecules were driven apart then the atoms split into noble gases and lighter elements." Splitting of atoms, usually referred to as nuclear fission, is of course very energetic but requires much more than vague hand weavings to create. Any such energy release is accompanied by many easily detected, brilliantly & blindingly lit, and thoroughly persistent radioactive by-products and high energy radiation. When matter is torn apart, there are extreme consequences -- which is why nuclear power plants and supposedly "spent" fuel is almost forever, so dangerous.
Yes, "The buildings didn't fall: they did something else," they were explosively demolished & pulverized ( in a timed progression, slightly slower than unencumbered free fall acceleration ), and turned into mostly clouds of dust that purposely hide that process. Nonetheless, the laws of physics still ruled every spec of dust and piece of debris, that fell to Earth.
You claim that the buildings were "vaporize[d]" which means you somehow feel justified in saying that they were to turned into a gas, not the clearly well documented and observed moving clouds of dusts and debris. Perhaps an analogy would help you, as 'snow' is solid and likened to ice smashed into 'dust,' while boiling water requires a much larger amount of added energy to create, as it is a vapor or gaseous form of water ( at an elevated temperature ).
WAS IT PLASMA
Now it is true, that if enough energy was made available to turn the two WTC towers' solid matter into energetic plasma ( like the incandescent Sun is made of ) -- then we could call that a gas -- but everyone within dozens of miles would be either also vaporized or blinded ( and we know that didn't happen ).
Did you know that the sound that lightening makes ( thunder ) is a direct result of the passing of extremely high electrical currents through the air, and that the sounds are made after turning that air temporarily into ionized plasma ? In other words, the sound of thunder is the surrounding air rushing back into the near vacuum ( or void ) created by the path of that white-hot electrical current.
Everyone has already seen matter turned into vapor ( ionized gas ), by watching lightening. So what did you observe in the WTC buildings being demolished, that was in any way similar to that ?
"All we see in the videos is a core vaporizing and outer shell peel off and turn to dust and rising smoke."
it seems you really can't understand the point. You arrived on our forum and, without provocation, began to accuse us of "snubbing" people with no evidence whatsoever other than the fact that we hadn't given much attention to Wood. You followed that up by accusing us of "promoting fraudsters". And yet you cry "foul" when you get the natural response to such rude and arrogant behavior.
The thing you don't seem to grasp is that your opinions are just that, opinions, yet you barge in, presenting them as facts and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you as "promoting fraudsters" and "snubbing" the truth.
Btw, "rude" "ignorant" and "uncivil" are not insults, they are words that describe your behavior. You can reject all responsibility for that behavior if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that that is the way you acted when you first broached this subject on our forum, and you continue in the same vein today.
Btw, you didn't "ask inconvenient questions" on our forum, you barged in and expressed your opinion in the form of accusing us of "snubbing" and "promoting fraudsters".
I'm actually surprised you haven't banned me here, since apparently my questions are so threatening to you.
We don't ban people because questions are threatening, there are no such questions as far as we are concerned. Most often we ban people because they are arrogant asses. You seem to fit the profile.
Anyone who wants to read the thread in question can view 'rawtruth's' obnoxious attitude at this [Link]
I have read your comments on the forum and your original comment pertaining to the article “Andrea Rossi's eCat - is it possible that this is for real?” As far as I can see the closest you came to being “arrogant and rude” was when you mentioned Dr. Wood's work being snubbed. Maybe ignored would be a better word (Niall, the links you provided barely touched on Dr. Woods work).
Joe - I find myself agreeing with rawtruth when he says “it puzzles me why SOTT would not be a leader in promoting Dr. Judy Wood's evidence demonstrating that such energy technologies DO EXIST and in making new energy developments (such as Rossi's) a key topic on the site and in the newsletter”
Why doesn't SOTT report on this topic?
Rawtruth – your response to neema on the forum really gets to the heart of the matter in regard to new energy technologies and helps explain why this is such an important topic. The following is rawtruth's response to neema on the forum:
“I am mostly in agreement with what you have said, neema. It is indeed true that technology, like knowledge, is a two-edged sword. And whether or not humanity will have the spiritual understanding and fortitude to move to a greater awareness and STO mode of living over these next few years remains a very open and relevant question to ponder.
It has been my experience that most people, excepting of course the intra-species predators in our midst, will by and large treat each other fairly and without malice if their own survival and basic needs are not threatened.
But absolute control of energy resources along with inculcating a scarcity mindset is a primary tool of the predators making make it difficult for ordinary folk to meet their basic needs.
But if, for example, Rossi were able to fulfill his proposed 10KW e-Cat device at a price point of $500 or less, millions across the planet would suddenly have the means to become largely independent from the grid and thereby remove themselves in a significant way from the control structures of the predators.
Personally, my family is debt free and owns a piece of land where we raise our own beef, vegetables, fruits and nuts, and we pump our own water from a deep artesian well. Once I load up our freezers with the beef harvest, as well as chickens and pork from a fellow grass-fed farmer, we have a year's worth of food that can sustain us as long as our freezers and pump keep running.
We do have a propane-fueled generator when the grid goes down in storms or whatever, but that still leaves us exposed if the grid goes down for months and propane becomes unavailable or exorbitantly priced or roads leading to our place become impassable, say, during a cometary bombardment.
But should we avoid a direct hit and an e-Cat generator were available, no worries! We'll be good to go and able to rebuild and able to help out our neighbors as well.
And just think of all the small home business opportunities that virtually free energy would open up! Eco-villages and living lightly on the Earth, growing your own food year-round in protected, temperature-controlled structures then becomes imminently practical and attainable, not just in developed countries but in the under-developed countries as well.
No longer would starvation and wars over energy resources and dangerous nuclear plants and waste be a necessary part of humanity's future.
It is difficult for me to see how such a development would be used by the predators against us. THEY already have advanced energy technology, and, of course, chose to weaponize it for mass murder to generate the overwhelming fear factor necessary to commence their fake war on "terror." But disseminating such technology out to the people, as I see it, is at the least a potent antidote to their control structures. And, it might allow many of us to create self-sufficient survival communities that could be centers for rebuilding following the impending economic collapse and potential cataclysms.
To my mind this is still a worthwhile goal to strive for, while we're in "wait" mode regarding whether humanity's collective spiritual strength is sufficient to deal with our intra-species predators and face our upcoming tests, whatever they may be.”
Am I being naive in agreeing with rawtruth on this subject?
Why doesn't SOTT report on this topic?"
There's the rub. Rawtruth didn't just say "it puzzles me why SOTT would not be a leader in promoting Dr. Judy Wood's evidence". He immediately accused us of "snubbing" and "covering up" and "promoting fraudsters". If he had presented himself in the way you describe, there wouldn't have been a problem, but we generally don't appreciate people being obnoxious and falsely accusing us and presenting their opinions as fact and demanding that everyone agree with them or they are "promoting fraudsters". That approach tends to make us think that the person has a hidden agenda. After all, if you have an "innocent" question why present it as an accusation?
This is the fact that Rawtruth cannot or will not recognise: that his behavior and tone from day one has been unacceptable and as long as he continues with it, he can expect to be treated the way he treats others. It seems that Wood's thesis, and promoting it to others, is not important enough to rawtruth for him to reconsider the way he approaches people about those ideas. So be it.
Like most free energy projects, the eCat sunk too: [Link]
But that wasn't what was really eating rawtruth. He just wants to be right and he relies on SOTT to tell him that he's right.
"Joe - I find myself agreeing with rawtruth when he says “it puzzles me why SOTT would not be a leader in promoting Dr. Judy Wood's evidence demonstrating that such energy technologies DO EXIST and in making new energy developments (such as Rossi's) a key topic on the site and in the newsletter”
Why doesn't SOTT report on this topic?"
Why does it puzzle you? Why do you ask "why SOTT doesn't report on this topic"? SOTT does, but I'm curious to know what exactly you think is missing and why it should be there.
We have experience of dealing with free energy fraudsters. It's not a pretty scene. And it has been to be that way. [Link]
"Rawtruth – your response to neema on the forum really gets to the heart of the matter in regard to new energy technologies and helps explain why this is such an important topic. The following is rawtruth's response to neema on the forum:
[...]
Am I being naive in agreeing with rawtruth on this subject?"
Not at all, that post by rawtruth was the most reasonable thing I've heard him say. The problem was that he couldn't accept it when others disagreed with his opinion. If the world was different, then maybe free energy devices would help humanity. But at root, our problem isn't a material one that can be solved by technological innovation. The reason why most free energy devices are quack and/or why most schemes don't come to fruition is because the world is so totally ponerized. No amount of free energy can save a species that accepts torture of its own.
“Like most free energy projects, the eCat sunk too: [Link]”
Well, there you go again, Niall, promoting fraudster Steven Krivik, who brings little to the LENR table beyond a longstanding smear campaign against Rossi. I already posted my references re Krivik on the forum, but since they were deactivated, maybe you missed them. Here they are again:
[Link][Link]
Whether or not Rossi himself is a fraudster may still be an open question. Certainly he has made multiple claims and promises and has repeatedly failed to deliver. However, development of his LENR technology is ongoing, and more players are becoming involved. Latest news here:
[Link]
“But that wasn't what was really eating rawtruth. He just wants to be right and he relies on SOTT to tell him that he's right.”
WRONG. I became a supporter of Dr. Wood’s research long ago while SOTT continued to ignore it.
“But at root, our problem isn't a material one that can be solved by technological innovation. The reason why most free energy devices are quack and/or why most schemes don't come to fruition is because the world is so totally ponerized. No amount of free energy can save a species that accepts torture of its own.”
1. Please point me to your research proving that “most free energy devices are quack” and please include the devices discussed here: [Link]2. Please tell me your solution to a ponerized world. Oh, but I forgot, I guess you don’t have one, since “there isn’t going to BE a “brighter future for humanity.”
give it a rest! Don't you get it?! You don't go around making assumptions and accusing people of "supporting fraudsters" and "snubbing" on topics that NO ONE can be sure about. Is that clear enough? You come to our forum and make high-handed demands about Rossi and why we are carrying "hit pieces" on him by "notorious fraudsters" as if it was all intentional and we're part of some super secret conspiracy and yet now, you make the statement "whether or not Rossi himself is a fraudster may still be an open question"!
Are you starting to get it? Any normal rational person, confronted with your attitude, wouldn't hesitate to tell you to get off your damn high horse for a second, stop making assumptions and accusations, and get a freakin grip on yourself, again, for gawd's sake! Your coming across like a fundie christian.
Yes, Rossi may or may not be a fraud. But it is not helpful in making a determination to feature a hit piece by a fraudster pretending to be a journalist. Does SOTT not consider it obligatory to check a writer’s background and other work before featuring their articles?
Such is especially important when it comes to highly controversial subjects such as 9/11 and exotic energy technology. You and Niall still do not seem to understand that if you accept the evidence which Dr. Wood puts forward, then that automatically calls into question those who have refused to accept it for many YEARS, all the while both mischaracterizing her research, muddling it up with unsupported speculation and demeaning her personally with ridicule.
Steven E. Jones, Jim Fetzer and Richard Gage have all done that, among others, and Fetzer even threatened to “destroy” Dr. Wood’s reputation. I focus on these three because SOTT has most often featured their work. I have provided references for you to study which demonstrate their misbehavior beyond any doubt by a “normal rational person.” If you personally “can’t be sure about [it],” then maybe you need to do some homework instead of continuing to lecture me about how I present myself.
In that regard what I have criticized is SOTT’s lack of discernment regarding certain personalities and areas of research. I have not applied any epithets to you or Niall or anyone else at SOTT. On the contrary on this page alone the two of you have slung the following ad hominems at me:
rude
arrogant ass
ignorant
uncivil
ill-mannered
obnoxious
spammer
troll
slandering
blind
self-important
paranoid
Yet it is I who needs to “get a freakin grip” on myself?
Who in this exchange is most clearly revealing the effects of a ponerized society?
is that ALL of this started with your attitude, which, as I have stated, involved you peddling your OPINION as fact and using this opinion masquerading as fact to make assumptions about our intent and level unjustified accusations against us based on those assumptions and opinions presented as fact.
Until you recognize that when you arrive on someone else's forum and start throwing around unjustified accusations based on assumptions you are naturally going to receive a less than enthusiastic response, we have nothing more to say on the topic.
It should be noted that in all of this, despite your alleged goal of publicizing the work of Judy Wood etc. you have allowed your obstinacy and obtuseness to side-track you in achieving this goal.
THANK YOU
Thank for this important and salient point ( "[ it ] started with your attitude" ) -- as we're all under the influence of PAIN, which is essentially the same experience for each of us.
Perhaps it's true that 99% of what we experience is what we make of it, and that 1% is what is the common shared reality.
SHARED EXPERIENCE = LEARNING
What is the most effective, humane, truth inspiring, and progressive response to any painful experience is to learn through that, how better to be compassionate of another's pain -- as that is shared deeply and I believe that it can be a useful tool -- when we then choose our own individualized responses to that, appropriately.
We impact each other by sharing, and I can choose to learn -- or not, from that.
DEFLECTED EXPERIENCE = REACTING
On the other hand, too often my own misplaced desire to deflect pain, causes me to misperceive the origins of that -- as having come from the outside -- instead of owning it for my own internal experience.
I am thankful to have an opportunity to express my opinions and ideas, and to appreciate what other's opinions and ideas are -- even if they bring up feelings of fear, which might lead to reactive habituated responses.
Perhaps the lessons of the Earth school are easy at times, or perhaps sometimes beyond our current capacity.
GRATITUDE REPLACES ANGER & FEAR
I believe that 'the teacher appears, when the student is willing' -- and that we can only follow our own truth ( and reach a broader consensus ) to the extent that we our honest with ourselves, and in part surrender to giving up ineffective and out moded ways of thinking.
-- -- --
WHEN DO WE HAVE MORE POWER
What is most important ( to me ) is understanding that everyone herein, understands that a false-flag deception occurred, and that most feel that what matters is getting more people ( however that may be ) to discover this truth, as nothing else is as likely to wake people up as finally experiencing the depths of this hidden layers of pain and disgust ( that hold us reactively captive ) -- that we've quite effectively been conditioned to suppress and repress ( and externalize -- as if enemies surround us, on all sides -- even friendly sides ).
Sure there are real enemies to be concerned about, although the worst and most damaging of these ( to my way of thinking ), is the enemy of my own limited and reactive thinking.
Joe wisely extols us toward becoming more open minded, by pointing out the contrariness of acting counterproductively:
"despite your… goal of publicizing the work of Judy Wood etc. you have allowed your obstinacy and obtuseness to side-track you in achieving this goal."
DOUBT IS THE FRIEND OF TRUTH
I personally don't feel the Dr Judy Woods needs "publicizing," but more objectivity and discerning about more plausible explanations, as from my point of view -- we need to exhaust known and worldly possibilities -- before becoming convinced that these explanations are w/o any merit. If some supposed evidence doesn't "fit in," to an otherwise very plausible explanation, then it may be that that very evidence itself was purposefully planted misinformation, designed to waylay and propel us away from truth.
My own experience in life, leads me conclude that certainty is double edged ( sometime useful, sometimes not ), and perhaps can best be seen and used as a tool to progress us to better understandings, step by evolving step. Without the possibility of real doubts, our own potentially dead-weight certainty can lock us in it's own vise-like grip.
How can that, get us to where we want to go ?
Perhaps, it is the shared voices of others that we trust, that then allows ourselves to be receptive to what we've yet to fully comprehend and understand ( to stand under ), and to grow even further -- collectively ?
"When we know better, we do better"
-- Maya Angelou
___ ' minds are like parachutes, and
___ function best when fully open '
I once attended a lecture entitled " The I and We of Art and Science," which pursued a fascinating idea of intrinsically individualistic and entirely unique accomplishments of artists ( the "I" ) , as contrasted by the collective enterprise of science building consensus accomplishments incrementally ( the "we," regardless of the originator ).
[ e.g. Newtons' equations would be the same if he never lived, just as the version ( notational form ) of his calculus ( hat he invented and preferred ), is no longer of any useful value. Later students of physics and calculus significantly benefited from a simpler and easier to understand formulation. ]
Perhaps we are moving into a more complex multi-sensory world, where these two previously independent worlds of creative experience and invention somehow meld together. Each has a rigor and discipline, and each can inspire, expand, and inform human experience.
What some present here as Dr Judy Wood's 'Science '-- I see more as her 'Art' -- and when other's can independently replicate and validate her theories, and/or prove something beyond explosives were necessarily used, then I will gladly let go of my limiting certainly and embrace and overcome my limiting doubts.
Life is a dance …
You said, “Perhaps, it is the shared voices of others that we trust, that then allows ourselves to be receptive to what we've yet to fully comprehend and understand ( to stand under ), and to grow even further -- collectively ?”
In that spirit I would like to share something with you.
From your comments above, others have noticed that the perspectives you are offering clearly indicate that you have not studied –all—the evidence presented in Dr. Wood’s book. I agree with their assessment.
Perhaps you don’t want to shell out the $45 to get your own copy, or perhaps, as you stated, you have “no need to read any more of her stuff.”
I would politely suggest to you that such a stance is the opposite of allowing “ourselves to be receptive to what we’ve yet to fully comprehend and understand…”
I would further suggest that—some—of what you’ve yet to fully comprehend involves little-understood (as of yet) principles of molecular dissociation through interfering field effects, which do not require inputs of large amounts of energy and do not result in either heat or radiation being released.
These phenomena are covered in Dr. Wood’s book, but also on the following pages of her websites
[Link][Link][Link]and on further pages linked from those.
I would point out that the observed phenomena discussed on those pages, including the work of maverick inventor/experimenter John Hutchison, cannot be explained using the conventional physics which you are citing in your analysis of the WTC destruction.
I trust this will be helpful to you and allow us all “to grow even further—collectively.”
“The point you are missing is that ALL of this started with your attitude, which, as I have stated, involved you peddling your OPINION as fact and using this opinion masquerading as fact to make assumptions about our intent and level unjustified accusations against us based on those assumptions and opinions presented as fact.”
I DID accuse you of “snubbing” the work of Dr. Judy Wood, which you claim is only my OPINION. However, I had done my homework before making this charge, and I backed up my claim with FACTS both on the forum and here. Laura attempted to refute my claim on the forum, and I answered with FACTS showing that her answer actually went toward supporting my claim. The same occurred with Niall’s attempt here.
I won’t deny that my attitude was challenging. I had noticed on the forum a clear pattern of trashing other perspectives which were not in complete accord with Laura’s. I wanted to see if you and she could respond to a factually-based challenge and honestly admit your omission or if instead you would circle the wagons and attack the challenger.
I got my answer.
Please see my response at Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:54 CST.
If you're personally empowered to take constructive action and heal our social woes, then it doesn't matter whether you believe in possible science ( Dr Woods ), or objective verifiable consensus evidence ( nanothermite ).
It matters not whether I have more academic and experiential basis to both conceptually and pragmatically believe the possibility of what you do absolutely believe, the "little-understood (as of yet) principles of molecular dissociation through interfering field effects, which do not require inputs of large amounts of energy and do not result in either heat or radiation being released."
It matters not whether I've direct experience in making use of some of the world's most powerful tools that manipulate matter at it's most fundamental level, and you can believe me or not -- that unzippering the very forces that hold space and time together -- is no small task.
It matters not whether there are those that go even further, wanting to believe that this can be then launched into orbit, have negligible experience in what that entails.
* * * *
Somehow, you've become convinced that the same forces that caused the big-bang, can be safely contained, projected, and controlled, much like one can light a candle and blow it out. And you find this modern day alchemy entirely credible and worthy of much more than mere respect, just because a book or two was written about it ?
That even if conceptually and mathematically self-consistent ( considering how many different sets of theories of as yet unified physics exist ), that someone has leap-froged the usual practice of science laboriously advancing through various incremental stages of unsuccessful experimentation -- directly to a perfect implementation, w/o a single unexpected side effect.
-- -- -- SATIRE -- -- --
Perfect stealth married to near infinite energy, and absolute control of both, which is so much more probable than the use of high explosives. And expenses be damned, this is important, so whatever it costs is just fine.
From first someone making pure concept ( that solves what a century of the world's best minds has yet to do ), to final implementation w/o any of that dreary effort to make it iteratively work, by refining mistaken approaches, assumptions, and having no evidence of any of this ever happening -- sounds like magic to me. Sounds like someone worried about falling off a horse, or getting wet in the rain -- designing and then implementing a warp drive to go down to the 711 to buy milk ( and then not telling anyone about it ).
As if nuclear power plants worked the way that the PTB claim, as compared to how they actually regularly do blow up and kill many millions of people ( but over many decades ).
Let's get down off of the idealistic pedestal of "little-understood (as of yet) principles," and talk about how do you think that the underlaying energy fields, can be controlled ? How can any of this be "little-understood" if it was actually used so successfully ?
__ For example, is there a web site that provides
__ instructions on how to modify a microwave oven ?
I mention this, as the magnetron that generates the microwaves is very similar to early particle accelerators ( betatron ), so perhaps you imagine that huge powerful beams of quark quantum-level impact, can somehow be directed towards the very fabric of space itself, that can both release extremely energetic effects, while also being self-powered, and acting as self-cleaning ovens ( leaving no residue or even a glow of ionizing energy ).
I suppose, if someone could make and then position magnetic monopoles on demand -- they could strip matter of it's usual almost unimaginable spaciousness and adhesions of nucleus's protons, and then tickle electrons and protons to merge into what is called degenerate matter ( neutron star ). Nature does this during a stellar process ( gravitational collapse ) called a supernova -- but one should consider that it's best to be a lightyear or so away from that energetic reaction.
Just how people survived being in very close proximity to such stupendous energetic events, is beyond unimaginable.
I suppose if one wants to believe in things lightyears beyond anything ever seen on Earth, one might as well ALSO add novel technologies that project force fields and protective envelopes to save human lives. We now have personal computers ( thought impossible 50 years ago ), inside our phones, so why not add personal force fields that move with you, as you run down the staircase ?
If these forces to unzip space's fabric exist ( and block the explosive forces of a supernova ), then why did they need to leave any evidence -- like all those obscuring explosive dust clouds -- why not just erase the matter of the WTC towers, as if it were beamed Star Trek like to another location ?
Somehow, these force fields were able to block all of the destructive energy from vaporizing human beings -- but also allowed the dusts clouds and air, to freely flow ?
Let me see if I understand this, it was supposed to look like the airplanes caused the collapsing of the towers, but using such trivial technology as high explosives, was deemed to be BOTH far too simple and inexpensive -- as compared to ripping apart the fabric of matter even below the quark quantum level and then not having any excess energy leak out anywhere ?
-- -- -- / SATIRE -- -- --
You can do all the homework you like, but there is no way such homework would ever have provided you with any conclusive proof that we "snubbed" wood or her work. Snubbing implies deliberate intent to ignore someone or something that one is fully aware of as a means to make clear one's opinion of that someone or something. It is essentially commenting negatively on someone or something by NOT commenting on or excluding them or it.
You say you wanted to see if we could "honestly admit our omission". That is not true. You wanted to see if we would admit to "snubbing" Wood. There's a difference.
The point is that you came in with accusations that were unfounded, accusations based on your incorrect assumptions. Note, you did not make statements of fact, you made accusations that implied evidence of intent on our part. There was and is no evidence of intent. Your narrative however is showing evidence of revision.
Laura, therefore, was well aware of Dr. Wood’s work and even used it in her blog post but chose not to give Dr. Wood credit. She also chose not to discuss it on the forum or have anyone at SOTT look into it, despite the apparently high credibility she gave to it in her blog post.
Further, in January, 2011, Dr. Wood’s 500-page textbook-quality compendium of scientific evidence concerning the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was published. You admit you had a copy, yet until now, nearly TWO YEARS later, you whisper not a word of it at SOTT or on the forum.
Instead you and Laura and others promote the work of Fetzer, Jones and Gage—all detractors and ridiculers of Dr. Wood—on SOTT and the forum.
If all that isn’t evidence of snubbing, as you say, “deliberate intent to ignore,” then what would it be?
You chose to believe that it was deliberate "snubbing" when, as I said, there was no clear evidence that there was intent. There are other plausible explanations for what you describe, yet you opted for the "they're doing it on purpose" explanation when, if you were a more reasonable, rational person, and not so identified with Wood's work, you would have opted to ASK first rather than accuse. But you accused, and you got a fairly normal response to such belligerent assumptions.
Now, since you think so ill of us, what with our hidden agendas etc. surely you won't want to further patronize (in both senses of the word) our web site or work any longer. You'd only be wasting more of your time when it could be more productively used in promoting Dr. Wood's work.
Exactly! Any “reasonable, rational person” can clearly see from my previous evidence that, until now, SOTT has refused to associate itself with Dr. Wood by name. That is the number 1 definition of “snubbing” given by the American Heritage dictionary, “to slight by ignoring.” I.e., you demonstrated “deliberate intent to ignore.”
As to your REASONS for ignoring Dr. Wood and her work, I have not speculated or made accusations.
However, the lavish attention you bestow on her detractors—Fetzer, Jones and Gage—certainly calls into question what your “other plausible explanations” might be.
One which comes to mind might be what Niall mentioned above, that SOTT ignored Dr. Wood’s research because of “how looney it would sound to most.”
I pointed out to Niall, and repeat here, that taking such a stance puts one in alignment with NIST and the 9/11 Commission and others who claim that “the public can’t handle the truth.” And that SOTT thought it proper to feed the public lies from Fetzer, Jones and Gage rather than the truth of Dr. Wood’s evidence.
Another “plausible explanation” which comes to mind might be that Dr. Wood’s work clearly demonstrates that exotic free energy technology EXISTS. Laura and SOTT, of course, deny this, claiming that free energy technologies are “tar babies” and “red herrings,” and that “we’ve done extensive research” on them.
So, if you actually don’t think it proper to feed the public lies, and you aren’t trying to cover up the actual existence of free energy technology, just what might your “other plausible explanations” be, Joe?
Your arrogance is staggering. You're basically saying that you KNOW what we were thinking better than we do.
The bottom line rawtruth, is that you came in with UNFOUNDED accusations presented as FACT.
In short, your approach was the problem. It was impolite, arrogant and accusatory. End of story.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
From a chat with the Cs on the 18th of January 2003:
Q: (A) I want to ask about the collapse of the World Trade Center. There is evidence of seismicity and unusual pulses that seem to have simply disintegrated matter.
A: Very good observation, but that does not mean human sabotage either. There were certainly "pulses." They were of a "natural" source that was "sculpted" or "shaped" and directed.
Q: What do you mean by a 'natural source?'
A: Energies of the planet artificially collected and disbursed. An artificial earthquake sort of.
Q: But we are still talking about technology. Where is the operational center for this type of thing?
A: 4th density technology.
Q: This we know. But there are human brains involved. What brains are behind this?
A: Did you ever wonder why the pentagon is a pentagon? Hint!
Q: Is that why they specifically included the Pentagon as one of the buildings to be hit in the 9-11 attack; to allay suspicions?
A: Yup!
Q: Are there 4th density sections to the Pentagon?
A: Absolutely. It is a "deep cover" kind of place.
...from a session on the 6th of August 2005:
Q: (J) Were there really explosions at the WTC as reported by firefighters on the 24th Floor and in the basement by civilians?
A: Yes, but not necessary to plant charges. Only necessary to plant "conductors" for "shaped" EMP.
...and again on the 20th of October 2005:
(A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.
Q: (J) What did they use then to make the steel beams collapse in the way they did, so completely? Did you have a question about that? (A) Well, specially prepared is essentially explosives that would cut the beams. But there are many. (H) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (S) Yes, EMP (J) Conductors with shaped EMP. (H) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (J) If they could take down the Columbia… (H) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.
Q: (H) Did it come from the same source? (J) Space-based satellite?
A: Now you are getting into warm water.
Q: (H) I guess we don’t want to get into hot water… (Laughter) (A) It’s not our business. (H) Curiosity killed the cat.
A: Let us just remind you that it scared even George.
Q: (J) Was Robin Cook murdered?
A: What do you think, Laura got a herniated disc. How about a herniated heart?
Q: (J) But the interesting question is then, if that was deliberate, obviously, where was the concentration of negative energy coming from?
A: There must be a “local conduit.”
Q: (J) And that then may lead to a question about Italy. What was the cause of the spontaneous fires in Cannetto over the past two years on a couple of occasions?
A: Shall we say “practicing” and refining tech. Imagine, metal pipes that burn; steel beams that “dissolve.” Connection?
Q: (J) You know these pipes that were bursting into flames? (A) Yes. (L) Metal was bursting into flames. (J) Metal pipes. Electrical appliances. (H) And then steel beams in the WTC. (J) A couple of years ago. (R) We were looking at the videos from the WTC and we were wondering where the beams came from. (A) Still, I want to know what kind of physics is behind this because I can’t imagine any.
A: The nanotech you read about is going in the right direction.
What if 9/11 was even weirder than Judy Wood imagined? The scientific analysis she brings to the table is great, long overdue and certainly appears to support some ideas we gleaned from what the Cs have said about it.
But there's an assumption built into the overall case she presents for 'directed free-energy' zapping the WTC. She's thinking to herself, "Well, it must therefore follow that somebody, somewhere on the planet already has and is using this technology"... but what if its ownership and the decision/power to use it is really something that is 'out of this world', so to speak?
I'm glad you replied with the C's background, and built your comment from a point of ENCOURAGING the broader view of somehow finding perspective -- which is exactly why I decided to return to this thread.
I do this more humbly then before, as I can see that what we resist is necessarily going to persist.
WE ALL WORK TOWARD SURVIVAL
Some us are more idealistically inclined, and others more action oriented — and the inevitable force of our sharing the experience and collaborating, is that we all benefit from each other’s gifts and by being open to growing our understanding and going deeper into that. To me, the health of our social organism ( and thereby ourselves ) depends upon each of us surrendering ( at times ) to the needs of the many.
Elie Wiesel poignantly reveals, that although “to be free is important, but to have others be free is even more important … I have 6 million reasons to give up on the world, to give up on any other person, to give up on God, on faith, on literature, on words — and in spite of that — I must have faith in the other person, I must have faith in words, in language, I must have faith in the possibility of every human being to remain human, in spite of everything.”
I know that each of us are here for what I see as something sacred, although some become waylaid on their journey.
WHAT IS TRUTH
To me, truth is essentially formless, and dependent upon how deeply ( and that is dangerous ) we wish to delve into what is —- and perhaps exactly like the Tao, as The Tao Te Ching reveals of itself in it’s first words —- what can written about it, is not the “eternal Tao.”
Truth is a many-leveled splendored thing, as one only gets what truth one’s awareness is capable of comprehending. As “There are none so blind as those who will not see” ( John Heywood, in 1546 ). Some things don’t change …
LET’S BE MOTIVATED
You suggest the possibility of source of the 911 collapses, asking:
"what if its ownership and the decision/power to use it is really something that is 'out of this world', so to speak?"
And although I will accede that in a multi-sensory universe ( far beyond the 5 senses ), that 'out of this world' forces are more likely than not, I see an immense downside to deferring Earthly responsibility for what we can control and know — from where we are right here & now. IOW, yes I am open to the possibility that there may be outside forces, that are catalyzing human transformation towards more likely survival opportunities. BUT, this esoteric truth is far beyond what most people will ever be capable of comprehending or living within the context of ( See Arthur C. Clark’s seminal “Childhoods End” ).
I do not wish in any manner, to undercut the basic strength of our growing humanity of being personally responsible for our choices and striving to become more aware, empowered, and connected to the source of life's common oneness. The appeal to an entirely external actor, to me is ( in part ) to deny our direct ability to act in the world, and the bane of what I see as our evolving a spiritual heart-centered ( not fear-based ) way of living and relating to everyone and everything ( as we're all one ).
The psychologists expand on simple empowerment, as what they call our :
SELF EFFICACY
“ is the measure of one's own competence to complete tasks and reach goals.[1] …
Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor, by determining the beliefs a person holds regarding his or her power to affect situations, thus strongly influencing both the power a person actually has to face challenges competently and the choices a person is most likely to make. These effects are particularly apparent, and compelling, with regard to behaviors affecting health.[2] “
EGOIC REACTIVITY ENTRAPS US
What I know is true, is that human survival is about a profound paradigm shift underway, which can seen as a choice of real freedom to act together selflessly ( spiritually, that is open heartedly ), or to maintain the reactive illusions of EGO ( all about E.dging G.od O.ut, denying our interdependency ). Ego ( thought ) identification thrives on addictive patterns of blame, revenge, and projecting our experience of pain AS IF they were caused outside of ourselves. If we are unable to do that — we blame ourselves - as children do of the abuses they suffer.
PAIN IS NOT HEALED, THRU EGO
Deepak Chopra tells us that -- pain is a signal saying something is out of balance, in your emotional life or physical life AND we need to address and HAVE to process that we need to P.ay A.ttention I.ward N.ow ( PAIN )
IF one live in objective truth, and one doesn’t go through to deal with and heal PAIN, it only gets worse :
• Remembered PAIN surfaces later as ANGER & HOSTILITY
• The anticipation of PAIN in the future b/c you didn't know how to deal with it in the past; IS FEAR & ANXIETY
• The re-directing of pain, back at yourself is GUILT and SHAME
• Depletion of ENERGY that happened from All of the above is DEPRESSION
• Unresolved FEAR drives people to attempt to CONTROL others and their environment ( e.g. BANKSTERs in PAIN, we need to be compassionate of their suffering )
— — - -
Our choice is to learn what we can, and be present to the needs of everyone ( and the Planet’s ) — as we inexorably only exist as part of the whole.
__ Even if forces were unleashed beyond human capability,
__ we must somehow maintain human sanity and self efficacy
— — - -
FIND OUR OWN POWER, GO BEYOND FEAR
As far as Dr Judy Woods is concerned — she may be a useful source of ideas for some ( or even many ), but I sincerely doubt that more and more people adopting her point of view, is going to improve our survival chances. The masses are too easily controlled by the insidiously addictive techniques that deflect reason and pragmatic thinking, into authoritarian following patterns ( egoic fuel ).
Fear drives us ( i.e. our brains primitive survival function, acts in this way ) into a bizarre infantilizing demand for authoritarian ( external: father figure ) solutions, while simultaneously shutting down creative, empathic, and the drive to connect and work together with others.
Ask yourself, what is similar and/or different between these approaches:
OFFICIOUS NARRATIVE:
We know what caused the buildings to collapse ( 19 box cutters … welded by the world’s most despicable, disgusting, and evil - deserving unrelenting death, forever ), so we don’t need to even scientifically test for explosives, …
WOOD’s NARRATIVE:
We know what caused the buildings to collapse ( supposed science, no one can yet verify … welded by the world’s most powerful - and clearly dangerously deceitful manipulators ), so we don’t need to even scientifically test for explosives, …
MY NARRATIVE:
We have evidence of what likely caused the buildings to collapse, and we know that the unlimited rapacious consumptiveness of unconstrained unremitting ‘greed at any cost’ — is more than enough reason to deceitfully organize and kill millions of innocents, and THEN project, accentuate, and amplify the whip-snapping anger, fear, and BLAME — as means to BOTH profit from and control the masses. I believe very strongly, that we must seek justice and accountability w/o condemnation and dehumanizing those we see as ‘causing’ all of this. Our craven avoidance of experiencing pain of being responsible ( in not being as aware then, as we are now ), is the basis of the strengthening and continuation our own insane egoic control, based upon fears and reactive patterns of self-destruction & oblivion.
It’s about choosing better, by becoming more aware and knowledgeable, which is openly possible when we evolve transformatively to become more human ( less robotic, less reptilian reactive ).
— — - -
The real challenge is not which narrative to believe and act from within, but which one empowers and enables us to constructively evolve, ameliorate and heal what separates us from each other, and real solutions. If I am correct that our inevitable process of growth and ‘Truth and Reconciliation,’ depends upon humans acting in ever growing collective understanding - then we cannot afford to see other humans as inhumanly evil ( deserving only death ) — nor project our problems even further externally ( AVOID: we’re so powerless compared to ) … … …
__ What if the 'out of this world' forces NEVER show up,
__ or act only in the shadows to NUDGE us ?
__ What if we’re essential here entirely on our own ?
How do humans take control of the situation, if we reactively believe the PTB’s Machiavellian BS that all powerful and heinous terrorists caused this ( not our own greed ) ?
How do humans take control of the situation, if we believe Dr Judy’s ideas that all powerful and heinous shadow forces caused this ?
This is exactly the point we have been trying to make.
"How do humans take control of the situation?..."
By beginning with the basics - understanding how their emotions drive them. You touched on it repeatedly in your last post.
It can be summed up with 'KNOW THYSELF'.
OK -- we can agree that the masses are not going to be privy to this, regardless. That we all, must endeavor to handle the basics and increasingly "know thyself," or survival is at best uncertain.
[ About OK. Historically is quite ironically thought to be Prez Andrew Jackson's remnant of near illiteracy. When asked why he would use the initials O.K. ( instead of expected A.J. ) to indicate his approval of a draft document, he explained that it was because it was Ol Korrect. ]
We each learn what we can at whatever level we're capable of so doing, and the rest can continue as if, what they know and believe is OK.
I'm thankful that you continued to respond, as my saliency and tenacity were having a internal battle over how collective humankind was ever to get past destructive patterns of being too easily reactive authoritarian followers. I guess I was thinking about an egalitarian informational basis for overall quicker transformation, but that was unrealistic. When the student is willing, the teacher appears.
The masses are practically just a reflection of where each us are. The overall issue of responsibility can only be addressed at the individual level. Our ponerized social disordering, disintegration, and disempowerment makes mass movements that confront authority directly, nearly impossible. It's ironic to me, that popular movements were far easier and more effective, when society was less ponerized. Now that we need them even more, they are even less likely.
See Chris Hedges "Once Again—Death of the Liberal Class" at [Link]
We're now more so than ever, on our own politically, but spiritually we can learn ways to create a new essentially individual level and distributed politics from the ground up, emergently.
Little smatterings of disruption and organization that come into being and the quickly dissipate, before mobilization can occur. It's powerful to note, that learning and dissemination can occur on a small scale ( while also being pervasive, thru the web ) -- analogous to how stealthy spread spectrum techniques in radio communications work so well, by randomly moving about ( an apparently seething disorder, that is really part of a greater system of order ).
None of us can be the collective -- in any sense -- we can only do as best we can with ourselves, and hopefully the actions of an increasingly enlightened number will somehow lead, potentiate, and influence the masses towards greater consciousness, questioning, and our survival.
I am very pleased that SOTT is deeply committed to enhancing the spiritual growth movement, at it is possibly one very best and most useful approaches -- that by being very humble and undirected politically, it bypasses the usually methods of control -- and directly empowers people ( at whatever level they are at ).
Please pass my gratitude onto Laura, for her advocacy for Eíriú-Eolas breathing techniques and tireless advocacy for truth and letting people know what really is going on.