SOTT
SIGNS
OF THE
TIMES
OF THE
TIMES
Welcome to Sott.net
The World for People who Think
Puppet Masters
Reader Comments
How a Cover-Up Works
seraphina- The image of the car on the fence that you referenced is covered in Chapter 20, section 2, pages 437 to 438 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood. The visual evidence of the residential fence remaining not only vertical but also in pristine condition rules out any significant lateral load such as flood water or high wind. The photo is not from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as you claim. It is from Hurricane Wilma which was the fourth Category 5 hurricane of the record-breaking 2005 season. So that particular image could not have been within a mile of your home.
There is a lot of deception, distraction, and diversion going on, both intentional and otherwise, leading people to climb on to popular "theories" or "band wagons". Truth is not established by popularity, although agenda-driven political campaigns are. So we need to establish a better way to sort through the information we find by improving our problem-solving skills.
There are various groups on the internet lead by nefarious figures such as Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer, each with their own set of beliefs and objectives, promoting how it was done, or who did it or why they did it. But none of them have taken the first step of an investigation which is to determine what it is that was done, that is, to first determine WHAT happened. Until they have done that, they are merely speculating or theorizing or hypothesizing or guessing. This is essentially assuming what happened and then proving the assumptions through biased observations (i.e. "cherry-picking" data). Promoting beliefs distracts away from determining WHAT happened. This is why the order of problem solving is so important. Remember, you must first determine WHAT happened BEFORE you can determine HOW it happened and independent of knowing how it happened.
Remember how a cover-up works. Get people to theorize and speculate about an imagined problem (i.e Mini-Neutron Bombs), then get them to argue opinions with others. Everyone will be arguing about opinions of speculations of theories of opinions of guesswork, and they'll just go round and round and round and get nowhere. It is amazingly easy to keep a cover up in place! The only way out of that vicious cycle is to deal with the facts and only the facts (empirical evidence).
If you read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you would know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.
Bombs do not do that.
Mini-neutron bombs do not do that.
Thermite does not do that.
Thermate does not do that.
Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
Nano-thermite does not do that.
New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
Firecrackers do not do that.
Fire does not do that.
Nukes do not do that.
Megga nukes do not do that.
Milli-nukes do not do that.
Mini-nukes do not do that.
Nano-nukes cannot do that.
A wrecking ball cannot do that.
A slingshot cannot do that.
Missiles cannot do that.
We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and we know that the "dustification" was done without Kinetic Energy. That is, dustification was not done with high heat nor with some other form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow and controlled within fairly precise boundaries only destroying buildings with a WTC prefix to cause them to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy Weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. (i.e. LENR) Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, many micro hammers...)
If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with "free energy" (i.e. "off the grid"). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood's book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing "free energy" ("off the grid") exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that "free-energy technology" exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood's research.
Our educational systems typically "teach the test" and it is usually a multiple-choice test. We are not taught very good problem-solving skills. So it is very easy to manipulate a population with poor problem-solving skills. Get them to focus on the HOW or the WHO and they will never be able to solve the problem. That is the secret. Look at how the official story was designed. We were told "Bin Laden did it." But what is "it" that he did? And look at how the Truther Movement is managed. Well meaning people, looking for answers, are directed to focus on HOW or WHO (i.e. mini-neutron bombs did "it", thermite did "it", the Jooos did "it", "9/11 was an inside job" ). Truthers are also conditioned to attack anyone addressing Dr. Wood's research and are told "she has a bogus theory" when Dr. Wood has no theory, only EVIDENCE. It keeps the well-meaning Truthers from looking at the EVIDENCE like a rodeo clown distracts a bull.
Why? Look at what the EVIDENCE tells us. It tells us the truth. "Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic."
The empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the building turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don't need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When "white man" first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city.
Dr Judy Wood - UK Presentations – November 2012
[Link]
seraphina- The image of the car on the fence that you referenced is covered in Chapter 20, section 2, pages 437 to 438 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood. The visual evidence of the residential fence remaining not only vertical but also in pristine condition rules out any significant lateral load such as flood water or high wind. The photo is not from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as you claim. It is from Hurricane Wilma which was the fourth Category 5 hurricane of the record-breaking 2005 season. So that particular image could not have been within a mile of your home.
There is a lot of deception, distraction, and diversion going on, both intentional and otherwise, leading people to climb on to popular "theories" or "band wagons". Truth is not established by popularity, although agenda-driven political campaigns are. So we need to establish a better way to sort through the information we find by improving our problem-solving skills.
There are various groups on the internet lead by nefarious figures such as Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer, each with their own set of beliefs and objectives, promoting how it was done, or who did it or why they did it. But none of them have taken the first step of an investigation which is to determine what it is that was done, that is, to first determine WHAT happened. Until they have done that, they are merely speculating or theorizing or hypothesizing or guessing. This is essentially assuming what happened and then proving the assumptions through biased observations (i.e. "cherry-picking" data). Promoting beliefs distracts away from determining WHAT happened. This is why the order of problem solving is so important. Remember, you must first determine WHAT happened BEFORE you can determine HOW it happened and independent of knowing how it happened.
Remember how a cover-up works. Get people to theorize and speculate about an imagined problem (i.e Mini-Neutron Bombs), then get them to argue opinions with others. Everyone will be arguing about opinions of speculations of theories of opinions of guesswork, and they'll just go round and round and round and get nowhere. It is amazingly easy to keep a cover up in place! The only way out of that vicious cycle is to deal with the facts and only the facts (empirical evidence).
If you read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you would know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.
Bombs do not do that.
Mini-neutron bombs do not do that.
Thermite does not do that.
Thermate does not do that.
Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
Nano-thermite does not do that.
New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
Firecrackers do not do that.
Fire does not do that.
Nukes do not do that.
Megga nukes do not do that.
Milli-nukes do not do that.
Mini-nukes do not do that.
Nano-nukes cannot do that.
A wrecking ball cannot do that.
A slingshot cannot do that.
Missiles cannot do that.
We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and we know that the "dustification" was done without Kinetic Energy. That is, dustification was not done with high heat nor with some other form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow and controlled within fairly precise boundaries only destroying buildings with a WTC prefix to cause them to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy Weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. (i.e. LENR) Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, many micro hammers...)
If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with "free energy" (i.e. "off the grid"). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood's book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing "free energy" ("off the grid") exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that "free-energy technology" exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood's research.
Our educational systems typically "teach the test" and it is usually a multiple-choice test. We are not taught very good problem-solving skills. So it is very easy to manipulate a population with poor problem-solving skills. Get them to focus on the HOW or the WHO and they will never be able to solve the problem. That is the secret. Look at how the official story was designed. We were told "Bin Laden did it." But what is "it" that he did? And look at how the Truther Movement is managed. Well meaning people, looking for answers, are directed to focus on HOW or WHO (i.e. mini-neutron bombs did "it", thermite did "it", the Jooos did "it", "9/11 was an inside job" ). Truthers are also conditioned to attack anyone addressing Dr. Wood's research and are told "she has a bogus theory" when Dr. Wood has no theory, only EVIDENCE. It keeps the well-meaning Truthers from looking at the EVIDENCE like a rodeo clown distracts a bull.
Why? Look at what the EVIDENCE tells us. It tells us the truth. "Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic."
The empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the building turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don't need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When "white man" first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city.
Dr Judy Wood - UK Presentations – November 2012
[Link]
Katrina car and her 9-11 research.
[Link]
The tie in here is that she is positing a directed energy weapon possibly related to a static field associated with the hurricane that was present just offshore during 9-11. Also that these same static fields are responsible for anomalies during hurricanes and tornadoes. She has a subpage on her site showing 9-11 weather and field effects. In the examples she gives of these field effects are pictures of cars in strange positions because of Katrina. Those pictures are not cases of static field effects, they are cars that floated in a flood and settled in strange places.
Maybe she's on to something about the possibility of a directed energy weapon on9-11, but the gaping holes that I see in her research aren't helping her case.
[Link]
The tie in here is that she is positing a directed energy weapon possibly related to a static field associated with the hurricane that was present just offshore during 9-11. Also that these same static fields are responsible for anomalies during hurricanes and tornadoes. She has a subpage on her site showing 9-11 weather and field effects. In the examples she gives of these field effects are pictures of cars in strange positions because of Katrina. Those pictures are not cases of static field effects, they are cars that floated in a flood and settled in strange places.
Maybe she's on to something about the possibility of a directed energy weapon on9-11, but the gaping holes that I see in her research aren't helping her case.
WTC Blown By Explosives Not DEW
The towers collapsed into piles of rubble that fell into the
(sub)basements below. The steel columns and girders did not
turn to dust. They were broken apart at the welds by the force
of the explosives that demolished the towers. Later, all those
pieces of steel were loaded onto huge dumptrucks, carried to the
docks, and shipped to China, where they were melted down and the
steel was resold.
[Link]
The dust came from the gypsum wallboard and from lightweight
foamed non-structural concrete in the floor pans that only
supported the furniture and people.
Here's the end of the video where Physicist Greg Jenkins interviews
disinformation agent Judy Wood, and she's saying the building was
"dustified". The interview ends about 8:20 into the video, and
there follows a video tour of the huge mountains of steel and
other debris. Obviously it did not get turned into dust.
[Link]
Here's a research report and supplement by Dr Jenkins explaining
where the steel went. It went into the (sub)basements below
ground and the huge piles of debris above ground. The volume of
the collapsed building and its contents are only a small fraction
of the original volume. The building (as all buildings) was
mostly air.
[Link][Link]
The steel columns and girders, and the reinforced-concrete of the
tower cores, did NOT turn to dust. The claim that they did --
that the towers were "dustified" by secret energy beams or thermite
-- is one of the big lies put out by the disinformation agents
Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, etc., in order to discredit real 9/11 research:
[Link]
Here are pictures of burned cars that I gathered from all over the Web.
These are from ordinary car fires. They have no connection at all
with the 9/11 attacks or with energy weapons. But they show many of
the same phenomena that Judy Wood falsely attributes to DEW attacks.
[Link]
SOTT.NET is one of the finest sites on the Web and provides excellent
quality information. Disinformation -- which shows every sign of being
COINTELPRO -- from the likes of Judy Wood does not belong here.
Mark S Bilk
[Link]
The towers collapsed into piles of rubble that fell into the
(sub)basements below. The steel columns and girders did not
turn to dust. They were broken apart at the welds by the force
of the explosives that demolished the towers. Later, all those
pieces of steel were loaded onto huge dumptrucks, carried to the
docks, and shipped to China, where they were melted down and the
steel was resold.
[Link]
The dust came from the gypsum wallboard and from lightweight
foamed non-structural concrete in the floor pans that only
supported the furniture and people.
Here's the end of the video where Physicist Greg Jenkins interviews
disinformation agent Judy Wood, and she's saying the building was
"dustified". The interview ends about 8:20 into the video, and
there follows a video tour of the huge mountains of steel and
other debris. Obviously it did not get turned into dust.
[Link]
Here's a research report and supplement by Dr Jenkins explaining
where the steel went. It went into the (sub)basements below
ground and the huge piles of debris above ground. The volume of
the collapsed building and its contents are only a small fraction
of the original volume. The building (as all buildings) was
mostly air.
[Link][Link]
The steel columns and girders, and the reinforced-concrete of the
tower cores, did NOT turn to dust. The claim that they did --
that the towers were "dustified" by secret energy beams or thermite
-- is one of the big lies put out by the disinformation agents
Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, etc., in order to discredit real 9/11 research:
[Link]
Here are pictures of burned cars that I gathered from all over the Web.
These are from ordinary car fires. They have no connection at all
with the 9/11 attacks or with energy weapons. But they show many of
the same phenomena that Judy Wood falsely attributes to DEW attacks.
[Link]
SOTT.NET is one of the finest sites on the Web and provides excellent
quality information. Disinformation -- which shows every sign of being
COINTELPRO -- from the likes of Judy Wood does not belong here.
Mark S Bilk
[Link]
Spock here, Captain. Insufficient mass to account for loss of ship. It's a possible decoy action.
Why not go with the oblvious here? The mass of the WTC buildings is not accounted for, and we watch the video of them vanishing in a cover of dust debris. They were transported away in midair. Gone from this dimension.
Do your eyes deceive you, or your brain in denial over a phenomenon current understanding cannot believe is possible.
The WTC buildings never fell, and Dr. Judy Wood is correct in her observation.
Was the initial midair debris caused by explosives or a beam of energy, and does it really matter anyways?
It should not get in the way of the observation that only a fraction reached terra firma.
Look again.
Don't get decoyed into accepting the ruse of a faked debris field.
Why not go with the oblvious here? The mass of the WTC buildings is not accounted for, and we watch the video of them vanishing in a cover of dust debris. They were transported away in midair. Gone from this dimension.
Do your eyes deceive you, or your brain in denial over a phenomenon current understanding cannot believe is possible.
The WTC buildings never fell, and Dr. Judy Wood is correct in her observation.
Was the initial midair debris caused by explosives or a beam of energy, and does it really matter anyways?
It should not get in the way of the observation that only a fraction reached terra firma.
Look again.
Don't get decoyed into accepting the ruse of a faked debris field.
Where did the towers go?
No, really, where did the towers go.
If they didn't fall, and were turned to dust, is there enough dust to satisfy the mass?
If not, then where exactly did the dust (or mass) go?
Either the bulk of the building mass turned to gaseous vapors (as in elemental gases like Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Oxygen) and fumed away (hey, didn't she observe 'fuming'???) or the elemental iron etc. was transported. Transported to where? Any clues in the observational evidence? Perhaps. Perhaps to where pyring eyes were not available, like a hurricane off the coast.
Just thinking. My bad, can't help it.
No, really, where did the towers go.
If they didn't fall, and were turned to dust, is there enough dust to satisfy the mass?
If not, then where exactly did the dust (or mass) go?
Either the bulk of the building mass turned to gaseous vapors (as in elemental gases like Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Oxygen) and fumed away (hey, didn't she observe 'fuming'???) or the elemental iron etc. was transported. Transported to where? Any clues in the observational evidence? Perhaps. Perhaps to where pyring eyes were not available, like a hurricane off the coast.
Just thinking. My bad, can't help it.
the curled beams
I have seen an example of curved beams in a natural setting. A flood came up and tore out a steel bridge. Downstream a 10" Steel I-Beam was 6 feet in the air wrapped around a tree in the creek. In that case, hyrdraulic pressure and flow bent the metal but left the tree alone. Not a horseshoe bend, but a wrap and a half.
So, what these distorted beams beautifally bent but not cracked are an indication of great force roiling and boiling in mid air, highly turbulent. Not a building collapse at all.
I have seen an example of curved beams in a natural setting. A flood came up and tore out a steel bridge. Downstream a 10" Steel I-Beam was 6 feet in the air wrapped around a tree in the creek. In that case, hyrdraulic pressure and flow bent the metal but left the tree alone. Not a horseshoe bend, but a wrap and a half.
So, what these distorted beams beautifally bent but not cracked are an indication of great force roiling and boiling in mid air, highly turbulent. Not a building collapse at all.
Christian83 I must have commented upon it because your "reply" just lit up my red bell, plus it inserted my name in gray, but I don't see my comment here now. I guess you must have? What did I say?
RC
RC
Rowan Cocoan That was a experiment I was trying. I read all the replies to make absolutely sure that you hadn't commented.
You can summon others by starting with a comment. Start comment with insert chosen name and write whatever your content is. The are replaced with a grey box.
I think you will find these presentations highly fascinating. And I can't really see any holes in what she says. I thought I would give her a listen in bed, usually if the subject isn't interesting I will nod off. I was hooked actually and listened to both, even though I was bloody tired! I would love to hear your opinion!
I'm going to try and repeat my experiment on a totally unrelated article to see if it actually confirms it works, so keep an eye out for your bell!
You can summon others by starting with a comment. Start comment with insert chosen name and write whatever your content is. The are replaced with a grey box.
I think you will find these presentations highly fascinating. And I can't really see any holes in what she says. I thought I would give her a listen in bed, usually if the subject isn't interesting I will nod off. I was hooked actually and listened to both, even though I was bloody tired! I would love to hear your opinion!
I'm going to try and repeat my experiment on a totally unrelated article to see if it actually confirms it works, so keep an eye out for your bell!
Christian83 Oh the brackets didn't show up.
You know when you're replying to a comment the person's name is in those double square brackets? They disappear and grey box the name instead. If you use those same double square brackets on a brand new comment it should highlight the persons bell.
You know when you're replying to a comment the person's name is in those double square brackets? They disappear and grey box the name instead. If you use those same double square brackets on a brand new comment it should highlight the persons bell.
Christian83 Are you posting from a cell phone? I'm using a computer. I've not seen those double square brackets. Also, if I copy and paste your name in gray other than a reply, it usually gets a line strike through it.
stricken.
So how did you do it?
RC
Right now, those both look properly gray but I bet the last two will beRowan CocoanHave you seen this?Christian83I must have commented
So how did you do it?
RC
Rowan Cocoan I'm on a cell yeah but your regular qwerty does have them. Look for the letter P the next key along should have a { and a [ with the [ below the { simply double tap so you have 2 [ at the beginning and 2 ] on the end.
(Christian83) regular parentheses
[Christian83] Brackets.
Posted as a new comment and not as a reply!
Let's see.
[Christian83] Brackets.
Posted as a new comment and not as a reply!
Let's see.
Christian83 We have realised another level of secrecy! Only tell a select few. If any haha
Rowan Cocoan Also back to the presentation. Remember the thermite/nanothermite? She has a very convincing theory on it all. I must say I think she is seriously onto something, and it's the closest I have seen to some sort of answer as to what happened that shitty day.
Christian83 nope. Never do... it would only twist me up n drive me to drink 🍻🥨
If it's really necessary, i will.
If it's really necessary, i will.
LindaMay Haha that is what peanut butter is for 😂
I'm really glad I watched it, and I do think it's worth a watch. It's the closest I have come to a credible answer as to what happened. Personally I can't knock any holes in what she says. I'm trying to get ol' Ro to watch her as he mentions thermite. I'd like to know his opinion on her as well. So if you are up to it then I look forward to hearing your feedback!
Also, did you manage to comment here by chance?
I'm really glad I watched it, and I do think it's worth a watch. It's the closest I have come to a credible answer as to what happened. Personally I can't knock any holes in what she says. I'm trying to get ol' Ro to watch her as he mentions thermite. I'd like to know his opinion on her as well. So if you are up to it then I look forward to hearing your feedback!
Also, did you manage to comment here by chance?
Christian83 luck is my name 😁
I followed the aftershave
Naaa seriously, i clicked on RC's comment below cause it was filled with excitement.
You guys are geniuses!! .
I followed the aftershave
Naaa seriously, i clicked on RC's comment below cause it was filled with excitement.
You guys are geniuses!! .
LindaMay Aaaah I understand! I summoned you to another article and weirdly Baybars appeared 😂 now I know how!
Thanks ❤️❤️❤️
I followed the aftershaveHaha must be RC's!
Thanks ❤️❤️❤️
LindaMay Oi thank you man that means a lot trust me you will be hooked when she starts talking. Fast forward to about 3 minutes because I could not handle the sound quality of the dude talking giving the Introduction lol. Trust me you will end up watching part 2 instantly lol I got into bed to watch it, if something is shit I fall asleep. I watch this and then immediately watch the next, I had to pause the 2nd at around 23 minutes as my eye's were drooping badly haha. Trust me it's a must see man. I'm sold! Thanks again you wonderful being ❤️
RC - Watch it brother.
RC - Watch it brother.
Christian83
LindaMay newbie?
Christian83
You're still up?!!
I just thought of you!!
No worries at all my Si, i just so never had interest in that stuff.
I like...
You're still up?!!
I just thought of you!!
No worries at all my Si, i just so never had interest in that stuff.
I like...
Christian83
LindaMay ❤️❤️
Christian83 I always thought it was a given just with your 1st initail C hristian.... been usuing it sooo long RC👋
I found her research very interesting, but not infallible. On her website it, she was showing a photos of cars on top of fences and other things after Katrina as an example of energy anomalies associated with static fields and the Hutchison effect, but that was simply fluid dynamics fluid dynamics in a flood. Her question on a photo, "How did this car get here?", in the section entitled, Levitation. That particular pic was within a mile of my home, and you can even see the water lines on it. I can also say my van ended up in a tree a quarter of a mile away and there were countless other strange placements of cars, boats, and houses. None of these were some sort of extraordinary act of levitation. They didn't float up above the water lines.
She wants to look strictly at the evidence, but in at least some of the cases, she's not taking context into account and seems to be making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge about her examples.
The particular photo in question. [Link]