FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
By Jim Fetzer and Don Fox
On 11 November 2006, I (Jim Fetzer) first interviewed Judy Wood on a program with Republic Broadcasting Network. I was in Tucson, AZ, at the time, and would discuss her ideas about the use of directed energy weapons (or “DEW”s) during lectures I would present in the following days.
I had founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth almost exactly a year earlier and had invited Steve Jones, Ph.D., a physicist from BYU, to be my co-chair as the recommendation of David Ray Griffin.
But I had become increasingly skeptical of the theory that Steve was advancing, according to which nanothermite was responsible for pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel at the Twin Towers. I believed that Scholars had to cast its net more widely and interviewing Judy was an appropriate step to take in that direction.
The effects were fast and furious. Almost immediately, Steve and his allies, especially Kevin Ryan, began to plan to take over the Scholars web site at http://st911.org, which had become world-famous, even though I had been responsible for selecting every entry that had been made on our site from its conception. They would fake a phony poll of the members, which they falsely claimed had come from the “Membership Administrator”, and freeze me from access to the site.
I had entrusted a member, Alex Floum, to secure the domain name, which he refused to relinquish to me when Steve and others, including from 1/3 to 1/2 of the members, left Scholars for a new group they would name “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”. It was a bleak time for the 9/11 community, where I believed we had to emphasize TRUTH in the search for 9/11 Truth and nanothermite did not advance it, where subsequent research with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, has demonstrated that I was right.
While the 9/11 Truth community was being feted with such false depictions as, “Nanothermite: What in the world is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11?” which was being lauded as “the smoking gun” of 9/11 and described as, “a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories. This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes”,
It would turn out that a principle of materials science–which is actually a law of nature–holds that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless its detonation velocity is greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest know detonation velocity for nanothertmite is 895 m/s, which means you can’t get there from there. The claims for nanothermite were therefore greatly exaggerated.
In the meanwhile, I was interviewing Judy Wood on my radio programs and reviewing her web site again and again, topping out with 15 interviews. I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and would feature her as the principal speaker at the Madison Conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″, which was held 3-5 August 2007, during which I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak. Morgan Reynolds, a close associate, and Jerry Leaphart, the attorney for her pro se lawsuit, were also invited and spoke. When I would later organized The Vancouver Hearings, which were held 15-17 June 2012, I again invited her to speak, in spite of several odd encounters with some of her supporters that transpired in the meanwhile, but I received no response. I invited Morgan Reynolds, who accepted at first and then withdrew, and then asked John Hutchison, who initially agreed, but then would not respond when I asked for him to verify a bio-sketch I had drafted. Clare Kuehn would accept the challenge of presenting Judy’s position during the event, but it was a mystery why Judy herself was unwilling to speak up.
I suppose I should have seen it coming. On 26 January 2010, I had published “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation” on my personal blog, which had been immediately attacked by Andrew Johnson, who may be Judy’s closest ally, on the purported grounds that the photos had come from Judy’s site. That was very odd, because, with one exception, they had not come from “Judy’s site” and even the photos on Judy’s site were not taken by Judy and she has no proprietary claim to them. Moreover, what I published there was a chapter from THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), namely: the color-photo section, and had been prepared by Jack White, who had long maintained his own photo studies 0f 9/11 as well as of JFK. (Jack died recently, but eventually responded to Andrew’s fanciful allegation by sending me an email, which I posted on the blog.) Ironically, it was the chapter that appeared immediately before the chapter by Judy Wood, “A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”, where, on the basis of temporal considerations and elementary physics, she showed that a progressive, floor by floor, collapse would have required 96.7 seconds, not the 10 seconds alleged. I liked her work, but the tempest on my blog would be an early indication I was not dealing with a normal research group.
The Good
As I have often observed, Dr. Judy D. Wood may be the most highly qualified student of the destruction of the Twin Towers in the 9/11 research community. Dr. Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992). She is a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is also a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. During my interviews with Judy, we frequently visited her web site and surveyed the many photos and studies she has gathered together, which I continue to regard as the most important compilation of evidence about the effects that an adequate theory of the destruction of the WTC has to explain. I have made that point repeatedly during interviews and elsewhere.
Consider, for example, what I wrote about her in the old (and now decimated) version of my Wikipedia entry:
Explaining the explanandum
Fetzer has spoken positively of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, who left Scholars due in part to disagreement with the organization, objecting to the unwillingness of the society to consider ‘no big boeing’ theories (conspiracy theories arguing that no large aircraft hit the World Trade Center and that video evidence of the planes hitting the towers have serious inconsistencies showing them to be “doctored”).[43] Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a “satellite-mounted military weapon” may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that “the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based.” [44]
For Fetzer, “Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her “proof of concept” than has Steven [Jones]“.[44] Steven Jones and others claim to have refuted the mini-nuke hypothesis[45][46] Jones has responded to Reynolds and Wood directly, but they have not viewed his remarks as refutations.[47] After featuring fifteen or more students of video fakery as guests on his radio program, Fetzer decided that claims of video fakery and claims that no planes hit the tower are logically distinct issue. He has become convinced that video fakery took place on 9/11 and has published several articles about it, including “Mounting Evidence of Video Fakery on 9/11″ [48] and “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″.[49] Wood and Reynolds both contributed chapters to his first book for Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007).
Judy has since published her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which is previewed in this trailer and which I regard as invaluable as a resource for the study of the effects that an adequate theory must explain:
The Bad
While that is all very much to THE GOOD, unfortunately, there has been a down-side to Judy’s work, which has extended to some mottos or slogans that have been prominently featured in her work, such the following:
Unfortunately, for all her good work in displaying the explanandum, what she says here does not do her work justice. For example, the claim that, “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, falls short on several grounds. Since truth and falsity are properties of sentences (or propositions), while empirical evidence consists of photographs, remnants of steel and other physical things, including dust samples and the outcome of observations, measurements, and experiments, “empirical evidence” is not the right kind of thing to be either true or false. Moreover, the idea that “theory mimic” empirical evidence compounds the semantic obstacles to making a claim that makes sense, since “mimicry” is a kind of simulation, replication, or emulation that would, were it successful, produce more of the same: more photographs, more remnants of steel and other physical things. What she should be saying is, “Empirical evidence is the data that an adequate theory must explain”.
Perhaps my background as a philosopher of science makes me more attune to the oddities of her formulations, but others are equally peculiar. To claim that, “If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. . . . The evidence always tells the truth”, once again, is to make an assertion that may sound appealing but does not make literal sense. Unless the evidence happens to be auditory and consist of sounds, vibrations, or other phenomena capable of being heard, which photographs, remnants of steel and most other physical things are not, the idea of “listening to the evidence” simply does not apply. I would liken this to a category mistake, such as supposing that geometrical figures, like triangles and squares, are physical things, like metal triangles and square tables, which are physical things in space/time, while the geometrical figures are abstractions, which have ideal properties and are not in space/time. Her confusion is roughly on that order. But to my surprise, she has gone even further by denying that she even has “a theory”!
What makes this so peculiar is that there is a subtitle on her book that baldly states, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″, which, I submit, would lead any rational mind to infer that her theory is that directed free-energy technology was used on 9/11, in particular, to destroy the Twin Towers, which cannot possibly have collapsed, even though the government maintains that indefensible proposition. In a collapse, gravity–operating in only one direction, namely: down–pulls a building toward the ground, which Judy had already shown, in her chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), was inconsistent with the time for both collapses, which THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) said had taken place in about 10 seconds apiece. Not only that, but both towers were blown apart in every direction from the top down and were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And, when the dust had settled, moreover, they were actually destroyed below ground level, when there should have been a stack of pancakes (made up of the floors that had presumably “collapsed”) equal to about 12% of the original height of the building, which was the outcome of WTC-7, a 47-story building that actually did collapse at 5:20 PM/ET and left a stack of pancakes of around 5-stories high.
The very idea that the government could attempt to peddle such obvious rubbish to the American people–and that many members of the public should be taken in!–has to be one of the most astonishing public relations coups in history. Anyone who compares the features that distinguish the collapse of WTC-7 with the features that distinguish the destruction of the Twin Towers, which are completely different, would recognize the scam, as “This is an orange” and “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, so elegantly reveal. In summary form, they include:
As Ace Baker observed some time ago, the term “pulverization” could be viewed as objectionable, since it tends to imply that the process was mechanical, such as by means of grinding, which preempts that it may have been a chemical, a nuclear or an electromagnetic process instead. Judy has been ingenious by introducing words that fit better without taking for granted how it was done. In this case, for example, she has used “dustification” as a term that well describes what we actually see happening on 9/11. It has to be an acknowledgment to the power of verbal repetition by the mass media that the dustification of the Twin Towers, which bears none of the signs of a collapse, could nevertheless be sold to the public as having been a collapse, when it manifestly was not.
The Worse
Judy and I maintained a cordial relationship from our first inteview on 11 November 2006 to our last on 28 February 2008, when she appeared with John Hutchison. Because the claims that have been made about John’s work and the fact that it is in the domain of electromagnetism, which is among the most complex in physics, I asked (what I thought at the time was) an inocuous question about his background and education, which he had sluffed off by saying he had “flunked crayons and coloring books”. That struck me as very odd, since an inquiry about his scientific background was obviously appropriate. But Judy apparently took offense and has refused to respond to any of my communications, including my invitation to her to speak during The Vancouver Hearings, 15-17 June 2012. An archive of Judy’s interivews, which includes both our first and our last, has been created by Andrew Johnson, which reminds me that I also featured many of Judy’s closest allies and supporters on my shows, including Morgan Reynolds and Jerry Leaphart, which can be accessed here. They were among the other speakers I invited to participate in the Madison conference, 3-5 August 2007, as I mentioned above, and Morgan would also contribute two chapters to THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).
The claim that Judy “does not have theory” has struck me as so odd that I have pursued it in several contexts. During an interview she did with Bob Tuskin, I called in to ask how she could deny that she has a theory, when the subtitle of her book declares, “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11″. To my astonishment, Judy became semi-hysterical and refused to answer. While it may have transpired during a break and not made it onto the air (where what was broadcast can be taken in here), she told Bob that having me call in was “like a victim having to confront her rapist”. She probably did not realize I was still connected and overheard this conversation, but I found it so extraordinary and unwarranted that it has made an indelible impression upon me. Some of her supporters, such as Thomas Potter, have been equally emphatic that she does not have a theory. In an email to Don Fox on 23 July 2012, for example, he wrote, “The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page textbook about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it.” The problem is that, if she has no theory, then she has no explanation. She even claimed that I had “threatened” her to not talk about this technology, which is completely false and has no foundation.
There is no doubt that Judy has done more than anyone else to clarify the explanandum (as the evidence that has to be explained by an adequate theory). In technical philosophical language, she needs the explanans (as the premises that can explain the explanandum) in the form of the initial conditions (of the Twin Towers before their destruction) and the causes that transformed them from BEFORE to AFTER. Those causes can take the form of causal mechanisms (such as conventional explosives, thermite or thermate or nanothermite, mini or micro nukes (fission or fusion), or DEWs as directed energy devices), but invoking those mechanisms as THE CAUSES that brought about the transformation of the Twin Towers to a mass of rubble and millions of cubic yards of very fine dust is to advance A THEORY. The term “theory”, as I am using it here, is not simply a guess or a conjecture but a set of laws and corresponding definitions that related those laws to physical things and events in space/time. There is no way around it: If she has no theory, she has no laws; and if she has no laws, she has no explanation.
This business about “having no theory” bothered me enough that I asked myself why in the world she would make such a claim. Part of it appears to be excessive commitment to the ordinary language distinction between “theories” and “facts”, as though theories were necessarily either false or at least not known to be true. This, of course, is inconsistent with the use of the term in “Newton’s theory of universal gravitation”, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection”, and “Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity”, which are–with certain qualifications–generally regarded as theories that are true. But there may be a deeper reason why she and her followers–who are adamant on this point–want to deny that she has “a theory”, which includes (a) that the strongest claim she actually makes about how the Twin Towers were destroyed is not that DEWs were responsible but (b) “What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” As Don Fox has observed, “My mini-nuke hypothesis fits in nicely with that definition: mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally and their capabilities go well beyond those of conventional explosives.” So does she rule out mini or micro nukes?
There are at least two important reasons to doubt that she does. The first is that, while she and her followers insist she has, but her “refutations”, which are set forth on pages 121-122 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, are relatively limited to a small number of claims of limited significance:
- Do they exist? But the problem is, were they used, and would they show these types of signatures?
- Nuclear weapons explode, but the towers did not explode. They were pulverized and peeled to the ground, almost like a banana peeling.
- Moreover, the site wasn’t “hot”, that is, radioactive.
- The bathtub survived, as has been seen, making it highly unlikely that nukes of any kind were used.
- Additionally, the Richter reading did not show the use of a nuclear weapon. If a nuke large enough to destroy the WTC had been used, it would have registered a seismic signal greater than if the building had fallen to the ground. What the seimograph showed was that the majority of the WTC did not hit the ground.
- Finally, the site showed massive amounts of unburned paper, an impossibility if nuclear weapons had been detonated. The “unburned paper” evidence will be discussed subsequently in conjunction with other factors.
Judy’s question about the existence of mini or micro nukes suggests a lack of research, since the Department of Defense has been publicly endorsing them at least since 1993. Some of her points count against the idea of 150kt nukes planted at the base of each of the three buildings, which has been advanced by Demitri Khalezov, whom I interviewed on “The Real Deal” on 21 January 2011 on “9/11: Nukes at the WTC?” on
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(I personally have had no doubts about the existence of directed energy weapons, where, in doing research on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone, I had discovered the existence of the Directed Energy Professional Society, which was then in 2004 holding its eighth annual meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.) But I find it odd to question the existence of mini or micro nukes, whose existence, if anything, is even better known than DEWs, and which her research has not debunked.
I also find it odd she would describe the buildings as having been “pulverized” for the reason that Ace Baker raised. Given her innovative use of language, I would have thought that she would have said “They were dustified”, not that they were “pulverized and peeled to the ground”. Perhaps even more strikingly, Judy’s “conclusions” about the WTC and how it was done are advanced in a series of forty-three (43) propositions about “evidence that must be explained”, which are presented on pages 480-483, which qualify more as explanandum than as explanans. Indeed, I have interviewed Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high-school physics, math and chemistry instructor, about her 43 propositions during 15 interviews, which could be viewed as responses to the 15 I did with her. I thought I would do my best to acknowledge what she has and has not done by posting a review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? on amazon.com. The consequences were not going to be anything like I had expected.
The Ugly
Rather to my astonishment, the 8th post in what has now become more than 1,000 comments on my review would attack me as though I were an enemy of 9/11 Truth, authored by someone using the name “Emmanuel Goldstein”, which many of us have concluded–possibly mistakenly, but probably correctly–is Judy Wood, just as the party who identifies himself as “S. Tiller” appears likely to be her close associate, Andrew Johnson:
All things considered, I thought this was a rather harsh response to a 5-star review that is entitled, “Masterful argument by elimination”. It exemplifies the fallacy known as the straw man by exaggerating an opponents position to make it easier to attack. There was no reason to regard me as a “debunker” to begin with. It was one of the first indications that, no matter how carefully I presented my views, how highly I praised her work or how strongly I supported her, it would not be enough for Judy and her followers, where the entire thread would confirm my suspicion that this is not a scientific research group.
Other attacks upon me have been, if anything, even more disgusting and unjustifiable. Several of them have the character or flavor of death threats, which was not exactly what I had expected when I published a 5-star review. Indeed, this thread itself provides further confirmation that what I had said in my review was right and that she had not shown that mini or micro nukes could have been used, as I shall explain below. But her followers were not seriously concerned with the science of 9/11. Two were so blatant they should have been deleted by amazon.com as both offensive and revealing. The first was:
Posted on May 25, 2012 7:39:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 25, 2012 7:42:00 AM PDTEmmanuel Goldstein says:
“The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.” – Philosopher James Fetzer (12/6/1940 to ?)
Should the evidence that is presented by Dr. Judy Wood become a contributing factor in the development of cognitive dissonance to the point where your guilt, anger, or embarrassment creates an unmanageable schism, there are other options besides suicide.
Veterans Crisis Line 1-800-273-8255
I thought the use of the date (12/6/1940 to ?) was especially considerate. But the suggestion that I should be contemplating suicide was relatively minor compared to the post that would show up around 2 months later, after I had explained why Judy Wood and her groupies appear to have the characteristics distinctive of a cult. Here is what I wrote as a dissection of the behavior being displayed on this thread and the earlier exchange that took place when I reprinted Jack White’s chapter:
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 11:57:55 AM PDT
Last edited by you on Jul 21, 2012 12:06:36 PM PDTJames H. Fetzer says:
Since I point out the obvious “dustification” of the Twin Towers, which were converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust–and from the top down–where they were destroyed below ground level (see, “New 9/11 Photos Released”, for example, but in every other place where I discuss this issue (such as “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, why are my bona fides being questioned again?
Here we have another display of the characteristics of a cult. As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. Examples that come to mind include the Branch Davidians (David Koresh) and, even more appropriately, Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard), with its pretensions toward science. Does any of this sound familiar?
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as Jonestown (Jim Jones) exemplifies. And extremely harsh treatment of anyone who challenges its core beliefs. All of these characteristics have been exhibited on this thread.
Chuck has made a brilliant observation: “The dust samples have only iron or glass spheres. The dust contains no steel dust which would be of highly irregular shapes, not near perfectly round spheres as is actually found in all of the dust samples. This means all of those spheres in the dust of iron and glass had to me liquified or vaporized in order for surface tension to allow for those spheres to be formed, all from very, very, very high temperatures. There is no steel dust other that the micro and nano sized iron and glass spheres. No other metal particles were found in the dust.”
This strikes at the heart of the matter, which is that the defense of their core beliefs is isolated from and treated as though it were immune to criticism or discussion. For true-believing cult members, the question has been settled–and those who differ are threats to attack, viciously, repeatedly, and without mercy. I am afraid we have seen this attitude on display here and else where, such as the attacks upon me for publishing “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”, which is on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. It is the antithesis of a scientific attitude.
The key point that I have been making, which jbr, S. Tiller, and Emmanuel Goldstein–who are so lacking in confidence in themselves and their own theory that they dare not use their real names–is that the superiority of one theory (DEWs) over alternatives (of mini or micro nukes, fission or fusion, atomic or hydrogen) depends upon their respective clarity of language, comparative explanatory power, degrees of empirical support, and economy/simplicity/elegance, where Chucks observation suggests that, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, the case for the use of DEWs appears to encounter serious problems. Its superiority has yet to be shown.
The suggestion that Judy and her groupies possess the properties of a pseudo-scientific cult was not terribly well received by “Emmanuel Goldstein” and elicited her second especially offensive post, when she ratcheted up the pressure by suggesting that my wife, Jan, might actually shoot me, as though it were an acceptable way to satirize her own failure to understand the meaning of the word “theory”, when it is actually extraordinarily revealing for the insight it affords into a perverted mind:
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2012 8:42:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 33 minutes agoEmmanuel Goldstein says:
So they find Uncle Fester’s body with a bullet hole in his head. When they dig out the slug it matches his wife’s gun and she has gun powder residue on her body. When charges are filed against her in a court of law will the prosecutor present evidence to convict her of murder or will they present a theory?
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg
Not long thereafter, S. Tiller would post an attack upon me that not only falsely suggested that I was defending the theory that thermite / thermate / nanothermite had been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers but that my dedication to presevring that myth was why I had “thrown them out” of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, when I had done no such thing. Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and others had split from Scholars because I was featuring and supporting Judy Wood!
Judy Wood and her groupies clearly satisfy the requirements that define a cult: (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. They display their loyalty to the group by excessive zeal in attacking anyone they perceive to threaten it, no matter whether that perception is well-founded or not. The deification of Judy Wood and her status as the mystical figure at the center of this cult is thus especially well reflected by one of the later posts of S. Tiller:
Where did the Science Go?
On yet another forum, Emmanuel Goldstein has continued the onslaught, maintaining that Judy Wood is being assaulted by Jim Fetzer and by Richard Gage, meant to present her sympathetically as a victim. No everyone has been taken in, however:
Originally Posted by l4zarus
I’d like to point to your signature which reads:
It’s not accurate. Leaving aside Wood’s history with Fetzer which has been documented, I found this review at Amazon by Fetzer praising Judy Wood’s book:
Masterful argument by elmination, May 20, 2012
By James H. Fetzer. . . .
–James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Hardly the words of someone “attacking” Wood.
My question: why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is attacking Wood when that’s obviously not true?
Caught with proof demonstrating that what she had been posting was false, she replied, “Why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is not attacking Dr. Judy Wood when it’s obviously true that he is?”, apparently the best she could do–apart from resorting to cartoon art in which I, Jim Fetzer, am presented as a clown, which is not the first time she has used this motif:
Indeed, Judy and her followers constructed a YouTube in which they presented me explaining the views of someone else, Phil Jayhan, who had appeared on one of my shows. They attributed Jayhan’s views to me and then attacked me as a clown, where Judy was attacking me even though she had to know that what I was saying was a report about the views of Jayhan and not mine. I have tried to find it on YouTube, but it was so outrageous that even Judy and her buddies may have been embarrassed by what they had done. It was about as unethical a form of behavior as I could imagine within this context.
Other students of 9/11 have been less patient than I. Don Fox, for example, who has participated in this lengthy thread has concluded that Judy Wood has stalled the 9/11 Truth Movement for long enough now. While Judy encourages the readers of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, to accept the notion that some variety of a Tesla/Hutchison-based technology directed energy weapon was responsible for the destruction of the WTC. But does Judy believe this herself? The material posted on her website at http://drjudywood.com might actually lead one to conclude that she does not. Don believes that her primary mission is to undermine and deny that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the WTC complex on 9/11, that she is a gatekeeper and that she most likely works for one of the many intelligence agencies. I find that ironic, since Judy has implied that about me!
Don came to believe that Judy was pure disinfo when he came across photos she calls, “The Snowball” and “The Bubbler”. She shows photos of buildings that are (in Don’s view) being nuked and comes up with these cute little catch phrases. The inference we are supposed to draw is that only her conjectured Tesla/Hutchison based DEW weapon could do this sort of damage to the buildings. But, he observes, Judy Wood NEVER states that a Tesla/Hutchison technology based weapon was used at the WTC. All that she EVER commits to is: “What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” Notice, especially, that Don’s mini-nuke hypothesis also fits in nicely with that definition: mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally and their capabilities go well beyond those of conventional explosives. And Don has raised some rather telling questions:
(a) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will produce a fission process that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced nuclear devices? What Tesla or Hutchison effect will cause elevated tritium levels that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced thermonuclear devices?
(b) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will eject debris from the middle of WTC-1 up at a 45 degree angle and out into the Winter Garden 600 feet away? What Tesla or Hutchison effect could produce the China Syndrome at Ground Zero? Nukes fit ALL of these phenomena to a “t”.
(c) If Goldstein, Potter, Johnson, Reynolds and Wood were after the truth, they would conduct themselves in a completely different manner. Instead I see baseless attacks on other researchers, veiled intimidation/death threats and a coordination of efforts that smacks of an intelligence operation.
Don believes there is a pattern here that reflects the standard script they follow is more about toeing the party line than to contributing to scientific discussion. Whoever goes off of the script gets attacked. Even if you support Judy Wood as much as 95%, that is not good enough. I wish I could say that Don is wrong, but my fear is that he is actually right. After having interviewed her 15 times, published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, given her three hours to speak during the Madison Conference, inviting her to participate in The Vancouver Hearings and more, the unrelenting and incredibly nasty attacks to which I have been subjected–including the bizarre responses from her and her followers to my 5-star review on amazon.com–I have been forced to conclude that Judy Wood and her followers have lost their way and are displaying the characteristics of a cult. As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism.
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to the identity and the leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as the case of Jonestown and Jim Jones chillingly exemplifies. And notice the extremely harsh treatment dealt out to anyone who challenges its core beliefs. All of these characteristics have been exhibited on this thread and in other venues, as I have documented here. Don believes that the death threats I received in Seattle and that were sent to the Deman Theatre in an attempt to halt The Vancouver Hearings may have come from her. It is a sad comment on the state of 9/11 research and the factions that have developed that he may be right about that, too. I certainly have no better explanation –and I am sorry to say that it would fit the pattern of harassment and intimidation that I have come to expect from Judy and her gang. I wish it were not so, but “if you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you”!
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the editor of The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), and with Joshua Blakeney organized The Vancouver Hearings (2012).
Don Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and The Anonymous Physicist on the Twin Towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why it may well have involved very low-yield thermonuclear devices.
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=219490
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Aug 20 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Anyone ever heard of Dr. Eugene Podkletnov? He’s the guy that’s using superconducting ceramic-like disks and energizing them with enormous and extremely sharp pulses of energy and gets them to emit an anti-gravity-like beam that can punch holes in concrete at a considerable distance away (5km.) But what is really pertinent to this discussion, is the fact that the device he uses seems to produce two types of beams in opposite directions. The anti-gravity-like beam comes out the “front” of the device, but out the back comes, in his own words, “… several effects that are similar to this – one is the Hutchison Effect, where he reported molecular distortions & materials juxtapositions, which is similar to the anecdotal claims of ‘sailors melting into decks’ in the Philadelphia Experiment legend.” The link to this quote is here: http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/interviews/Podkletnov-Interview.pdf
Donald Fox asked me to post the following, which I cannot confirm personally but which would not surprise me:
I got an email recently from a former DOE physicist who stated that:
1. 9/11 was the product of the DOE nuke labs and the DOD. It was a nuclear event.
2. Judy Wood’s book was written by the CIA. I’ve heard that other places as well. In any case there is absolutely no merit to anything related to Judy Wood.
3. Judy Wood and her crew are an intelligence operation. This person stated that Morgan Reynolds is running the op. I’m not sure who is running the op but I’ve believed Judy Wood is an operative for some time now.
4. Steve Jones is covering for his old buddies at the DOE. Again I suspected this all along but an insider confirmed this.
5. John Hutchison has DOE connections. There is no scientific merit to anything he’s done but he works for the DOE in some capacity. Most likely as an operative.
As far as I am concerned Judy Wood is the new John McAdams. I’m not going to waste anymore time debating the merits of DEWs (as related to 9/11) because there are none. Breaking down Judy Wood’s material has as much merit as breaking down Posner’s or McAdams’ books.
I’ve heard different accounts as to what types of bombs were used at the WTC. The Anonymous Physicist believes that only good ole fission devices were used and that the tritium was planted. I seriously doubt the government would plant tritium at Ground Zero. 911U.org believes that 3rd generation pure fusion devices were used. At this point I’m leaning towards mini-neutron bombs. But that is not set in stone by any means. Whatever was used certainly had a fission and a fusion component. Pure fusion devices wouldn’t leave uranium and thorium and the heavier elements in the dust samples or the China Syndrome aftermath. Pure fission devices wouldn’t leave all the tritium in the water samples.
Cold fusion can be ruled out because, yes, there was high heat at Ground Zero.
“The buildings were demolished with hand grenade sized weapons employing fusion and fission properties.” I agree with Jeff’s statement 100%. That concurs with everything I’ve researched.
Fascinating article on DEWs as (at least partly) scalar fields is at http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html and if anyone thinks Jim Fetzer is not still open to the idea of such things, not to mention their possible use on 9/11 (which is a separate issue), the fact must be known that it was from him that I heard of this article.
About the article: Is it a perfect article? No. Can such things be at this point? Not likely. But does it cover some good information and supposition which is fairly reasonable? Yes, to both.
Now, it always strikes me as not only scary but weird: with all the ugly weaponry, likely underground bases, possible antigravity craft, etc. — what do they USUALLY use this sh*t (stuff) for? Just develop it and let it sit? I submit that they find uses for it covertly in wars now … but also that they are fighting secretly in space or on the ground at times with other countries. Just a thought.
Unclevito, although I am glad I didn’t spent $50.00 for Judy’s book I would hardly characterize it as a fairy tale or dis-info tool. It is, if nothing else, a comprehensive catalog of the various anomalies present on 9-11 that require explanation. In terms of solid evidence of how the Twin Towers where exploded from top down I would encourage you to investigate the work of Jeff Prager. His research of the dust samples collected by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) has revealed some very compelling evidence that mini-nukes were largely involved. Dr. Fetzer interviewed Jeff on the Real Deal this spring and I would encourage you and others to listen to it. http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/04/jeff-prager.html.
I don’t understand why you would ask Dr. Fetzer to swallow his pride? Dr. Fetzer has applied more critical thinking to the topic of 9-11 than anyone I am aware of and has an endless willingness to entertain any evidence or hypothesis put forth on the matter. As for the solid and oversold work A&E has presented on nano-thermite, specifically Steven Jones paper, I think we can agree that it has been clearly established that nano-thermite doesn’t have the detonation velocity necessary to explode the towers in the manner that they were. We can thank Dr. Fetzer and explosives expert Mark Hightower for investigating and establishing that fact. In fact, if I am not mistaken Dr. Fetzer has offered on more than one occasion to the A&E organization the opportunity to present and debate their finding against his and Hightower’s but to no avail. And isn’t A&E the organization that won’t acknowledge or discuss the mountain of evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon at all? Cherry picking evidence and topics is no way get at the truth.
Nice post! For those who want more on the destruction of the Twin Towers and why nanothermite cannot have been the primary cause of the conversion of those massive buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, see
“An analysis of the WTC on 9/11″
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread662308/pg1
“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html
“Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/
“Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/
For fascinating insights about the operation of A&E911, see this piece, too:
Steve Fahrney, “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/22/confessions-of-a-911-truth-activist-2/
Anyone who would take Judy Wood’s fairy tale as reality and not a dis-info tool that makes a quick buck in the process is really, really gullible. Why Dr. Fetzer gives this book the exposure it does not deserve and in the process gives this nonsense a 5 star rating is something only a philosopher could do. Get back to those who have solid evidence like A&E for 9-11 Truth Dr Fetzer, swallow your pride and help discover what kind of explosives were used in conjunction with the Nano-Thermite. Then worry about if a plane was really used once the towers destruction mechanism has been documented
This whole dog and pony show is irrelevant when you realize that all the media evidence they base their claims on is provided by the authorities that they’re trying to discredit. How is that scientific when it’s based on a circular system? Check out septembercluesDOTinfo and educate yourselves and free yourself from this psy-op.
Everyone in the world should see this….
see youtube — CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11
She verifies:
1 the Bush WH was behind 9/11
2 everything we were told about Iraq were lies
3 Towers came down by bombing. Nukes (thermite?) which melted the steel. All NYer were exposed to radiation.
4 Soldiers in Iraq were exposed to depleted uranium, (among other things?)
5 Iraq war was to steal the gold ( bullion and historical gold artifacts, according to another source)
6. No plane struck the Pentagon
7 Third plane was shot down, and that AFpilot still in prison.
and more.
Thank you Jim, for your tireless efforts in responding to those who would deflect and deny the real events that took place on 9/11. Your body of work throughout this struggle, is stunning and reflects a true patriot, who has a profound mission to bring forth all the evidence and the finally the truth.
.
I would like to add this edited comment I posted on March 22, 2012, on Gordon Duff’s Intel-Disclosure to support your conclusions herein;
“The government fairly tale would have us believe that the kinetic energy to blast the towers into dust, came from the structural collapse due to the impact and collateral damage of aircraft collisions into the W,T.C. towers. The Government expects most people to accept this as plausible and they set up a cover story for over 10 years, using their agencies to Officially report this fantasy as fact.
The awesome fact to establish is that the gravitational forces multiplied by the mass, does not produce sufficient energy to blast the towers into dust and drop what remains of them in a neat pile of rubble in 12 seconds flat. This tremendous physical destruction requires additional forms of energy besides the Official gravitational fabrication the Government relies on in its preposterous fable. The additional required energy would have enormous power and would implicate, other, more sophisticated weapons.
The U.S. has been developing a new generation of nuclear weapons for over 60 years, and they are not the same ones as those used in WWII.
The blast signatures and overall dynamics have evolved into something the public has no awareness of. The public still thinks in terms of a mushroom cloud, when they should be imagining an invisible, silent, freaky disintegration that was similar to what was observed on 9/11.
To be sure, there were a number of smaller explosive ordnance employed at the otter perimeter walls as seen and witnessed by fireman and police, but the main knockout came from the foundation basement level, up, through the massive inner core columns, in the form of atomic displacement weaponry.
As to the schematic outline of the flow of charges from the basement, one would assume the timing elements and sequences were directed with other conventional ordnance to achieve the “look and feel” of a gravitational “pancake structural failure” deception the Government spews out to describe an obvious massive explosion.
Today, hundreds of investigators should be combing the area with spectrometers, Geiger counters and other nuclear detection devices for residual evidence. Areas that are now covered by pools over water, like the “REFLECTIVE POOLS” now covering the exact footprint areas where both towers were dropped perfectly, should be inspected for what the water may conceal, as those pools of water do, covering other nuclear disasters, such as in Fukishima, Japan today.
All of this activity would be for the thousands of people, murdered, in cold blood that day, and that anybody who would prevent this and other new forensic investigations, should be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice – it’s that simple.
Part of the head fake of the 9/11 plan was to keep the deception going during all phases of the operation. Now after 10 years, the rear guard action is fully in play, with on going delays, disinformation, denial and deceit.
The spoon benders in the C.I.A. will continue to defend Tenet and Powell, for the lies at the U.N., which gave us the unending wars and the monsters at the Tavistock Institute will continue to plant the media shills with “it was a guy in a cave with a beard and a cell phone” to keep the “war on terror” alive, while the oil whores stay busy killing the electric car for another 100 years and scream “peak oil” fear, to keep the oil depletion allowance in place, meanwhile, the criminals at the Federal Reserve Bank, keep the Petro/ Oil “reserve currency” scam going and continue looting the U.S Treasury and the wheel goes around.
The “whole” Official story, from the Executive Branch, the Congress, the Military, the Intelligence Agencies, the Banks, the Corporations and the Media are analogous to the towers falling themselves and amazingly turning into dust.
All of their explanations, positions and arguments lack sufficient truth and contain residual evidence of unadulterated deceit, that they all, in fact,.. like the entire Official 9/11 fable, collapse upon themselves and turn into dust, without any external assistance.”
I am not at all qualified to comment on these issues either.
Who is Justin ?
Can’t we just waterboard Larry SiIverfish, or is torture reserved for gaining confessions from the innocent ?
There also appears to be a growing consensus that the “science” behind her claims is dubious. As Don Fox has observed, the WTC didn’t just magically turn into dust. The buildings exploded with debris ejected upward and outward. Some of the debris was ejected over 600 FEET!! That requires extremely high powered explosives. Really all one needs to do is watch some videos of the WTC buildings exploding and that is the end of Judy Wood and her DEWs NON-theory. Looking at the FEMA debris pattern map doesn’t hurt either. When you consider the USGS dust samples that found uranium, thorium, barium, strontium and yttrium among other fission products you know that nukes were exploded at Ground Zero. The DOE found tritium levels 55x normal 11 days after 9/11. That already tells you that thermonuclear bombs exploded on 9/11. Then it took them 99 days to put out the fires at Ground Zero (so much for Judy’s no heat BS) and the China Syndrome went on for 6 months after 9/11 at Ground Zero. As far as the toasted cars: we see toasted cars at the Pentagon on 9/11 and I strongly suspect mini-nukes were used there as well. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki we see toasted trolley cars after nukes destroyed those cities. I think it’s safe to assume that nukes can toast cars. This is not the last word, but the direction things are moving.
You mean “junk science?”
Jim…please believe me “magic beans took dook down the towers”…(woodclone)
This is ridiculous for an attack on Jim. Fact is, he has grappled with Wood’s ideas, and what he and others make of them. This is always the way with an open mind and rather laudable since he’s been vilified on both sides. —- Has he always agreed or disagreed? No. He’s been confused at times, waffled, even flip-flopped. But he stays open to hearing more about it. Your impugning him with his own actually laudable efforts to understand and to get more info on and to reconcile other claims, only makes you look bad emotionally.
Just because you believe she is right and don’t see where it’s not as well explained technically (even http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html gives more info on what might be expected from such weapons and what direct evidence we might have for them), does not mean Jim is at fault for not always doggedly thinking that Wood might be right, or partly right. He tries to understand it and also to understand if and where her basic idea might need correction, fleshing out, or whatever. That is his duty as a thinker.
Nice post! I am doing what I can with what I have, including revising my beliefs as new information becomes available. But I must confess that I have had a terrible time figuring out what Judy Wood has in mind, when she denies even having a theory and compares me to a rapist when I ask WHY she denies she has a theory. I tried to be “fair and balanced” with my amazon.com review, but anyone who takes a look at the more than 1,000 comments on my review–not on her book, but ON MY REVIEW–can see how her groupies responded.
like jeff daniels says, submit your cv and we will take you seriously
otherwise, we wish you luck with high school…and hope you graduate with your class
Has any physicists posted any comments on any of this website’s articles?
judy wood…
and the proofs?
I am in no position to answer those questions whatsoever.
I have no idea why you would think that I am.
Ms Goldstein seems to have loosened a few of your screws sir.
Mark, you have it wrong. The deal is that I have been trying to figure out why in the world, when I have been so supportive for so long and in so many ways, Judy and her groupies have attacked me, again and again, including here after I have posted a 5-STAR REVIEW OF HER BOOK. Since I point out the obvious “dustification” of the Twin Towers, which were converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust-and from the top down-where they were destroyed below ground level (see, “New 9/11 Photos Released”, for example, and “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″), the only explanation that makes sense is that I was wrong to believe I was dealing with the members of a scientific research group, when I am not.
The characteristics — the pattern of behavior, the repetitious behavior — that you and they display are those of a cult. As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. Examples that come to mind include the Branch Davidians (David Koresh) and, even more appropriately, Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard), with its pretensions toward science. Does any of this sound familiar, Mark? I don’t like the idea that this is what I have been dealing with here, but the evidence is present.
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as Jonestown (Jim Jones) exemplifies. And extremely harsh treatment of anyone who challenges its core beliefs. All of these characteristics have been exhibited on this thread. Do you really not see this, Mark? Do you really think the kinds of attacks to which I have been subjected are intellectual appropriate or morally acceptable? How many times to I have to spell this out?
I my review I observe that there are reasons to doubt that Judy has ruled out the use of mini or micro nukes. Chuck has made a brilliant observation: “The dust samples have only iron or glass spheres. The dust contains no steel dust which would be of highly irregular shapes, not near perfectly round spheres as is actually found in all of the dust samples. This means all of those spheres in the dust of iron and glass had to me liquified or vaporized in order for surface tension to allow for those spheres to be formed, all from very, very, very high temperatures. There is no steel dust other that the micro and nano sized iron and glass spheres. No other metal particles were found in the dust.”
This strikes at the heart of the matter, which is that the defense of their core beliefs is isolated from and treated as though it were immune to criticism or discussion. For true-believing cult members, the question has been settled-and those who differ are threats to attack, viciously, repeatedly, and without mercy. I am afraid we have seen this attitude on display here and else where, such as the attacks for publishing “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. Surely you can see that this is the antithesis of a scientific attitude, Mark. I am having a hard time believing that you support this grotesque conduct.
The key point that I have been making, which jbr, S. Tiller, and Emmanuel Goldstein, among others posting here – who are so lacking in confidence in themselves and their own theory that they dare not use their real names, which you, Justin, are not – is that the superiority of one theory (DEWs) over alternatives (of mini or micro nukes, fission or fusion, atomic or hydrogen) depends upon their respective clarity of language, comparative explanatory power, degrees of empirical support, and economy/simplicity/elegance, where Chucks observation suggests that, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, the case for the use of DEWs appears to encounter serious problems. Its superiority has yet to be shown. Which means that my review is spot-on. Surely you can see that now.
Mark, it’s clear that you don’t recognize that Jim is having to lump together most of Wood’s supporters (people who adhere to her position) because so many attack him when he feels he’s supported her work in every reasonable way while ALSO changing his mind at times as to her work’s completeness. You act incredulous, as if you all come across as individuals, but in fact you are groupable (as anyone is) to someone who is being attacked regularly. This is normal psychology; at least Jim tries to reply to each one of you (in the sense that you are part of not only advocating for Wood, as I do, but also attack him sometimes). And no, your comments do NOT sound friendly or open. Maybe you intend to be but you do sound aggressive —– just fyi. Jim’s aggressiveness is there, too, but it’s almost always flustered, responding to attacks, rather than being snarky, covertly vicious. If he’s crappy, it’s brief.
I know he’s not sure exactly yet as to where the truth for 9/11 stands, though he’s leaned to mini-nukes’ having been part of it (mostly because of the careful correlation the advocates of mini-nukes have done with the various elements in the dust, and the fact that, through Big Ivan, we know there is fissionless fusion). Having said that, he remains open to the idea that maybe something of a DEW has been developed with destructive capabilities and maybe that it contributed … and recently Jim sent me something he’d discovered on scalar weaponry. So he’s still looking at the idea. http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html Just so you know.
Crikey. I hadn’t realised I was such an asshole.
But you see Jim, two wrongs (assuming what you say is completely true) don’t make a right.
You admitted your mistake but did not apologise for publicly slagging her off at the same time.
“which speaks volumes about the state of her mind”
Remember that ?
Prior to reading your article I did come across a site where Ms Goldstein was promoting the One Step Beyond interview. I certainly did not get the impression that it was, in fact, Ms Wood in disguise blowing her own trumpet, nor did she strike me as an inherently disingenous person in the interview.
But, of course, I am obviously a member of a “PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC CULT” and “disgusting”.
On another tack,
I sent another email yesterday which has not posted in which I said that, in my opinion, whatever that’s worth, any credible theory or investigation must include Hurricane Erin.
Have you ever been in a coastal town or city with a Cat. 3 low pressure system heading directly towards you, knowing that it will probably evolve to 4 or 5 before landfall ? I have, many times. The weather is clear because all the weather for thousands of miles around has been sucked into the vortex. But only a lunatic would dismiss or ignore the danger. The only reason it would have possibly been ignored is if it was a controlled event. That is my conclusion and I find it deeply disturbing.
On another note, why would someone deliberately seek to discredit the mini-nukes theory with disinformation ?
To sell a few more books ?
I can think of far more credible reasons for someone to spread disinformation discrediting evidence which suggests that the technology of “cold fusion” is here, now, and that some organisation on the planet has the ability to manipulate massive weather events.
Anyway you’ve done a fine job of flushing out the shills sir, well done.
This is your response the the questions I addressed to you in the earlier post, namely:
Jim Fetzer
August 24, 2012 – 5:32 pm(Edit)
What–for reporting the situation as it was being explained to me?
Your hypocrisy is stunning. When it comes to apologies, what about:
(1) her claim that replying to me when I asked her why she denied
she had a theory was like “having to confront your rapist”?; or,
(2) falsely attributing to me the words I had used to explain the
views of one of my guests and attacking me as if they were mine?;
(3) creating a clown figure to ridicule as though my support for
the study of her work was somehow misconceived and damaging?; or,
(4) the absurd attacks on me on amazon.com after I had posted a
5-STAR REVIEW of her book as though I had been trashing it?; or,
(5) putting up several comments on that thread suggesting that I
should commit suicide or that my wife might accidentally shoot me?
I am sorry, but the crudity of your position, which is as corrupt as
these actions by Wood, violates basic standards of human decency.
You people are sick. Comments like this make it OBVIOUS that you
are the member of a PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC CULT. You are disgusting.
I think you got it right right off the bat! Where do you people come from? Unbelievable.
The dynamics and interchange between Judy Woods and the author of this article are, for me, irrelevant to the fact both have made huge contributions to my understanding of what may have happened on 9-11. I am grateful for this, but I also understand to some annoyance brilliant people are often damned quirky!
Cold Wind, No, there is no interchange between Dr. Wood and the author of this page. Dr. Wood is not a part of this, although Mr. Fetzer is trying hard to convince readers she is. Mr. Fetzer is merely making good on his threat to Dr. Wood that he would destroy her reputation if she exposed the truth about what happened on 9/11. That threat has been documented:
9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – Handling the Truth 7444
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=60
Mr. Fetzer has not presented any evidence whatsoever that Dr. Wood is “attacking him.” He is merely “misinterpreting” events and falsely attributing various events to Dr. Wood. Earlier today claimed Dr. Wood was responsible for shutting down this website but has now edited his post to read differently. Using phrases such as “seems like” or “probably” leaves wiggle room for “plausible deniability” to work around the legal charges of defamation. Mr. Fetzer has a long history of this which has been well documented.
http://tinyurl.com/911ftb
Is there any question as to why Mr. Fetzer has posted this attack piece on Dr. Wood?
I have a broader background than either Woods or Fetzer. I find Fetzer sane and polite. I find Woods neither sane nor polite.
As for her book…junk science…self published and blithering.
You are wasting your time. Fetzer likes to pull her tail, I find her inane and a time waster.
Get a hobby, buy a dog.
EXCELLENT! Here we have a perfect example of the paranoid mind-set that typifies Dr. Judy Wood and her minions. I had interviewed Judy and John during a program in 2008. He came across as flaky and superficial. I had already received reports, which even his supporters have confirmed, that videos that have been attributed to him were faked. Ace Baker had already shown how easy it was to fake them and had offered John $100,000 to let Ace and me come to his lab to verify his claims — an offer he refused!
I was ADVISING and WARNING Judy that her association with John Hutchison entailed the risk that her own reputation might suffer. That is the OPPOSITE OF A THREAT. I was not suggesting that I or anyone else would HARM her reputation. I was suggesting how she might AVOID HARM TO HER REPUTATION. It is indicative of the dementia that seems to infuse the whole Judy movement that a case in which I was attempting to PROTECT HER FROM HARM has been spun into a THREAT OF HARM AGAINST HER.
It demonstrates the insanity of Judy Wood and her tiny cult. That they could take my sincere advice as to how she could AVOID HARM TO HER REPUTATION and construe it as INTENDING HARM TO HER REPUTATION displays mental illness. I am glad that we have reached the heart of the matter. This is important enough that, had I appreciated its centrality to THE JUDY MYSTIQUE and her savage and unwarranted attacks upon me, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ARTICLE. So I want to thank rugbyzhgt for helping to expose the profound mental confusion of Dr. Judy Wood.
Dr. Fetzer:
Has anyone confirmed or refuted this calculation regarding 9/11 atomic blast force?
http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/?p=170#comment-777
Those calculations were based upon Dimitri Khalezov’s theory of 150 kt bombs in the basement of each of the three buildings. Since they were destroyed in different fashions–imploding vs. exploding, bottom up vs. top down, stack of pancakes vs. no pancakes–it was implausible from the beginning. Moreover, Khalezov’s theory cannot be correct. It has the Twin Towers being destroyed from the bottom up, not from the top down. The lowest 60 floors or more remain intact initially, but on his account, that would only be an optical illusion. Plus the bathtub would have been destroyed. Listen to my interview with him on “The Real Deal” at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. That he is wrong about the use of 150 kt nukes does not mean that other theories involving mini- or micro-nukes might not be right, where they will be discussed during the hearings.
Prof. Fetzer: you didn’t answer the question: ;Q: Can a 300 ton object be thrown 200 yards by anything other than atomic force?
LC, I don’t know. I believe that it was an arrangement of mini or micro nukes and that Jeff Prager and Don Fox have done the best to explain it. But there may have been some aspects of the demolition of the Twin Towers that involved something more. That is my present position, which I thought I had made clear.
Unfortunately my previous clarification comment didn’t show up apparently because I clicked SUBMIT twice since computer acting slowly. But, it is beyond me why you can’t answer such a simple question: Q: do you know a canon that can shoot a 300 ton bullet (say the Los Angeles museum rock called levitating mass) to penetrate a building 200 yards away without anything but a nuclear blast? The answer is a YES or a NO. If it is NO, it means they used atomic explosion was used, never mind the force. and only this government could have installed nukes in WTCS.
Well, I am doing my best to answer your question. I believe that mini or micro nukes were used to demolish the Twin Towers, as I have already explained. That this is my position is not a “state secret”. Whether there is any other way in which such a mass could have been projected such a distance is a question to which I do not know the definite answer, so I can’t say “Yes” and I can’t say “No”. I am sure you can appreciate where I stand. (I think you mean “with anything but” rather than “without”, if I understand you.) And I also think that we all recognize that 19 Islamic terrorists could not have arranged for those buildings to have been nuked!
Yes. It was a typo. Once again: Q: Do you know of any other known force (than atomic explosion) capable of shooting 300 tons like shooting a cannonball? Please consult with a professor of mechanics, or physics before answering. Answer: this has already been answered by physicists like Prof. Ed. Ward, and others and have been publicly available for years. Because there is no other known human-made force capable of blasting a 300 ton cannonball, then, what are these evasion games played with mythical 911 arguments like magic forces, paper cutters and shaving blades?. Gordon Duffs MAGIC BEANS scenario is just as likely as the others ones.
What is your problem, LC? I answered your question to the best of my ability. What’s wrong with you? You made your point. This obsessive repetition is exactly what I would expect from a Judy Wood fanatic! I don’t have time to waste on flakes. I gave you my opinion, which is what you requested. Enough is enough!
Sorry for the upset. Yesterday, I had a provided a good documentation before your second response but it was not posted here. So you don’t have the whole picture as I wrote it. May be Gordon Duff could forward that to you privately. By the way, I heard an army nuclear demolition expert testified in your Vancouver hearings. Can you please provide a link to that. I did not find it on 911vancouverhearings website.
Thanks.
Judy Wood managed to have Veterans Today shut down for five hours on the basis of alleged copyright infringement for featuring the image of the cover of her book and a photograph of her, both of which are in the public domain and neither of which violates copyright. This is the kind of action expected of the leader of a cult.
I have explained several times that the break up of Scholars revolved around my belief that it was essential to broaden the range of theories under consideration beyond thermite/ thermate/ nanothermite and include Judy’s alternative, among others. I have found confirmation at http://www.911blogger.com/node/4664
There was a secondary aspect to this. As co-chair, I had made Steve Jones the moderator of the Scholar’s Forum. I received a complaint from Rick Siegel that a post of his had been rejected even before he had been able to complete it, where he was criticizing Steve. I had been using the forum as the right place to exchange criticism, express dissent and blow off steam.
When I inquired about it, Steve insisted he had not been the one who removed Rick’s post, but refused to tell me who had. Only Carl Weiss and Steve were authorized to do that, but Carl was on-line at the time and could not have done it. Steve’s refusal to tell me led me to remove him from his role as moderator of the forum.
He and his cronies did not take that lightly and froze me out of the web site. I had removed him from moderating the forum but had not removed him from Scholars. He took the step of resigning and the rest is history. For a discussion of the events that had such an unhappy ending, see, too, “Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op”.
I have been apprised that:
(1) Judy Wood is now under investigation for mail and wire fraud: a complaint has been filed and she seems to have committed violations of the law for the purpose of censoring her critics in violation of the First Amendment. Her allegations of copyright violation appear to have no foundation in law.
(2) The shutting down of Veterans Today, however, appears to have been caused by a blunder by the general manager of VT, who had committed a technical mistake, which he did not correct in time to avoid it. There appears to have been no governmental intervention. That problem was with Veterans Today.
Hmm – right – so this is all about “Judy Wood” now right? She defends misuse of information she has posted and you think it’s a violation? What will your next threat be Mr Fetzer? How much more muck stirring can you achieve? (I know, I know – it is your raison d’etre, so let’s face it, it’s probably going to be quite a bit.)
Just as a tiny aside…. are you at all interested in who destroyed the WTC in your great country, or is it, as I have surmised, that you and a number of others have some connection (however tenuous) to the party or parties that did it?
I do hope people will use my documentation as a starting point to investigate 911 and your actions in the cover up of those crimes.
http://tinyurl.com/911ftb
I do hope you are at peace with yourself. It really is “bad for the soul” if t you’re not…
Heck, why am I even contributing to this silly nonsense!
This is yet another bizarre post from a member of the Judy Wood cult.
Let me emphasize that there are three different issues involved here:
(1) her work on the destruction of the WTC, which is completely brilliant;
(2) her theory of how those effects were brought about using DEWs; and,
(3) her persona and unethical behavior in interactions with me and others.
Were I grading, I would give (1) an “A+”, (2) an incomplete and (3) an “F”.
But the fact she has displayed unethical, unprofessional and unscientific
conduct does not mean that her theory is wrong. That is another question.
Thanks again to Clare for making valuable contributions to complex issues.
No apology Jim ?
Silly to expect one, I suppose.
I should clarify.
I meant an apology for claiming that the ‘hysterical’ Ms Wood had spat the dummy and had VT closed down.
What–for reporting the situation as it was being explained to me?
Your hypocrisy is stunning. When it comes to apologies, what about:
(1) her claim that replying to me when I asked her why she denied
she had a theory was like “having to confront your rapist”?; or,
(2) falsely attributing to me the words I had used to explain the
views of one of my guests and attacking me as if they were mine?;
(3) creating a clown figure to ridicule as though my support for
the study of her work was somehow misconceived and damaging?; or,
(4) the absurd attacks on me on amazon.com after I had posted a
5-STAR REVIEW of her book as though I had been trashing it?; or,
(5) putting up several comments on that thread suggesting that I
should commit suicide or that my wife might accidentally shoot me?
I am sorry, but the crudity of your position, which is as corrupt as
these actions by Wood, violates basic standards of human decency.
You people are sick. Comments like this make it OBVIOUS that you
are the member of a PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC CULT. You are disgusting.
To be sure, Dr Wood is so convinced of bad intentions by Dr Fetzer, and some bad words have been spilled in both directions, that this unbalanced her reaction to the article, which has a right to be printed just as Johnson’s work is allowable; complaining of public use of images in order to get him back and even having VT shut down is highly regrettable.
Many people already think Wood is an agent; some on her side think Fetzer is or is a handler-type (literally or in some way) — I forget what word was used right now. But the gist is that criticisms of each other is one thing; having VT shut down over some photos which are in the public domain will only serve to seem to discredit Wood on an ad hominem basis to more people, whatever the actual value of her work.
What a shame.
Clare, Thanks for this series of posts. I think your comments are quite valuable and I appreciate them. Jim
In a response to Marc Daniel on facebook (above, but not showing), I observed that I have done nothing but support her research and promoted its study. I am a “big tent” guy who understands science and who has been attempting to bridge the gaps. She has responded by attacking me, again and again. She has been vicious and unwarranted in her attacks. I have only replied to defend myself.
This is not how a scientific community is supposed to deal with scientific questions, which is why I have taken pains to explain that her group turns out to be, not a scientific research group, but a pseudo-scientific cult, which is doing great damage to the 9/11 research movement, because I am the one who is trying to bring experts on all sides together to resolve the controversies that divide us.
I have done my best to include her, of course, but she has been responding with wholly irrational, unscientific and completely unethical attacks on me. The latest example occurred last night, when she managed to manipulate the system to shut down Veterans Today until two images — one of her and one of the cover of her book — were removed from my article, which speaks volumes about the state of her mind.
The nom de web of Jim’s pursuing troll, Emmanuel Goldstein, is rather interesting. Emmanuel Goldstein was “the Enemy of the People” in 1984.
This should be fun. Hope Fetzer keeps his eraser in his desk this time.
‘nothing more than a tube in a tube’. Thousands of tons of steel primarily down the center would not allow for a perfect demolition collapse. You have no conception of ‘engineering principles’ much less an understanding of the properties of steel. That is of course because you’re a pathetic shill the likes of Chertoff’s cousin and ‘pop mechanics’.
Pete
Your description of the strongest buildings ever built with both massive endo and exo skeltons of 3 inch quad beams interlaced is utterly false.
My books are ALL FREE. Why do Dr. Woods books require payment?
Physics and Chemistry analysis proving 911 was nuclear:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
Murdering Liberty Killing Hope
The Office Of Naval Intelligence, The Eldorado Task Force, The Securities and Exchange Commission, Cantor-Fitzgerald, The Federal Reserve, The US Treasury, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Nugan Hand Bank, The Bush Crime Family and the Global Bankers. A study in criminal global finance and the events of 911.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-0c99b14c.html
911 Gold
Vast Global Financial Fraud and gold market manipulation by the White House and the US Treasury prior to, during and after 911 and how these events are connected.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-71072e4d.html
The Golden Lily: 1945-1975 and 911
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%20III%20Complete.pdf
After 911:
Connecting the SubPrime Crisis directly to the same people.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-ab3fa150.html
There Were Bombs In The Building – Explosive eyewitness testimony.
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b498239d.html
Dr. Judy Wood. I’m laughing. She’s a government disinformation agent whose efforts are energetically directed at obfuscating the truth; that 911 was nuclear. My Powerpoint Presentation, given by Mr. Don Fox in Toronto this past July, proves 911 was nuclear unequivocally. Unarguably. The facts speak for themselves. You go Jim. You’re the ONLY person I’ve met during the past 10 years that’s been fully open to completely examining ALL aspects, ALL theories, ALL evidence. I commend you Jim. I purposely avoid the 911 truth movement because there is none. It’s a non-truth movement. But you Jim, I love you man!!!!
Agreed
Jeff Prager. I am laughing – actually I am not. I am just completely puzzled at what you’re up to – actually, I am not, as with a study of the evidence about what you are up to, it becomes clear. Dr Judy Wood has helped hone my evidence studying skills – to such an extent that what is going on here becomes transparent. For those that want to know specific details, have a read here – particularly the end of the article:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=347&Itemid=60
Who will have the “last laugh”?
It’s an embarrassment to associate the event called 9-11 with the garden variety soap opera type mind set that has become so common place in today’s world. A Tit for Tat spat detracts from the focus and clouds the judgment, not to mention being an injustice to those who are actually in search of the truth.
Jones crippled you guys from the very beginning, that in my opinion was no accident, Woods is mere icing on that cake. The rest are clone type robots, each with his or her own cubicle somewhere out there beyond the scope of most of today’s too scared to speak up sheep.
DEW Technology would suggest a very very select few entities..which would allow for more endless he said she said BS. What does that leave in the end? Who benefits ? Who continues to run free?
Maybe you can find that old tape of Mika B…You know..Z-BIGS daughter and Morning Joe cohort. She did a piece where it was evident of secondary explosions off in the not to distant distance….she was covered in dust, maybe for effect, who knows. Maybe that was a fake, anyway she has a nice gig now, one where they poke fun at anyone with intelligent questions in regard to anything their handlers disagree with, or have issues with. It’s all scripted, all of it.
Pity more people can’t seem to call it what it is….scripted and made for mass consumption via the TV.
Raptor
Raptor,
Thanks for your thoughtful reflections. I am “equal opportunity” when it comes to exposing falsehoods and revealing truth. T. Mark Hightower and I have called out the “thermite sniffers” more than once:
“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html
“Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/
And I have taken on the “plane hugger” for the incoherence of their position, since they have shown that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but over Champaign, IL, and Pittsburgh, PA, respectively:
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
“Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/
I have finally “had it” with the “DEW lovers”. Their vicious and unwarranted attacks, which entail one or another form of lying, reveals they are not a scientific research group but a pseudo-scientific cult.
It’s bad enough having mediocrities and liars like Andrew Johnson and Matt Naus, but calling upon a fine man like Jerry Leaphart to construct a phony apology for the excesses of Judy Wood is appalling.
Jim
Weird! My test posted! My daddy said truth seekers have to be persistent, so here it goes again.
Dr. Fetzer,
I read “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11″ as meaning “Evidence _in support of the hypothesis of_ directed free-energy technology [having been employed] on 9/11.
Is such an interpretation impossible outside of circles of those who have engaged in a scholarly study of how science happens? Maybe Judy was claiming to “have no theory” to avoid being categorized as a “Conspiracy Theorist.” I mean, here is this highly qualified professional (that was her life and identity before 9/11) coming up with these far-out ideas about what happened that day. Imagine the reaction from her colleagues, even friends and family. That and I suppose there are a lot of engineers and scientists whose understanding of the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge is weak (most of them, especially USA, these days?)
Also… “on the cover of the book”… Don’t editors and publishers sometimes put words or phrasings into authors’ mouths? I’m not suggesting that it might have been done with bad intentions, but that such people might have been just “doing their thing” and it later turned into something that was steered into causing divisiveness.
Or even if they were Judy’s [I've never met nor corresponded with--or about--her; I'm just a guy who has some slight familiarity with her work from her website] if they were her words, maybe she got defensive from a combination of being challenged by someone with real authority and credentials, and (again, see my comment above) *because her mind was poisoned* by people who wanted to use her to the end of dismissing nuclear devices having been used, and who were cultivating divisiveness.
If she were being handled by bad guys (I’m starting to see a gal among them, who works on being her best buddy) their mental poisoning could account for her, um, strong reaction.
Even aside from my suspicions about bad actors influencing Judy, I’m inclined to think you and her might have been able to work through this problem more successfully if it were not for other people jumping into it. But it seems to have gone too far now.
I have great respect for your years of work, and I thank you for it. You have taken on a huge task and are doing well. Nobody should hold it against you that you can’t herd thousands of cats. Not to mention the efforts of people who conspire to cause divisiveness among people who are searching for the truth.
This is a test because I’m unable to post my comment, having tried twice.
I am posting this on behalf of
duay khwaam nap theuu
————–
Weird! My test posted! My daddy said truth seekers have to be persistent, so here it goes again.
Dr. Fetzer,
I read “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11″ as meaning “Evidence _in support of the hypothesis of_ directed free-energy technology [having been employed] on 9/11.
Is such an interpretation impossible outside of circles of those who have engaged in a scholarly study of how science happens? Maybe Judy was claiming to “have no theory” to avoid being categorized as a “Conspiracy Theorist.” I mean, here is this highly qualified professional (that was her life and identity before 9/11) coming up with these far-out ideas about what happened that day. Imagine the reaction from her colleagues, even friends and family. That and I suppose there are a lot of engineers and scientists whose understanding of the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge is weak (most of them, especially USA, these days?).
Also… “on the cover of the book”… Don’t editors and publishers sometimes put words or phrasings into authors’ mouths? I’m not suggesting that it might have been done with bad intentions, but that such people might have been just “doing their thing” and it later turned into something that was steered into causing divisiveness.
Or even if they were Judy’s [I've never met nor corresponded with--or about--her; I'm just a guy who has some slight familiarity with her work from her website], even if they were her words, maybe she got defensive from a combination of being challenged by someone with real authority and credentials, and (again, see my comment above) *because her mind was poisoned* by people who wanted to use her to the end of dismissing nuclear devices having been used, and who were cultivating divisiveness.
If she were being handled by bad guys (I’m starting to see a gal among them, who works on being her best buddy) their mental poisoning could account for her, um, strong reaction.
Even aside from my suspicions about bad actors influencing Judy, I’m inclined to think you and her might have been able to work through this problem more successfully if it were not for other people jumping into it. But it seems to have gone too far now.
I have great respect for your years of work, and I thank you for it. You have taken on a huge task and are doing well. Nobody should hold it against you that you can’t herd thousands of cats. Not to mention the efforts of people who conspire to cause divisiveness among people who are searching for the truth.
These are thoughtful comments. But then Judy should simply explain that that is the case. But her EVIDENCE is obviously EVIDENCE FOR A THEORY, where none of us should be in doubt that her theory is, DIRECTED FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY WAS USED TO DESTROY THE TWIN TOWERS. The most sympathetic explanation we are going to get from Jarry Leaphart (above).
Jim, you know Judy will not likely ever explain what you seek for her to explain: she hates you now (or some equivalent emotion) AND she is so leery of the word theory (which many people, common and professional are now) that she never would use it. She has a block in BOTH directions. Nevertheless, yes, she has a theory; yes it is an explanation, that is; no it’s not a mere NOTIONAL THEORY, which is what most people use the term to mean in some way. Is it DECIDABLE RIGHT NOW as the BEST explanation (theory used properly to mean explanation)? That has to be hashed out; she believes it suffices; others don’t. I am not sympathetic to her behaviour except to say I understand she hits a wall about you, AND about the word theory, so that explanations of your intentions or the word theory as a good word are not getting through.
Those were some pretty choice Judy Wood quotes on the nature of evidence and theories, complete rubbish. Those of us who don’t work in the field are free to her what she is: a wooly headed, narcissistic, self-serving knucklehead with a couple shorts between the headset.
One more person to cut loose, if we and our movement are ever going to be taken seriously.
Greetings, among posters,
I write to briefly express regret that Jim Fetzer and Don Fox have found it necessary to muddle the determinative work of Dr. Judy Wood, demonstrated what destroyed the World Trade Center complex on 9/11 and how it was done.
I say “muddle” because the piece we are here commenting upon contains accuracies and inaccuracies, inconsistencies and incongruities.
The piece is largely accurate when it refers to and/or quotes from Dr. Wood’s book, Where Did the Towers Go?
The piece is inaccurate in large and small ways when, for example, it uses the word “cult” to describe alternatively, Dr. Wood’s “supporters” or her work, in some way. Doing so is not only inaccurate, it is also unhelpful, given the importance of what the article describes as “good.”
It is inaccurate in the following small way:
“Jerry Leaphart, the attorney for her pro se lawsuit”
That is inaccurate in that Dr. Wood was represented by Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart, which therefore renders the Latin term “pro se” inaccurate.
The piece is inconsistent in a variety of ways, particularly in the realm of the philosophy of science. For example, on the one hand, the piece makes much of the following quotation, giving it an almost logical positivist treatment, worthy of Wittgenstein:
“Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, falls short on several grounds.
That phrase is no more or less in importance than are the subheadings the piece relies on:
“Good, Bad, and the Ugly”
Presumably, Fetzer and Fox sought to mimic Clint Eastwood’s aptly nicknamed “Spaghetti Western” film of that name.
If we were to engage in logical positivists assessment of those subheadings, we would likely conclude they do not make sense in much the same critical vein that Fetzer and Fox heaped upon Dr. Wood.
The same may be said of the following unnecessary and muddling critique:
“The evidence always tells the truth”, once again, is to make an assertion that may sound appealing but does not make literal sense.”
Lastly in this realm, Fetzer and Fox say:
“The claim that Judy “does not have theory” has struck me as so odd that I have pursued it in several contexts. During an interview she did with Bob Tuskin, I called in to ask how she could deny that she has a theory, when the subtitle of her book declares, “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11?. To my astonishment, Judy became semi-hysterical and refused to answer.”
It would behoove Fetzer and Fox to explore the reasons why Dr. Wood does not purport to have a theory. The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is an event that was within our observed experience. It is not a quest for hidden, remote in time or space, inferential data. The essence of the matter is one of forensic investigation of a known event. It is, therefore, appropriate to view the determination as one of demonstrating what happened. It is not essential to call that process theoretical.
Finally, the reference to Dr. Wood as “semi-hysterical” is, well, semi-unfortunate.” It is all too common to refer to women, especially professional ones, as “hysterical” when no such phrasing would be used to describe a male in a similar situation. I am not here making an accusation against Fetzer or Fox. I am merely saying that such phraseology is semi-unfortunate and that because it furthers an unnecessary stereotype, even if done unintentionally.
If Professor Fetzer, for whom I have high regard, would like to consider the work of Dr. Wood from a philosophical perspective, permit me to suggest the following preparatory and background document for consideration in that process:
http://www.indiana.edu/~socrates/papers/What%20is%20the%20role%20of%20a%20truth%20theory%20in%20a%20meaning%20theory.pdf
Regards,
Jerry Leaphart
Jerry Leaphart, whom I admire and featured as a speaker at the Madison conference, makes a nice point insofar as he was her legal advisor rather than attorney during her pro se suit. But he commits a blunder in attempting to support her attitude about the use of the word “theory”, which is completely indefensible. We have the observable and sometimes quantifiable data that she has collated on her web site and in her book, which I have extolled repeatedly.
But laws of nature — of physics or of engineering, for example — are not directly accessible to observation and therefore are theoretical in the sense that, while they operate in space/time, their existence is only capable of being established on the basis of inference, in particular, by inference to the best explanation. I have explained that without a theory she has no laws and without laws she has no explanation. So Jerry has also committed a major blunder.
It is fascinating to me that he makes a correct legal point (which is very minor) but then commits a philosophical blunder, which I as a philosopher of science have been attempting to straighten out, not to harm Judy’s work, but to correct an all-too-obvious mistake. My qualifications for addressing this issue are not in doubt. And the points that I have made about her use of “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic” are simply impeccable.
What this means is that, NO MATTER HOW ABSURD OR UNETHICAL HER CONDUCT, her groupies will support her. In this case, that Jerry, of all people, would feign expertise in the philosophy of science is astonishing. This has nothing to do with logical positivism, which I doubt that he could even define, and the citation of Wittgenstein within this context is bizarre. For more, see, for example, my entry, “Hempel, Carl”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
There is an advance here of sorts. Judy has been unwilling or unable to explain why she refuses to claim she has a theory. It is completely absurd, given the subtitle of her book, which states, “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11″. If that is NOT HER THEORY — if she does not present evidence that directed free-energy technology was used on 9/11 to take out the Twin Towers — then why does that statement appear ON THE COVER OF HER BOOK?
And with regard to the term, “hysterical”, has Jerry even bothered to listen to Judy’s response on The Bob Tuskin Show? Does he grasp that she told Bob that having to respond to me (when I called in to ask why she denies she has a theory) was LIKE ASKING A VICTIM TO CONFRONT HER RAPIST? If that is not an hysterical reaction, I cannot imagine what would qualify. And for an attorney to be dismissing this as sexual stereotyping simply boggles the mind.
Does Jerry also APPROVE of her creating a YouTube in which my explanation of the views of one of my guests IS ATTRIBUTED TO ME AND I AM ASSAILED AND RIDICULED BY JUDY USING HER OWN VOICE? Apparently, this one was so far off the wall that even she and her groupies decided it had to be taken down. If anyone can find it, then send us the link; because I cannot believe a man of the quality of Jerry Leaphart could possibly be standing up for such corruption.
Notice, in particular, that none of Judy’s followers is denying that I featured her 15 times on my radio programs; published a chapter of hers in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY; gave her THREE HOURS to speak in Madison; invited her to speak in Vancouver; and published a 5-star review of her book! Yet in the warped mind of her followers, that is supposed to be SUPPRESSING OR EVEN DISTORTING HER WORK. How is that even possible? The situation here is completely absurd.
As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. Can there be any serious doubt that Judy and her groupies qualify as a cult based upon the evidence I have presented and the comments that are being posted by her followers?
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group. Not only are Judy’s followers unable to show that we have anything wrong, they are not even willing to take the obvious step of APOLOGIZING FOR THEIR EXCESSES! They lack even simple human decency.
Every one of the Wood cult’s posts here proves the points in this article and in my post.
I get the feeling that Judy is the victim of an operation intending to dismiss the nuclear theor(ies), and that displays of her “epistemological confusions” are an artifact of the bad guys having decided that area was an exploitable weakness in her work. She’s been made to look like the leader of the cult, but she didn’t start, and isn’t now, at its helm.
Does that fit?
Well, it certainly “fits” the evidence better than the astonishing defenses being posted by her groupies. I know from personal experience that Judy has a way of looking at things that can be rather seductive, in spite of its obvious paranoia. She is extraordinary in developing a warped perspective from which even those of us who have done the most to promote the study of her work turn out to be “enemies of truth”!
Hello,
Once again we see attempts by Mr Fetzer to distract from the actual evidence of 911 – and he seems to have an obsession with Dr Judy Wood – rather than the actual evidence (some of which she put into a court case).
I personally have nothing much to add to what’s already been posted about Mr Fetzer. If you want to see Mr Fetzer’s role in a wider context and those who also want to not look at the actual evidence:
http://tinyurl.com/911ftb
However, thanks for the link to my trailer! A nice safe one as I didn’t put Hurricane Erin in it!
I also wrote an article about “debate” based on what’s been happening… have a look if you want to!
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=60
Make sure you look into all the dark corners and murky pools….
Andrew Johnson, who is a cheer-leader for the Judy Wood cult, implies that Don Fox and I are supposed to be suppressing the evidence that only Judy Wood could supply. Others on the amazon.com thread have drawn the inference that the person who posts under the name “S. Tiller” is actually Andrew Johnson. We know that he is a prototypical “true believer”.
Don and I appear to be more faithful to Judy’s work than even Andrew Johnson. We have pointed out that, while she claims to have shown that mini or micro nukes were not used at the World Trade Center, given what she has written on pages 121-122 of her book, that that is obviously not the case and we offer reasons why that claim is completely indefensible.
Andrew, I suspect, has been the one who has promoted the YouTube falsely attributing to me the views of one of my guests and then assailing me as though they were mine. I also suppose he is into clown images and has done Judy’s bidding in attempting to ridicule me in childish ways. There appears to be no end to the lengths to which that they are willing to go.
I also document several posts by “Emmanuel Goldstein” that advance thinly veiled death threats. None of them, including Attorney Jerry Leaphart, has made the least gesture of apology for those, even though their character is blatant and extreme. We have here, alas, additional confirmation that we are dealing with a cult for which science is secondary and their idol comes first.
Hmm – yes – usual sort of thing from Mr Fetzer. I wonder if he realises that, under different circumstances, he could be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice – for attempting to cover up evidence of a crime. I, however, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he’d be able to hypnotize many a judge and jury with his oratorial skills and rhythmic language patterns etc – anyway, it’s pretty much all in my book – and the cult thing is just getting old really.
Have fun….
This is a nice illustration of how you can tell that these people have lost their minds. He implies that I may be “attempting to cover up evidence of a crime”, when I have been doing everything I can to expose it! He takes for granted that DEWs were used to destroy the Twin Towers, when neither he nor Judy has shown that to be true. Remember, as Don Fox has observed,
“Judy Wood NEVER states that a Tesla/Hutchison technology based weapon was used at the WTC. All that she EVER commits to is: “What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” Notice, especially, that Don’s mini-nuke hypothesis also fits in nicely with that definition: mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally and their capabilities go well beyond those of conventional explosives. And Don has raised some rather telling questions:
(a) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will produce a fission process that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced nuclear devices? What Tesla or Hutchison effect will cause elevated tritium levels that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced thermonuclear devices?
(b) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will eject debris from the middle of WTC-1 up at a 45 degree angle and out into the Winter Garden 600 feet away? What Tesla or Hutchison effect could produce the China Syndrome at Ground Zero? Nukes fit ALL of these phenomena to a “t”.
(c) If Goldstein, Potter, Johnson, Reynolds and Wood were after the truth, they would conduct themselves in a completely different manner. Instead I see baseless attacks on other researchers, veiled intimidation/death threats and a coordination of efforts that smacks of an intelligence operation.”
So what justifies this arrogant fellow coming here and impugning my integrity, when he has been in the vanguard of those who are attempting to undermine serious scientific research on 9/11? If we need more proof that Judy and her band constitute a pseudo-scientific cult, I give you Andrew Johnson, who is a prime example of what Don and I have been discussing here.
Jim Fetzer has taken a huge amount of time for the past few years to discredit a well-credentialed scientist who lost her job due to her dedication to finding out the truth about what happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. He now is attacking those that think independently for themselves and agree with her research as a “cult” just because they defend her research. This guy must of went to a secret phone both and recieved his assignment. I can see no other reason to write this article. He had to be given this assignment by his superiors. The only kind of “cult” I find in this article is Jim Fetzer’s own personal cult with the objective to confuse his readers so they can join his “cult of the confused”. Be aware of the tactics this man is using and don’t forget to shake your head so you can clear out the rubbish you just read.
Matt Naus has long since lost his objectivity. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge that the facts are precisely the opposite. I have done NOTHING to discredit Judy Wood, but her relentless and unfounded attacks on me have DISCREDITED HER. Where do these people come up with this perversion of what has happened here? I feature her 15 times on my radio programs. I publish a chapter by her in my book. I give her an unprecedented three hours to speak in Madison. I invite her to speak in Vancouver. I even publish a 5-star review of her book on amazon — yet I AM SUPPOSED TO BE ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT HER? Everything I have written is true. These people are completely out of their minds.
How can Matt Naus be unaware that I have extolled the credentials of Judy Wood since I first began to interview her on 11 November 2006? Take, for example, my article, “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/the-debate-over-911-truth-kevin-ryan-vs-jim-fetzer/ which appeared as recently as 6 August 2011.
Judy even had the cover of her book removed from this article, which appeared where I show the [ ] comment (reporting what anyone could have read on the cover of her book), but I quite clearly and emphatically endorse her credentials, which means Naus has to know he is lying. I am not going to tolerate vicious and unwarranted attacks by Judy and groupies like this guy Naus:
“Kevin’s Distortions
“Kevin claims, for example, that, less than one year after founding the society, “just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks” when media attention was at its peak, “Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense”. And he faults me for a radio interview with Judy Wood, Ph.D., which occurred on 11 November 2006, when I was about to speak in Tucson. With her degrees in structural engineering, applied physics, and materials engineering science, however, I regard Judy as one of the best qualified students of 9/11 in the world today. A former professor of mechanical engineering, she introduced her theory that directed energy weapons may have been employed on 9/11 during during our conversation on the radio. I found her conjecture fascinating because it opens up an unconventional approach toward understanding the events of 9/11.
“Since 11 November is two months after 11 September, I have no idea where Kevin comes up with this stuff, but factual accuracy does not appear to be an important desideratum for him. I do not know to this day whether Wood is right, but her web site (at http://drjudywood.com) and new book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, [whose cover's own subtitle is, "Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11", which is her theory] sets a high standard in accumulating evidence about the data that an adequate theory would have to explain, including the conversion of the Twin Towers into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, the peculiar kinds of damage that were sustained by WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, and the oddity of the “toasted cars”. While I have advocated the study of DEWs—along with nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids—I have not endorsed them because we still do not know how it was done. And I would add that Kevin Ryan and his colleagues are certainly not in any position to know that Judy Wood has it wrong.”
Where do these people come from? Have they no integrity at all? I have stood by Judy through thick and through thin. I am fed up with minions such as Andrew Johnson and Matt Naus, who are going out of their way to make up false and malicious allegations that are easily refuted if you know what I have been doing on Judy’s behalf all these years.
Read the rubbish Matt Naus is posting here: “This guy must of went to a secret phone both and recieved his assignment. I can see no other reason to write this article. He had to be given this assignment by his superiors. The only kind of ‘cult’ I find in this article is Jim Fetzer’s own personal cult with the objective to confuse his readers so they can join his “cult of the confused”.
This guy is promoting lies about me and claims to be on the side of truth: “Be aware of the tactics this man is using and don’t forget to shake your head so you can clear out the rubbish you just read”, he writes. But everything I have reported here is true. Everything he is saying here is false. These people are phonies and frauds. I am not going to tolerate it. I am calling them out.
“Does any of this sound familiar” is quite an aggressive statement.
I have no connection with Judy Wood, have not read her book and until a week ago I had never even heard of her that I recall. There was a link posted on this website which I followed and saw her interview with Theo Chalmers in the UK. After many hours of research on the subject on the internet prior to this I was extremely confused as to the actual chain of events on the day. I felt she had answered most of my questions, or otherwise made them irrelevant. As to a theory, why bother?
This is something one can only guess at.
She has given us a better idea of what we are up against.
The elephant in this chatroom is the hurricane. I have lived in a cyclone (hurricane) prone area and under NO circumstances would a Cat. 3 be ignored.
Talk to that.
After I originally viewed her site and pondered it, a few things struck me as odd, how someone of her professional/academic background would have the capability/money to put together her site as it was (haven’t seen it in a while) without expensive help, but more notably, the look of the site seemed to be have been purposely constructed to have an amateurish look, contrary to the expansiveness of it in total. I can’t quite put my finger on it but there was something odd about it. By itself it may not signal much, but taken together with her behavior and the behavior of some of her followers, a foul stench of some sort is in the air. The taking of untouchable ground [while] leaving no room for a combination of destructive devices or any discussion at all. It looks not just insecure, but meant to divide the energy of 911 truth in a ‘control the opposition’ style. The ‘directed energy weapon’ of female tantrums is another marker. It’s unfortunate because DEW playing some role seems somewhat plausible. But at this point stopping the cabal (if we can) that did this is what matters most. Share info with others by handing out notes with good alternative news sites on them, so people can see real news. Gets around having to talk to sheep. Interesting article JF.
Have to agree with your assessment 100%. Only I call her a convenient diversion, especially when you consider the other attributes. It would much more since to be a bit more polished as opposed to being so..dare I say common.
The division centers around things that can’t be proved, only disproved. Those theories left to the public that make the very least amount of sense and have gaping holes when put under the glare of the floor lights.
In my humble opinion it’s why you have Gage and his CD….Which would have taken hundreds, if not more, man hours to rig up, let alone unleash on the fly on buildings so massive it boggles the mind, let alone the folks with less capacity upstairs.
It’s akin to the crushing of the concrete core. Without the core simple jet fuel fire has a leg to stand on, albeit a weak one. lol
Raptor
Judy Wood has almost single-handedly found the only truth worth listening to.
The personal consequences of that, stress, fear etc are almost beyond our comprehension. She will only be safe when her work is common knowledge. Use of the word ‘cult’ could be interpreted as a deliberate smear, as could such determined criticism. It is important that her work is supported and made public. This is not a game.
Well, if you read the article, you would see that (i) I define the term “cult” and (ii) I have produced evidence that she is leading one. If I had to guess, you are a guileless fan who agrees with her even in cases — such as attributing the views of others to me in order to attack me using her own voice on YouTube — that are so far beyond the pale only someone who has no scruples would endorse them. And there are quite a few examples.
Please tell us what is “the only truth worth listening to”? WHAT IS IT? Is it the evidence that speaks to us if we listen to it? What has Judy ever proven about how it was done? She says that the destruction of the Twin Towers required energy that went far beyond conventional sources. But we knew that already. I think you have been suckered in and have no idea what you are talking about. So explain exactly what it is that I am missing.
Jim,
I sent a more extensive reply earlier but it seems to have vanished into the ether.
I will only repeat one point here as it may turn up.
What about Hurricane Erin ? I have lived in a cyclone (hurricane) prone area for 25 years and the fact that a Cat. 3 steaming towards Manhatten with the potential of widespread destruction was ignored completely, and then after hovering off the coast while the events took place conveniently steamed out to sea again is so mind-boggling it can only leave room for Ms Wood to present what she has found and knows to be true.
Mark, I don’t know what happened to your earlier post. I welcome all comers, especially supporters of Judy Wood, who are confirming what I have had to say about them. The thing about Hurricane Erin, like so much of Judy’s work, is certainly intriguing, but what exactly does it mean? I am not the only person who had been frustrated by her unwillingness to explain its significance. I suggested during one of my programs that my impression was she was suggesting it could have been the source of energy for the destruction of the Twin Towers. I was informed by one of her followers that that was not right, which means that, at this point in time, I haven’t a clue. If you figure it out, let me know.
“I welcome all comers, especially supporters of Judy Wood, who are confirming what I have had to say about them.”
I have given you no reason to show such rudeness. Maybe Ms Wood just finds you an arrogant prick?
Taking into account your definition of a cult I wouuld suggest that points c), d) and e) are more applicable to yourself and many of your ‘supporters’ on this site.
Ms Wood speaks of possible use of the static field of the hurricane.
How would you suggest that she would gather information on such an hypothesis? The science is apparently proven on a small scale, only a few entities in the world would be in a position to experiment with such ideas on a scale of this proportion.
And what about the bridge collapse of which she spoke?
Tell us your theory on this.
And what, precisely, justifies calling me “an arrogant prick”?
That I’ve supported research on her work through thick and thin?
That I featured her on my radio programs no less than 15 times?
That I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007)?
That I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak in Madison?
That I invited her to speak again during The Vancouver Hearings?
That I published a 5-star review of her book on amazon.com?
Someone here is an arrogant prick, but that would not be me.
Let’s not get carried away. Their are hundreds of people well ahead of Woods in terms of contribution to exposing the inconsistencies of 911 since it happened, including those who died. Your post is game.
Hang in there, Jim. I too noticed it more than bizarre that the Judy cult put you on a hit list after only supporting and promoting her. After researching any 911 figure it becomes easy to see their true colors. Whether Judy has deep intel background I don’t know, but she is socially inept, literally an enormous energy sink on the movement.
On countless radio shows she will argue with a host, “It isn’t a theory!”, and the radio hosts are always annoyed at this quasi-autistic personality. It is so weird that one can’t find all the truth in any one person. Richard Gage is the tower guy, but gives credence to planes in the Pentagon. Well that should disqualify him.
People should use litmus tests like this to filter out all the people pushing agendas, or mysteriosly avoiding some. Which gets to Israel. Has anyone addressed the issue of whether the van and its infamous mural was there as a cut-out device? Why would they advertise their handiwork on the van? Also, why do so few people, inckuding yourself, give so little mention to Somon Shack and September Clues, who have been right all along?
Finally, and most importantly, why will no one tackle the gorilla in the room — the alleged victims of 9-11. When one solves that those people didn’t perish, it opens up many avenues and overcomes the most original psychological obstacle in the layman’s mind, ” How could they kill 3000 of their own people?”
Why does Kevin Barrett still insist on 3,000 deaths when they can’t be proven, and all evidence points to a gigantic hoax?
Judy Wood has to support her DEW assumptions. She wrote the book, was on countless interviews and shows, she has to appear like she is unflappable. I suspect that if we knew her during her school years, we might well find out about her mystical tendencies and why she’s reacted like she has toward Fetzer. While these analyses regarding the collapse and dustification are viable, let’s look at the many deaths caused by the first responders in such a short time. What caused those deaths? DEW’s, nukes? Thermate? As far as the unburned papers, remember also that electromagnetic pulses emanating from a nuke would NOT affect a substrate that could not absorb such a form of energy discharge. Also, paint burned off cars a long distance from the towers tends to lean towards nukes.
Arguably, the oversensitive disregard Wood has for Fetzer lacks scientific origins, clearly the lady has some cultoid manifestations that deviate from accepted modalities of behavior. She backs a line of reasoning and refuses to deviate because she is obsessed with one direction and fears looking like an indecisive and lacking scientist. Einstein would never have had this problem because those old German physicists interacted with each other and sought TRUTH, not fame, acclaim, and their Nobels were measures of truly nouveau science backed by intensive probing by their peers. Scientists guard their turf, it’s a human response. To see the pettiness often shown by researchers is but a sign of human weakness, not necessarily a sign of a criminal mind. Wood fails to realize that “there’s always a faster gun”.
I am not certain what happened to my attempted post here, but to be complete, this is the post of which responded to my pro-9/11 truth posts on Axis of Logic some time ago (and remember, this is not me, but “Dr. Judy Wood”):
Dr. Judy Wood
Thank you J.R. for nicely demonstrating how the controlled opposition discussed in this article works. You posted,
“[Dr. Wood admits that a beam weapon large enough for WTC 1 and 2 would be very large, super expensive and not portable and destroyed it its use.]”
Well, I am Dr. Wood and I do not have such a position nor have I ever. My position is stated on my website for those who choose to look at the evidence. That is, 9/11 was the demonstration of free-energy technology — a technology that must be covered up at all cost.
From my website (http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html):
___________
We stand today at the dawn of an entirely new age. Man has in his hands a method of disrupting the molecular basis for matter and the ability to split the earth in half on a moments notice. (It gives the term, “scortched-earth policy” a new significance.) The technology that was demonstrated on 911 can split the earth in half or it can be used to allow ALL people to live happily ever after with free energy.
However, he who controls the energy, controls the people. Control of energy leads to destruction of the planet.
But we have a choice. And this choice is real. Live happily ever after or destroy the planet. This is why I have been studying the evidence of what happened on 9/11. This evidence is central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy. It can be used for good, but we need to make that choice and help others to as well.
We have a choice.
______
Cathy, thanks for writing this excellent article! Thanks, too, for being one who really saw things as they were instead of running with the herd. You are an inspiration, teaching by example. Thank you!
Dr. Judy Wood
I, too, would by-pass Dr. Wood’s work.
I believe that all of our latest and best technologies were used against us on 9/11, including mini-nukes, thermite, nano-thermite, and even small beam weapon from back of van (to melt vehicles), and who knows what else in the overall murderous charade/tv/media production and that it was show-time; and led by Israel and our neocons (in control of our government).
Dr. Judy Wood had or has a wonderful website —-a great respository of photos of NYC WTC 1 and 2. Her site convinced me that our new beam weapon that fits on a HumVee was used on cars on FDR parkway in NYC (melted in strange ways), and was likely used from the back of a van or small truck. Her site had many positives. As I recall, it is very good on many features, such as the missing steel beams.
It did not convince me that there was no heat (which I believe is major error). And it did not convince me that a huge beam weapon brought down WTC 1 and 2—they were much too
Large (impossible to install undetected) and massively expensive (pure waste as they would have been destroyed) with uncertain consequences (all, as per other authors) to have been useable.
An article appeared on the Axis of Logic website (an arcane site that I do not visit normally) by a DC writer that I felt was disinformation, or information so weak it was meant to be ineffective, on 9/11 (references to Dr. Wood’s beams but not in convincing way—more in way to dismiss 9/11 truth and certainly without its strongest evidence). I posted comments re evidence stronger than article, which included a one sentence reference to Dr. Wood’s site For the HumVee beam weapon.
Well, Dr. Judy Wood, or one representing to be her, posted right after me to purport to refute my comments as a misinterpretation of her site and her position; and stated that what brought down WTC 1 and 2 was a wonderful free energy source that was going to liberate the world and all mankind forever (without specifying what that new discovery was).
Rather than argue with her over the content of her own site, I just said I was sorry that I misunderstood or mis-referenced her site—–and expressed that the overriding feature of 9/11 was the mass murder of thousands and it was not proper to put the instruments of death and destruction in glowing terms, and that the use of our own technology against us which was height of perfidy. I gave a strong reply and never returned.
I had run into recurrent posters previously (on Common Dreams.org), likely from intelligence agencies (ours or Mossad) that consistently tried to get me and others to express admiration and awe for the destructive technological achievements demonstrated in NYC on 9/11. Each time I blew them away.
The culprits of 9/11 control our media, our government and our latest technological developments and used them all against us on 9/11—-and they control most of the world’s money and wealthy countries and science budgets. Truth will prevail.
‘the culprits of 911 control our media’ – That’s excellently succinct.
Jim, I heard you interviewed on the BBC world service talkback show World Have Your Say on 911 last year. The things you said prompted me to look further into 911, in order to make 100% sure that you were wrong in what you said.
I used to think that Truthers mistook the Neocons capitalising cynically on 911 for having actually done it. Soon after I read the David Ray Griffin piece titled the Destruction of the World Trade Centre and was shocked to realise that I had been completely duped. So thank you.
As for Dr. Wood, wow, she looks like such a nice person. Keep up the good work.
This strikes me as a WWE pro wrestling match.
Worse than that! Sounds like too many words, too many accusations and NONSENSE- we suspect WHO did it, once we get that out in the open and it’s legitimately investigated, the HOW will fall into place. All of this goose chasing is verrry suspect to me- in fact, I now no longer follow J Fetzer, as apparently this all smacks of red herring and a LOT OF WORDS and WRITING to get everyone extremely confused, bored, and on a silly “scientific” waste of time. Thanks Fetzer for letting us know your real quest- not for “truth” but to deliver us unto the Demon of Confusion.
Well, you might as well believe the “official account” of 9/11, because you are coming across as a Judy Wood groupie. I am sorry, but if I have something wrong — if my featuring her fifteen (15) times on my radio programs, publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, giving her an unprecedented three (3) hours to speak during the Madison Conference (2007), inviting her to speak during the Vancouver Hearings (2012) and putting up a 5-star review of her book on amazon.com is not proof of my sincerity — then spell it out. You come across as extremely closed-minded, even like a member of her cult.
If you support her attacks on me, when I have done so much to promote her work, I can’t imagine what would convince you she is wrong to do that. Your attitude is just as bizarre as that of Judy and the other members of her little group. I am sorry, but this comment is simply irrational in response to the evidence I have presented here. It even sounds like something that Judy herself could have written! You need to justify your dismissal or pack it in. I discuss the “who dunnit” — see, for example, “Peeling the 9/11 Onion — Layers of Plots within Plots” — but to the best of my knowledge, Judy herself has never done that.
Dr. Fetzer,
Please gives us the respect we deserve. We can see through the tactics and shenanigans embedded in your post. Let’s discuss the evidence. Above all else this topic deserves the attention and consideration of people from many different areas of expertise. It is complex, it is revealing and disturbing. The implications are severe and everyone on the planet is affected by the way this event, more perhaps than any other event in history, has unfolded.
Therefore, I must ask that you not partake in ad hominem attacks leveled at people who have taken time to review Dr. Wood’s work carefully. Reading and carefully considering the evidence contained in Dr. Wood’s book is hardly cult like behavior. It is responsible behavior. You, yourself have done the same I presume and considered carefully the implications of Dr. Wood’s work.
Dr. Wood and the people who have looked at her work have nothing in fact to do with the evidence. Their characters are as meaningless as the color of the office furniture in the towers. It is a logical fallacy to waste time considering this information.
Further, I must stress that we don’t need to know about how until we have sorted our what actually happened and collected and considered all of the evidence in is raw, unfiltered form.
Doing anything else is an error in syntax, one that may in fact be intentional I am afraid.
For those who are familiar with critical thinking theory please review the structure and syntax of the trivium and the please examine the logical fallacies listed on Wiki in light of Dr. Fetzer’s article. There are many, many instances where syntax errors and logical fallacies rear their ugly heads. I can list some if people want examples.
But, back to the evidence, which is where we need to begin in any case.
We have seismic data, we have unburnt paper, unexplained clouds of dust that move very slowly (a few feet per second) and appear to be very different from any cloud of dust I have seen generated by a kinetic energy event, we have events that appear as fires but then don’t burn people or certain materials the way normal fire does and can not be extinguished, we have unusual damage to building elements within the towers that were destroyed and in the environs of the original events, we have images of beams literally disintegrating as they were falling, we have NIST using a model that strangely incorporates disappearing building elements (huh?), we have a hurricane that appeared to move in unison with the events of that day, went unreported by the media and traveled a highly unusual path leading up to and following the dustification event and we have many eye witness accounts that describe conditions that almost defy the imagination.
This is our starting point. We don’t need a theory. We need to start with known information. Every mathematician, engineer and software developer on the planet knows that if you start with a theory prior to considering the boundary conditions and known parameters you will end up in the soup.
Once we have organized the data into a coherent story using deductive reasoning we can start looking for why and how. We must start with why however because starting with how would again be a syntax error. The why question is complex because the data is complex. Why did the seismic trace show only minor levels of vibration and no P and S waves? Why was the bathtub in almost pristine condition? Why were people reporting unusual heating conditions? Why did what looked like fires not burn paper? Why were there dust particles less than the size of red blood cells?
Upon exhausting our efforts to organize our “why” questions into a coherent story we can then proceed to considering how. How does not matter until this point in our analysis however. It only confuses the process of collecting and organizing the data. We don’t need to know it to collect data. It is that simple.
But, should we get to a place where we need to discuss how as you have emphasized, then let’s do it on a foundation that respects the efforts of those who have spent time collecting the data including all aspects of this event. From that point, we will have a foundation where we can begin to explore what possible explanations match all of the data. We can ask ourselves if mini-nukes fit with the nature of the dust clouds for example. But without knowing all of the characteristics of the dust clouds we can never get to an answer on this very simple question.
The readers of this post know that this is an immense topic. Neither you nor I can do it justice in such a limited space. But we can respect each other and we can establish a process for everyone to participate in to increase our understanding of what happened that day.
We are not a group, cult or anything other than individual concerned and disturbed by what happened that day. And, we can make the most process in resolving our questions, by consciously avoiding “group think”, by using known tools or critical thinking and analysis and by respecting efforts of all those who have put time into this problem–including yourself.
Best regards,
jrb
The complete and utter absence of respect is what Judy and her groupies have displayed toward me. I have gone out of my way to encourage the study of her work. I won’t review the bidding. It is obvious. Their abusive behavior is blatant.
It does not matter if we start with a theory or start with the evidence. The issue is how the evidence and the theory relate and which, among the alternative theories, provides the best explanation for the evidence. That is the question.
List the elements of the evidence that you believe matter the most: the seismic records; the pristine bathtub; the unburned paper; the size of the dust particles. To begin with, explain why you think they favor one theory over another.
When you entered the discussion on the amazon.com thread, I initially believed you were going to be fair and balanced and open-minded. I did not find that to be the case. But if you can do better here and now, I would certainly welcome that.
Thanks for the response.
All of the evidence matters. That is fair and balanced and complete. Why do anything less?
Well, some of your remarks suggest to me that you are taking for granted that the use of nukes would have to involve big ones, such as 150kt nukes, as Dimitri Khalezov has proposed. A large nuke would undoubtedly take out the bathtub, for example. But that is not the case of arrangements of mini or micro nukes, especially distributed through the building at every 10 floors, for example.
The seismic data could be inconsistent with 150kt nukes but still be consistent with arrangements of mini or micro nukes, especially directed upward and detonated from the top down. So if you want to discuss this, then give us the pitch as to why you believe specific evidence supports DEWs. And shouldn’t the dust be full of minute pieces of steel, not tiny iron spheres? Doesn’t that favor mini-nukes?
In my review of Judy’s book, which has drawn more than 1,000 comments, I remark that, although she claims to have eliminated the possibility of mini or micro nukes, that does not appear to be the case. Are you claiming that she has done that or are you conceding that, even though she makes that claim, she is wrong? It would be a considerable advance if you were to acknowledge that she is mistaken.
Agreed. I am not though. That is an opinion as you are right to acknowledge. I find the nuke theory is not consistent with some of the evidence I am familiar with. For example, I don’t see how the initial explosions would go undetected in the seismic data, I don’t how kinetic energy devices could cause beams to disintegrate as they fell, I don’t see how kinetic energy devices could create a slow moving, low temperature dust cloud that started fires (or what appeared to be fires) on cars several blocks away, and I don’t see how an impulse event like a nuclear explosion could have caused a hurricane to change directions or caused eye witnesses to experience heating several minutes before the event and ultimately I don’t see how an impulse event like a nuclear explosion would required that NIST consider disappearing building elements in their model.
But, as you might be able to do at this time, it is reasonable to suggest that I have not considered all of the data. It is very hard to consider all of the evidence. Hence my concern, which is reflected in all aspects of life and studies of logic (such as the trivium as you know) we have to start with deductive reasoning. Once through all of the known conditions we can begin to reason inductively.
But going at this problem in a reverse order would cause us to leave out data that may be inconsistent with our theory. Again, every engineer, architect, software developer and planner knows that you have to start with what you are given then apply your own understanding to those conditions.
We need to determine how various theories comport with the available relevant evidence. You are still assuming that nukes would be detonated in the basements, not on the top floors, taking out, say, 10 floors at a time per second. With 110 floors, that would take about 11 seconds, which is about what we observe. And it would not have the kind of seismic signature that would occur with large nukes in the basements.
You also seem to assume that, whatever caused the demise of the Twin Towers was responsible for directing Hurricane Erin. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that. I once suggested that Erin might have been the source of the energy that was required for DEWs, but one of Judy’s fans told me I was wrong. Give us the benefit of your thoughts about which elements of the evidence support DEWs in preference to mini or micro nukes.
Thanks again for taking time to consider my comments. I appreciate the time you put into this.
I’m not an expert however. More like a concerned bystander.
I do have some experience to draw from, as an engineer, that would refute the idea that mini-nukes even on the upper floors would not have registered in the seismic data. I believe you are suggesting that a kinetic energy device that had sufficient energy to demolish (pulverize or dustify) a modern concrete office tower would not have been detectable at grade level. I have measured a lot of structure borne vibration throughout my career and even done some seismic testing and I don’t find this credible. But, I think we could ask Bolt, Beranek and Newman (now owned by Ratheon) to comment with your support. I don’t have the ability to pose that kind of question to this particular group of engineers, but I would be interested in their response.
The hurricane event is fascinating. I actually like your idea. But, I am left speculating on this one. I find it incredible, and simply unbelievable, that a Cat 3 hurricane was traveling directly towards NYC, not reported on any major news network that I know of, then abruptly turned away from NYC shortly after the towers were turned to dust. How would you characterize that?
Right now, I have to simply leave that topic because I do not have the resources to put all of those pieces together.
No, I was suggesting that your implied assumption of a single, large nuke per building was not the only alternative and that it has to be wrong (because the bathtub was not destroyed, for example). I discussed this with Dimitri on “The Real Deal”, where I explained why I found his theory highly implausible.
Debunking one version of a nuke theory does not do the same for alternatives. And the seismic signal from a succession of 10-story demolitions would be different, too. I am not drawing any conclusions, but offering reasons why Judy has not shown it was not done with mini or micro nukes. Would you not agree?
It is hard to agree or disagree with the statement because I find it a bit confusing.
But, I will say that Dr. Judy Wood’s opinions about the topic are not that important. The evidence she presents is however. There is a distinction between the two.
I haven’t heard your show with Dimitri. Sorry. I get the sense that many people on this thread have. I will try to get to it now that you mention it.
Again, the mini nuke theory on any scale appears to me, at least, to be problematic. Can you at least characterize what is meant by the term? Engineers, as you know, prefer real numbers and concrete ideas. When something is left undefined it is hard to contend with.
I should add that explosions are pretty well understood. In fact, the National Fire Protection Association et al. have lots of good data and standards for engineers to use when calculating the energy from an explosion. Further, we can estimate the energy required to pulverize or dustify a building using kinetic energy weapons. So, the point is, we don’t have to speculate or have a theory. This is resolvable. I think you would agree.
Therefore, can you make this more concrete for the benefit of our discussion.
Size of the mini-nuke device in terms of explosive power?
Initial temperature of the explosion?
Speed of the shock wave?
Approximate placement?
Number of devices?
My concern is that no matter how many times the mini-nuke theory gets dismissed, it always comes back. I have observed this phenomenon in this thread and others. Whenever anyone has tried to establish that nature of mini-nuke explosions is not consistent with all of the data, the evidence is ignored. It becomes a logical fallacy. But a useful one I suppose depending on your reference point.
If you really want to attack this topic in this thread and will make a conscious effort to consider all of the evidence, I am up to it. But, I will ask that, if we get to the end and find that we have established mini-nukes as being inconsistent with the data, that you must drop the topic from your discussion. Otherwise, we are wasting each others time. Not something I want to do or would ask you to do.
My starting point is to begin with known factors such as the nature and characteristics of mini-nuke devices, the nature of structure borne vibration, and the basic energy equations used to evaluate turning a cubic yard of concrete into a fine powder.
Where would you like to begin?
Excellent! Yes, I agree that there are three issues here:
(1) the evidence Judy provides in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?;
(2) her non-theory that it was done by directed free-energy;
(3) her persona, her groupies, and the conduct of her cult.
Of the three, (1) is the most important, by far: I agree.
(2) is the area of controversy, where (3) is beyond dispute.
Regarding alternative theories, on Dimitri, here is a link:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Dimitri
That one theory about nukes is wrong does not impugn others.
Don Fox and Jeff Prager are better positioned to go further.
So my inclination is to defer to them. Thanks for this post.
Dear jrb, this is not about Wood’s work itself, actually, but about the personal vituperations Fetzer has been through, just as Wood and Johnson have claimed from him.
Ok. However, I would weight these points differently.
The evidence in the book “Where Did the Towers Go?” and on the web site is the only thing that matters about the topic of Dr. Wood and whoever those followers happen to be. I am not sure they exist, but if you say so.
On the second point, I would encourage everyone who has the time and the interest to do their own research. Dr. Wood has used the data she found to show that kinetic energy weapons/devicdes can not possibly have caused all of the conditions observed on that day. But, your readers are intelligent people. They can do the same. It helps to have some of the work done already. The book contains references, the web site contains references, all of this information can be checked.
She has also provided information on energy weapons. We simply do not know much about this tech–or there isn’t much information that I can get access to (I’m sure that some people know quite a bit about the topic). But, we can be confident it does exist as you have alluded to in some of your posts. John Hutchison has hundreds of specimens in his possession that demonstrate, repeatedly, that electro-magnetic waves can interact with matter in a ways we don’t commonly consider. But at one time, microwave ovens were pretty magical, so I expect this will change. Further, we have data from the debris field that is consistent with John Hutchison’s findings. This should be sufficient to peak the curiosity of the best and brightest people in America to look more closely at this event. I hope it does.
Thirdly, it is simply a logical fallacy to consider the personalities of the people involved in studying this topic to be important. I am sure the Edison had his flaws as did Marconi. But, we can be pretty grateful for their contribution to science.
Dr. Wood’s book should be taken for what it is, on its own. It is an excellent engineering analysis, an excellent forensic investigation and an excellent study of critical thinking that follows classic methods, developed by Pythagoras and Aristotle (called the Trivium), to organize the correct syntax for this kind of investigation. Where people have chosen to follow other methods, the foundation of their work remains in question, as has been shown in many different instances.
Best regards…
Nonsense; one can publish about constant attacks; sure, it doesn’t help the case about what happened, but it is the right of someone to put their personal situation on the public record in a commentary, as both Fetzer and Johnson have done.
Hi Clare,
But, I don’t see how that should matter. Further, Dr. Wood has not communicated with Dr. Fetzer (there are no examples on this post) that I can see.
They are independent professionals with a different take on the events of 911. Readers should be able to discern for themselves what pieces of evidence are most compelling. By suggesting that there is some friction between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood and by suggesting that somehow that this, somewhat questionable, piece of information is important or more important then spending time educating ourselves about what really happened are you not promoting a logic fallacy? Sure looks like it to me. What are trying to accomplish?
I have attempted, as have others, to maintain the focus on what I think has brought so many people to this discussion. They have detected problems with the official story, they have detected problems with the thermite/thermate narrative and they have detected problems with the mini-nuke narrative. Where is that discussion? And how would you rate the importance of that discussion in comparison to what color shirt Dr. Wood wore when she last spoke with Dr. Fetzer?
In Dr. Fetzer’s last post of our discussion he listed three issues that were important to him.
I would weight these points differently.
The evidence in the book “Where Did the Towers Go?” and on the web site is the only thing that matters about the topic of Dr. Wood and whoever those followers happen to be.
On the second point, I would encourage everyone who has the time and the interest to do their own research. Dr. Wood has used the data she found to show that kinetic energy weapons/devicdes can not possibly have caused all of the conditions observed on that day. But, your readers are intelligent people. They can do the same. It helps to have some of the work done already. The book contains references, Dr. Wood’s web site contains references, all of this information can be checked.
Dr. Wood has also provided information on energy weapons. We simply do not know much about this tech–or there isn’t much information that I can get access to (I’m sure that some people know quite a bit about the topic). But, we can be confident it does exist as Dr. Fetzer and yourself have alluded to in some of these posts.
John Hutchison has hundreds of specimens in his possession that demonstrate, repeatedly, that electro-magnetic waves can interact with matter in a ways we don’t commonly consider. But at one time, microwave ovens were pretty magical, so I expect this will change. Further, we have data from the debris field that is consistent with John Hutchison’s samples. This should be sufficient to peak the curiosity of the best and brightest people in America to look more closely at this event and this finding. I hope it does.
Thirdly, it is simply a logical fallacy to consider the personalities of the people involved in studying this topic to be important. I am sure the Edison had his flaws as did Marconi. But, we can be pretty grateful for their contribution to science.
Dr. Wood’s book should be taken for what it is, on its own. It is an excellent engineering analysis, an excellent forensic investigation and an excellent study of critical thinking that follows classic methods, developed by Pythagoras and Aristotle (called the Trivium), to organize the correct syntax for this kind of investigation. Where people have chosen to follow other methods, the foundation of their work remains in question, as has been shown in many different instances.
Best regards,
jrb
jrb: of course it matters if there are constant vituperations (in e-mail and in public) of a person, when in fact they have a right to be positive and open-minded while not being clear about all the arguments for aspects of a position — some of Wood’s points need further clarification in more detail, to be honest, and here’s something which helps which Jim now noticed recently and is thinking on … but again, there is less knowledge out there about what such DEW-scalar-Field Interference weapons are or do: http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html
Also, Wood seems indeed to have been in touch; certainly her close associate friend Johnson and she have talked of Fetzer on air and she refused to take Jim’s call on a show, too, cutting off most “non-confrontationally” but also unprofessionally and not listening in case he was honestly trying to reach her …
She has also claimed he threatened her, but has not elaborated on that; it seems maybe she misinterpreted one of his warnings or his statements in general.
So no, though Wood’s book lays out a good overview theory (though she refuses to use the appropriate term, as if theory is not evidence-related when it explains something), there are aspects which are not remotely detailed about 1. the weaponry (not that she’d have to know everything, but even that article on scalar history is better in that regard), 2. the new claims of fissionless fusion mini-nukes, since that was not the kind of nuke the book was addressing (one which would not leave much of a seizmic effect, probably, and one which would leave very specific items in the dust).
I still hold her view because of primarily, though not entirely only because of: a) the organics in the dust and b) the levitations, though the mini-nuke people do point out that we don’t know how much of a local draft of air would be rushing at specific points even while the general cloud was slow. And they claim cars get flipped in regular nuke blasts but I’ve pointed out those are regular blasts and they’re claiming a much more limited blast power here, c) the 20-minute-prior to 1st “hit” magnetosphere readings (though yes I know that, nuke blasts do affect the magnetosphere, and maybe there were pre-1st hit mini-nukes in the area, yes, the real timeline of which blasts went off where is NOT known).
That’s just to mention 3 things. So really, at least Jim is trying to sort through both — most of the time.
About the alleged “threat”, which has baffled me from its first mention, here she spells out the nature of my “threat”, where I am alleged to have threatened her to not reveal what she has discovered, when if that were my motive, then why would I have featured her 15 times on my radio programs, published her work, had her speak for three hours in Madison and invited her to Vancouver? See
9/11 and The Hutchison Effect – Handling the Truth 7444
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=60
I had interviewed Judy and John during a program in 2008. He came across as flaky and superficial. I had already received reports, which even his supporters have confirmed, that videos that have been attributed to him were faked. Ace Baker had already shown how easy it was to fake them and had offered John $100,000 to let Ace and me come to his lab to verify his claims — an offer that he refused!
I was ADVISING and WARNING Judy that her association with John Hutchison entailed the risk that her own reputation might suffer. That is the OPPOSITE OF A THREAT. I was not suggesting that I or anyone else would HARM her reputation. I was suggesting how she might AVOID HARM TO HER REPUTATION. It is indicative of the dementia that seems to infuse the whole Judy movement that a case where I was attempting to protect her from harm has been spun into a threat of harm against her.
Well, I agree that you probably warned her; but Dr. Wood does sometimes seem to get fearful of challenge and to take it (in that case) where there was none. Having said that, some of the other people here, who can’t understand that there is a real debate between mini (not regular) nukes and Wood’s points about field interference, might think that your upsets at them as a “cult” or “groupies” are merely insulting — rather than an emotional outburst of characterizing them as a group, when they feel they are individuals — is though not a threat, somehow irrational. I think I see your side that they (many of Wood’s adherents) think she’s answered all the salient questions and get uppity with you and insulting at you; and I think I see their side, that Wood’s idea makes sense (at least prima facie) though the mini-nuke people don’t get it. Even if the mini-nuke people could be found to be right or partly right, Wood’s idea is not as far fetched as (sorry Gordon Duff — no offense to you and others) some people here think.
Well, you mentioned the scalar article as evidence that I remain open-minded. I should tell you that Gordon sent it to me. I separate (a) her work on the effects that need to be explained, (2) her theory explaining how it was done, and (3) Judy Wood as a person. I regard (a) as brilliant, (b) as vague and undefined, and (c) as someone who has lost her way. But as I may have mentioned already, I regard the article on scalar devices extremely interesting and posing what might be a way of salvaging some semblance of the theory she denies having! Her theory is far more important than her persona. Even a lunatic can have occasional lucid thoughts. I appreciate all of your efforts to maintain balance here.
Note: My last reply was to kristheking (the start of this comments section). Also, kris, note that finding out what happened as best we can HELPS make the case for who did it in more detail AS WELL AS garner clearer, wider arguments for persons who don’t understand the intricacies of the evidence, and would like to use inaccurate generalities or inappropriate specifics, inappropriately applied out of context. Many specifics from the Official Account(s) (there are several official versions, actually, which differ in how the NYC events unfolded) must be put in broader evidential context than that which is mentioned in official accounts; the science questions which Fetzer, Wood and others have pursued do this recontextualization of evidence with new facts, so that what really happened can be more accurately determined. Don’t be a knob about pursuing the how, to help the whodunnit and to reach broader publics with more and wiser understanding of the information.
I agree, Chris. The oddity is that I have consistently supported research on her work since 2006, while she has been assailing me with no warrant or justification since 2008. If I am going to fault the “thermite sniffers” (Steve Jones and his group) and the “plane huggers” (Rob Balsamo and some of his friends), how can I let Judy and her “DEW lovers” get away with these nasty and baseless attacks without pointing out that they are self-destructive and DUMB! She needs to focus her energies on THE PERPS, but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never heard her do that. She simply claims to have THE TRUTH when the evidence is equivocal, as I explain here. Her role has become astonishingly destructive of 9/11 Truth. If she will attack me given my support, whom won’t she attack?
You got on her bad side, her fears of your “threats” (whatever she took to mean threats). I know you come across strongly; some people don’t see that as momentary response from you, or bluster in some cases. That’s what happened and now it’s crystallized; you become the bad guy forever (to some) and she becomes the bad gal forever (to some). You had EVERY RIGHT to publish a complaint against her and their treatment as they had a right to complain about you — and to see whose case is valid or if both sides have made some points. These are personal issues you’re raising … and this is different than the evidence around 9/11, which must of course continue to be discussed, even if Wood is convinced she’s completely right and you are thinking there is more of a combination, and others are convinced there is some other completely right position.