DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[matrixcutter]

What do you guys think of this new 8 part doc-discussion with structural-physicisits Dr. Woods who
is postulating that 911 was not due to air plane attacks, but "free energy" directed weapontry?
======

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE&feature=related

I think it is perfect timing to distract from the BP false flag ...

The trouble with that is that this interview is 7 months old.

[matrixcutter]

LOL! Somehow, I kinda knew it would end up here which of course, answers my question.
She was postulating that the pulverization of everything but the flying papers, and the fact of no one being seriously burnt in the fires that followed are an indication that some sort of high bean concentration of energy was being used.  I am by no means even a novice in this dept. but she certainly seems sure of herself.

We're not dealing with a situation as simple as a highly qualified scientist having information which proves that some previous theories are wrong.

We're dealing with a "truth movement" that was set up and controlled from the start to manipulate the minds of the people who would inevitably smell a rat about the official 9/11 theory.

This truth movement has smeared Dr Wood and her work and ensured that the people who will not (possibly even cannot) think for themselves won't even look at her work, because it is forbidden, psychologically and otherwise.  They will dismiss Dr Wood's work without knowing what it is, and repeat the misleading terms and phrases given to them by some of the leaders of the truth movement.

Dr Wood has a much higher level of understanding of this kind of manipulation than most people in this forum, for example, simply by learning from her own observations of the reaction to her work over the last few years.

And of course she has a much more advanced scientific understanding of the evidence she discusses than most people in the world, let alone in the "9/11 truth movement".

There are people who will take it upon themselves to watch this video and to consider the information by themselves and for themselves.  And then there are those who do not think for themselves, some of whom insist that they do, while they regurgitate "9/11 truth" theories that were proven to be inaccurate several years ago e.g. the pancake collapse (which resulted in a total lack of "pancakes" after this pancake collapse.)

[EvadingGrid]

Show me your energy weapon.

[matrixcutter]

In case there are some genuine independent thinkers out there, here are all 8 parts:

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 1/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 2/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT2nSbzIrAo

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 3/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2HXO-UGIPY

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 4/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg9Lec-7O2s

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 5/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQYJb2HFTI

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 6/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkF74cK3vBw

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 7/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIuL5k5dEJo

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 8/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwQ2I6EdBKg

[jeremystalked1]

In case there are some genuine independent thinkers out there, here are all 8 parts:

Well, I'm an independent thinker, and while I agree that the truth movement is engineered/shaped by the CIA, I think you're well off the mark when you say DEW's are the real story and everything else is a distraction.

"They" - some factions of the CIA - want the inside job to be obvious.

"They" want you to pick up on Illuminati/Masonic symbolism in the entertainment industry.

Read up on psychological warfare tactics.  You guys are being sensitized to certain themes.  What is the purpose of this sensitization?  Can you figure it out?

[EvadingGrid]

In case there are some genuine independent thinkers out there, here are all 8 parts:

ROFL

You'd get a better response in the David Icke forums or Above Top DisInfo

[oyashango]

We're not dealing with a situation as simple as a highly qualified scientist having information which proves that some previous theories are wrong.

We're dealing with a "truth movement" that was set up and controlled from the start to manipulate the minds of the people who would inevitably smell a rat about the official 9/11 theory.

This truth movement has smeared Dr Wood and her work and ensured that the people who will not (possibly even cannot) think for themselves won't even look at her work, because it is forbidden, psychologically and otherwise.  They will dismiss Dr Wood's work without knowing what it is, and repeat the misleading terms and phrases given to them by some of the leaders of the truth movement.

Dr Wood has a much higher level of understanding of this kind of manipulation than most people in this forum, for example, simply by learning from her own observations of the reaction to her work over the last few years.

And of course she has a much more advanced scientific understanding of the evidence she discusses than most people in the world, let alone in the "9/11 truth movement".

There are people who will take it upon themselves to watch this video and to consider the information by themselves and for themselves.  And then there are those who do not think for themselves, some of whom insist that they do, while they regurgitate "9/11 truth" theories that were proved to be inaccurate several years ago e.g. the pancake collapse (which resulted in a total lack of "pancakes" after this pancake collapse.)

Thanks matrixcutter. I took the time to really listen to her, and even though I have no experience in this area, I kinda like to think my discernment skills are not that bad. She said from the start that many will debunk her thesis, and that she had learned when she first heard of the attacks and watched how the towers fell, especially building 7, that what the media, and then later the “truth movement” were reporting and postulating was not correct or the entire story.

She independently and carefully conducted her own investigation, examining  the evidence, and concluded that some other weaponry was used.  She did not totally rule out that planes were used. But she stated that they, the thermite and the fire alone could not have possibly created the kind of pulverization of literally everything including the contents in the building. She thought it odd that there were absolutely no human charred remains.

She concluded that  the planes  had to have been used  in conjunction with some high powered energy beam weapon system, she speculates the government  might have been testing.. She reminded us that even the toilets, desks, humans, and other common furniture was completely pulverized to dust, yet there were no burns on the thousands of sheets of paper flying around the debris.   It got me to thinking, that she may be onto something that many might have overlooked or never even considered. 

Although this article has been junked into the "disinfo" file, I am still not convinced that it is disinfo.  She sacrificed her credibility and career she was so convinced of her findings.  I also read somewhere that the truth movement had been hijacked by the CIA. Don't know if this is true.  However, if she offers other interviews, I will listen again to her evidence and arguments.

[matrixcutter]

Show me your energy weapon.

That is such a ridiculous thing to say.  Anybody capable of thinking at all knows that it is not my energy weapon, and therefore I can't show you my energy weapon.

And I can't show you the directed energy weapon because I have nothing to do with it, I don't know who does have it (although SAIC - which is essentially a backwards CIA's - are prime suspects), I don't know where it is, what the serial number is, what the people who used it had for breakfast, whether or not they have foreskins, etc. etc.

These bizarre demands for impossible information are meaningless.  They don't negate the information that we do have, and they don't add anything to it.

But then you're the person who asserted that David Noakes is a Bilderberger purely because he advised people against voting for UKIP, simply because you're not ready to consider UKIP to be part of the control mechanism that is politics, despite being a political party.

So I'm not surprised.

[H0llyw00d]

I don't think anybody from that crappy administration could even spell "Directed Energy Weapons", more less implement one.

[matrixcutter]

In case there are some genuine independent thinkers out there, here are all 8 parts:

ROFL

You'd get a better response in the David Icke forums or Above Top DisInfo

That wasn't my response to your post, obviously.

[EvadingGrid]

This is such a ridiculous thing to say.  Anybody capable of thinking at all knows that it is not my energy weapon, and therefore I can't show you my energy weapon.

And I can't show you the directed energy weapon because I have nothing to do with it, I don't know who does have it (although SAIC - which is essentially a backwards CIA's - are prime suspects), I don't know where it is, what the serial number is, what the people who used it had for breakfast, whether or not they have foreskins, etc. etc.

These bizarre demands for impossible information are meaningless.  They don't negate the information that we do have, and they don't add anything to it.

So you expect us to belive in some bizzare Energy Weapon that does not exist.

Worse you attack because some one has called your bluff.

[matrixcutter]

So you expect us to belive in some bizzare Energy Weapon that does not exist.

No.  It does exist, obviously.

I don't expect you to believe in it, but that's a different matter entirely.

Worse you attack because some one has called your bluff.

I'm bored of your pointlessness now.  Have a nice life.

[EvadingGrid]

No.  It does exist, obviously.

I don't expect you to believe in it, but that's a different matter entirely.

I'm bored of your pointlessness now.  Have a nice life.

Your claims are without any real evidence....

If you wish to advocate the use of a technique, it helps if it is known to exist and not science fiction.

[matrixcutter]

Well, I'm an independent thinker, and while I agree that the truth movement is engineered/shaped by the CIA, I think you're well off the mark when you say DEW's are the real story and everything else is a distraction.

That's not exactly what I said but it's close.

"They" - some factions of the CIA - want the inside job to be obvious.

I agree.  I believe this is something to do with the fact that we are in the era of the Revelation of the Method, as discussed by Michael A. Hoffman II in his excellent book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare.

The idiocy displayed earlier in this thread has rendered it necessary for me to point out that I am not Michael A. Hoffman II, and I don't work for him.  But I do recommend that people (except total newbies)  read that book if they haven't already.  In fact, I recommend that they read it even if they have read it once before.

"They" want you to pick up on Illuminati/Masonic symbolism in the entertainment industry.

I'm not sure about that.  I believe they want it to be visible, but I doubt they want everybody to understand what it means.

They probably do want a subsection of society to pick up on it though.

Read up on psychological warfare tactics.  You guys are being sensitized to certain themes.  What is the purpose of this sensitization?  Can you figure it out?

Yes, but directed energy weaponry still explains the 9/11 evidence, whereas bombs, thermite/thermate/super-thermite/nano-thermite and planes do not.

And of course it does exist, whether or not people want to use the ridiculous argument that if you cannot put the weapon in front of them, then it doesn't exist.

The visible effects of the use of the weapon are not evidence.  Only the weapon itself somehow being placed in front of them, by me, in an internet forum, counts as evidence.  Amazing, but not surprising.

[iks83]

well dont worry people... the DEW people will vanish just like the no planers / tv fakery people. havent heard from them for quite a while.

seriously... as if they would use some new fancy way to blow up buildings where the outcome is questionable. can the good doctor tell you where such weapon was tested? how does that weapon fling steel beams hundreds of feet away? well anyways those are just rethorical questions... no person that  really matters does cares about the DEW theory. but go ahead, waste your time.

[Viper]

... no person that  really matters does cares about the DEW theory...

so who "really matters", Jones?

[jeremystalked1]

We already have convincing evidence that people at the highest levels of the visible government had foreknowledge or were even involved in its planning.  How does adding secret technology to the mix help in any way?  Why not say 9/11 was part of a deal with the Crab People, while you're at it?

I'm in contact with a community of people who are experiencing advanced DEW's on a daily basis.  I've experienced some of them myself.  And I'm here to tell you: don't bring DEW's into the discussion of 9/11.  It's unhelpful, and a distraction.

[matrixcutter]

Thanks matrixcutter.

You're welcome.

I took the time to really listen to her, and even though I have no experience in this area, I kinda like to think my discernment skills are not that bad. She said from the start that many will debunk her thesis, and that she had learned when she first heard of the attacks and watched how the towers fell, especially building 7, that what the media, and then later the “truth movement” were reporting and postulating was not correct or the entire story.

She independently and carefully conducted her own investigation, examining  the evidence, and concluded that some other weaponry was used.  She did not totally rule out that planes were used. But she stated that they, the thermite and the fire alone could not have possibly created the kind of pulverization of literally everything including the contents in the building. She thought it odd that there were absolutely no human charred remains.

It all seems pretty obvious now.

But the propaganda of the mainstream media gave people the official story, and the propaganda of the alternative media gave the quasi-questioners their alternative official story.  Both medias have similar techniques of smearing and ridiculing anybody who questions their official story.

She concluded that  the planes  had to have been used  in conjunction with some high powered energy beam weapon system, she speculates the government  might have been testing.. She reminded us that even the toilets, desks, humans, and other common furniture was completely pulverized to dust, yet there were no burns on the thousands of sheets of paper flying around the debris.   It got me to thinking, that she may be onto something that many might have overlooked or never even considered.

There's no doubt whatsoever that she's onto something.  The evidence proves it.
Although I don't believe the testing was done on the day itself.  It would have been done years in advance.

Although this article has been junked into the "disinfo" file, I am still not convinced that it is disinfo.

It isn't, but it contradicts the alternative official story, hence it has been moved to this thread.

She sacrificed her credibility and career she was so convinced of her findings.

And one of her students was murdered.

I also read somewhere that the truth movement had been hijacked by the CIA. Don't know if this is true.

The interviewer quotes Lenin early on, saying that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.  And as Dr Wood asked, if you were going to plan a massive false-flag like 9/11, wouldn't you plan the cover up even more thoroughly?

Don't forget that the Scholars for 9/11 Truth logo was an illuminated torch.

However, if she offers other interviews, I will listen again to her evidence and arguments.

There are several more on youtube, and on her website.  At least two were posted earlier on in this thread (or ended up in here) e.g. Dr Judy Wood & Andrew Johnson-Edge Media TV-911and DEW - 25 Feb 2010, and Dr Judy Wood-9-11 The New Hiroshima

[matrixcutter]

so who "really matters", Jones?

The official 9/11 truth movement, which was set up and controlled from the beginning.

If you planned 9/11, you wouldn't overlook setting up a 9/11 truth movement as well.

Independent people who contradict the disinfo within this truth movement e.g. thermite, must be dealt with accordingly - see most of this thread.

[matrixcutter]

We already have convincing evidence that people at the highest levels of the visible government had foreknowledge or were even involved in its planning.  How does adding secret technology to the mix help in any way?

Because it shows that some of the information we have been given is wrong, and it has incredibly significant long-term technological implications.

The energy implications are mentioned in the video:

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 1/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qprBH8BuvXE

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 2/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT2nSbzIrAo

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 3/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2HXO-UGIPY

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 4/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg9Lec-7O2s

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 5/8 (10mins 1s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQYJb2HFTI

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 6/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkF74cK3vBw

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 7/8 (10mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIuL5k5dEJo

Directed Energy Weapons used on 9/11 part 8/8 (9mins 51s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwQ2I6EdBKg


Incidentally, Mr thermite aka Steven E. Jones is connected to free energy research.  If people research this objectively, they will be left wondering (at least) whether Steven E. Jones is a plant, who also happens to have been directly involved in the first major divide and rule incident within the "9/11 truth movement".

Why not say 9/11 was part of a deal with the Crab People, while you're at it?

Oh I see, you're not serious at all.

Fair enough.

I'm in contact with a community of people who are experiencing advanced DEW's on a daily basis.  I've experienced some of them myself.  And I'm here to tell you: don't bring DEW's into the discussion of 9/11.  It's unhelpful, and a distraction.

I love a bit of irony, so thanks for that little gem.  Have a nice life.

[Viper]

I mentioned before the fact that these DEWs need testing, now i don't believe they'd be stupid enough to test it on the "big day", i only wanted to point out that these things have probably been used in the past and not only in someones wet dream.

[Viper]

The official 9/11 truth movement, which was set up and controlled from the beginning...

Maybe it was just let to stumble along at the beginnings with an invisible guiding hand, prior to the elite having enough "strings" to play with?

I'm no longer part of any movement myself, i guess my worst experience from the movement was luke taking five grand for himself.

[matrixcutter]

I mentioned before the fact that these DEWs need testing, now i don't believe they'd be stupid enough to test it on the "big day", i only wanted to point out that these things have probably been used in the past and not only in someones wet dream.

Yes, but if you weren't there to photograph the testing, and take written admissions from all those involved, and if you can't provide precise GPS coordinates of the location or locations of all of those tests, then they didn't happen.  They were impossible.

 

The official 9/11 truth movement, which was set up and controlled from the beginning...

Maybe it was just let to stumble along at the beginnings with an invisible guiding hand, prior to the elite having enough "strings" to play with?

Maybe.  Maybe it was more than that.

I'm no longer part of any movement myself, i guess my worst experience from the movement was luke taking five grand for himself.

I don't know what you're talking about.  I'd like you to make another thread (it's probably best to do it in this subforum) and explain it in there.  If you do it in this thread, it will be easy for the smearers to associate your accusations with Dr Wood's research.  Obviously they are not connected, but even more obviously that sort of thing doesn't make any difference to some people.

I have seen some information that could be posted in such a thread.

[Viper]

..I'd like you to make another thread (it's probably best to do it in this subforum) and explain it in there...

It's nothing, and though a thread named "reflections on the truth movement" would be healthy and cleansing, some people inside the "never question ourselves" camp would say we were obvious trolls and haters.
The result of such a thread, having laid all prejudices at the door before entering, could really open some minds, but no worries, higher levels of the truth CAN be found still .. INTERNETS SHUTTING DOWN IN 3.. 2.. 1..

[EvadingGrid]

No.  It does exist, obviously.

I don't expect you to believe in it, but that's a different matter entirely.

I'm bored of your pointlessness now.  Have a nice life.

Energy Weapons ?
Why not just admit its all Science Fiction ?

[iks83]

Can your doctor please show us in an experiment how those energy weapon does destroy a concrete/steel structure? For a controlled demolition there are thousands of videos of buildings getting blown up. Also explosives have been found and unexploded material being ignited in a lab. Where is the physical evidence from of the DEW people?

[EvadingGrid]

Can your doctor please show us in an experiment how those energy weapon does destroy a concrete/steel structure? For a controlled demolition there are thousands of videos of buildings getting blown up. Also explosives have been found and unexploded material being ignited in a lab. Where is the physical evidence from of the DEW people?

Most excellent question....

[matrixcutter]

It's nothing,

If five grand is nothing to you, can you give me five grand, please?

and though a thread named "reflections on the truth movement" would be healthy and cleansing, some people inside the "never question ourselves" camp would say we were obvious trolls and haters.

They've already said that.

I didn't necessarily mean a generic thread like that, but the same point applies.

The result of such a thread, having laid all prejudices at the door before entering, could really open some minds, but no worries, higher levels of the truth CAN be found still

Indeed.

I won't bother posting the information I referred to earlier.

(And I won't bother answering the people who clearly don't actually want to hear any answers, and/or only want to ask questions to which only the perpetrators know the answers.)

The important evidence is all over Dr Wood's website and in the interviews to which certain people don't want to listen.  They can take it or leave it.  But they ought not to say that there isn't any, because that is simply not true, and they know it.

Disagreeing with an interpretation of that evidence does not negate the existence of that evidence.  But that's just the sort of fundamental logical error you have to put up with when you're questioning the conditioning to which people have become incredibly and irrationally loyal.

I no longer have the time or the inclination to battle with bruised egos and stubborn logic-free rigidity.  So they can get on with their insults and their pointless repetition.

[EvadingGrid]

I've been to Dr Woods site


Dr Woods has no evidence of any Energy Weapons, she simply makes the extraordinary claim that it must have been energy weapons because she can not explain it....

http://www.drjudywood.com/new.html

Beam Weapons, Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):
 
We have used the terms "beam weapons" and "directed energy weapons" to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. We broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so we make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, we have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.
Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

What we 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.


"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So where is the proof ?

Dr Wood has ADMITTED that she is just making it up because she can not figure it out.



USE YOUR BRAIN

What we 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.

Consider that she has admitted earlier on she has no clue as to what shape name or form this magical energy weapon might take....

[matrixcutter]

The important evidence is all over Dr Wood's website and in the interviews to which certain people don't want to listen.  They can take it or leave it.  But they ought not to say that there isn't any, because that is simply not true, and they know it.

Disagreeing with an interpretation of that evidence does not negate the existence of that evidence.  But that's just the sort of fundamental logical error you have to put up with when you're questioning the conditioning to which people have become incredibly and irrationally loyal.

Again, there is no point in engaging with intellectually dishonest people who pretend that there is no evidence.  It's simply not true.

I've gone through the most recent video to highlight some of the important points that Dr Wood made, because there are people who generally refuse to watch those videos and dismiss everything in them without even knowing what it is.

Part 4 at around 6 minutes

Dr Wood: Basically there was nothing left of the top 80% of the building, and it's not hitting anything as it's flying through the air.  So why is it turned to powder in mid-air? And if you look at it, it looks like water turning into steam, you know, expanding tremendously.  When water turns into steam it expands in volume by 1600 times.  And to me that's what the building looked like.  Suddenly all the molecules, instead of being attracted to each other were repelling each other.

And one of the biggest "aha moments" I had was this picture that's about a block north of the world trade centre complex.  About 15 minutes after the north tower goes poof - I don't say collapse, it goes poof, it goes away.  And you got a clear blue sky, you're looking west, clear blue sky so all the dust has settled out of the air.  But then you look at that dust on the ground and it's starting to rise up around people's feet, and pretty soon it starts to rise all up by itself.  If it's that fine it could not have settled out of the air that quickly.  It has to have been coarse dust that landed and then became fine dust.

[They also point out that there were no toilets found in the wreckage, and no desks.  Just one portion of a filing cabinet was found and that was it.]

Building 7 is a great one to talk about, and talk about this false opposition that was set up.  You get the truth movement with their bombs in the building or their thermite or whatever it is, that they're doing in competition with NIST and the thermal expansion.  So it's either-or, you know, it's false choice.

But this dismisses the bombs-in-the-building crowd by saying there's no loud explosions; that a block or two north of building 7, filming the event could pick up low level conversations down the street.  Wait a minute, what's wrong with this picture?  That right there voids their conclusion as well.  If you have a 47-storey building quote collapsing to the ground, that's going to sound like it's raining dump trucks.  It's going to be a racket of bang crash boom, and it was silent.  What 47-storey building goes away without making a thud?  The seismographs for the event, you couldn't really detect a signal outside of the background noise.  It was no more than a jackhammer.


Start of part 5

Dr Wood: I don't look so much at weapons but look at phenomena.  And I kept looking at phenomena until I really understood what was going on.  And then one day I happened upon the website of John Hutchison, and my jaw dropped.  There's a one-to-one correlation with every one of his pictures with the same phenomena at the world trade centre.

Interviewer: And for the listeners can you explain what the Hutchison Effect is?

Dr Wood: It's interference of different types of energy, like an electrostatic field interfered with radio frequency waves or microwaves.  And so it's not just a single type of wave.  It's an interference of different types.  And this interference is a different kind of physics.  This interference causes a totally different effect.  So you could have for example a field over the whole city that you know by itself isn't going to do anything, but you interfere a specific spot and boom there's where something happens - like building 6 had these cylindrical cut-outs like a post hole digger just poked holes out of the building.  Just totally empty down to the ground.

Interviewer: So can these [weapons] really be creating such a magnitude to deliver the results seen at the world trade centre.

Dr Wood: Well is the tower still there?

Interviewer: No, so you answered the question right there.

Dr Wood: You know people criticise me for not doing calculations to prove whether or not the towers could be destroyed.  You just look and you see.  You don't need a theory to look at evidence.  It's empirical evidence.  It's like "is somebody wearing shoes?"  Well just look at their feet and see if they're wearing shoes.  Why develop a theory about it?

Interviewer: Is there an epicentre [of the truth movement] that took the ball and ran with it, and now millions of people follow that and the powers that be, or the powers that want to be are happy because they're just spreading disinformation.

Dr Wood: Yes.  And also what seems to have been done is they've been methodically trained.  These are decent people who just are you know jumping on this bandwagon, kind of like beeball.  You know, when the children play they go like a swarm of bees around the ball, like little league.  I call it beeball.  It just looks like all the bees swarming around something.  That's what the truth movement became.  Everyone's got to be repeating the exact same phrase.  And it seemed like they were trained to repeat over and over again "space beams", "disinfo", "all speculation, no evidence", where the opposite is true.  I only present evidence, and the evidence speaks for itself.  But people have been told don't go look at her website, it's just speculation.  Don't look, don't look, whatever you do don't look there.  Well if somebody tells me that, I go look.  And you just look at the pictures and you can't explain this stuff any other way.


Start of part 6

Dr Wood: There are different types of energy frequencies, the whole wide spectrum. ... different frequencies do different things.  Think of X-rays, they do something differently than visible lights.  It's all the same spectrums, just a different end.  Now microwaves, I think pretty much everyone is familiar with what happens if you put a piece of paper or paper towel in a microwave over, with your cup of coffee on it, unless it's wet.

Interviewer: If there's moisture yes, but if it's dry then what happens?

Dr Wood: Nothing.

Interviewer: Right.

Dr Wood: And there are some mugs that you don't want to put in there because they heat it.  Other mugs don't, they're different material.  So we know that different frequencies of energy affect different materials differently.

Interviewer: So we could see papers everywhere, but we couldn't see anything else.

Dr Wood: And also the unburned paper next to vehicles that looked like they were just horrendously on fire.

-----

Hurricane Erin - hurricanes cause field effects.


-----

There are more presentations and interviews on Dr Wood's site, and much more evidence.  If someone wants to ignore all of that evidence and pretend that there isn't any, then there is no point in engaging with such intellectual dishonesty.

Tesla was doing his experiments around a century ago, and John Hutchison has been experimenting and replicating some of Tesla's work for decades.  We know that directed energy weaponry is a reality because the evidence proves that it was used on 9/11.  The fact that the perpetrators haven't come out and shown the world their equipment does not negate the evidence that we can observe from 9/11.

If people are not ready for it, they're not ready for it.  But the evidence is there.  To argue that directed energy weaponry is science fiction is ridiculous given the clear evidence that it was used on 9/11.  It's the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then there is no such thing as a duck" argument.

-----

Key Evidence (videos)
Archive of Presentations/Events
Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects
Qui Tam Case

-----

Dr Wood on "the 9/11 truth movement": Everyone's got to be repeating the exact same phrase.  And it seemed like they were trained to repeat over and over again "space beams", "disinfo", "all speculation, no evidence", where the opposite is true.  I only present evidence, and the evidence speaks for itself.  But people have been told don't go look at her website, it's just speculation.  Don't look, don't look, whatever you do don't look there.  Well if somebody tells me that, I go look.  And you just look at the pictures and you can't explain this stuff any other way.

-----

Some of the principal evidence that must be explained:
 
1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."
2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
3. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
4. The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
5. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.
6. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
7. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
8. The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
14. In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.
15. Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.
16. Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
17. Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.
18. Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.
19. The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.
20. Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
21. Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.
22. Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
23. Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.
24. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.
25. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.
26. All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
28. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
29. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
30. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.
31. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
32. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
33. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
34. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
35. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
36. Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.
37. There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.
38. Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.
39. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.
40. Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.
41. Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.


* Is it possible that such a technology exist? Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and lasers in 1955*, commercial and military development of directed-energy technology has proceeded apace, so use of directed-energy technology is likely to exist -- and the data tells us it does exist.

[iks83]

Hahaha pure comedy.

"So why is it turned to powder in mid-air?" Uhhh explosives?
I stopped reading then. The only evidence I saw there is the same the noplaners or tv fakery people have. Pictures misinterpreted on purpose.

[matrixcutter]

If anybody believes that explosives turn steel to powder, then the truth is clearly not relevant to them.

If someone believes something (or at least claims to) that is demonstrably false, not to mention physically impossible, then this tends to take the edge off their attempts to ridicule any alternative point of view.

But that won't stop them doing it, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

There are more presentations and interviews on Dr Wood's site, and much more evidence.  If someone wants to ignore all of that evidence and pretend that there isn't any, then there is no point in engaging with such intellectual dishonesty.

Tesla was doing his experiments around a century ago, and John Hutchison has been experimenting and replicating some of Tesla's work for decades.  We know that directed energy weaponry is a reality because the evidence proves that it was used on 9/11.  The fact that the perpetrators haven't come out and shown the world their equipment does not negate the evidence that we can observe from 9/11.

If people are not ready for it, they're not ready for it.  But the evidence is there.

[iks83]

If anybody believes that explosives turn steel to powder, then the truth is clearly not relevant to them.

If someone believes something (or at least claims to) that is demonstrably false, not to mention physically impossible, then this tends to take the edge off their attempts to ridicule any alternative point of view.

But that won't stop them doing it, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I see steel getting blown hundreds of feet away, I see a huge pile of steel everywhere and never once one beem turn to dust lol. And for your other point "If someone wants to ignore all of that evidence..." yes... I want to ignore all the evidence especially if it comes from the same person that has already so many things wrong that even if some of it is factual it cant be trusted. Also if she believes steel really turned to dust there should be records somewhere how much was used in building the towers and how much was hauled away. So did she look up how much actually vanished to powder? Was it 25%? 50? How much steel vanished? Did anyone look into it? I dont think so. So there you have it. The most logical steps to proof their own theories arent followed. Like the tv fakery people. Instead of looking into the possibility of 2 videos being shot at different locations with different angles etc they shout omfg they used layers and thats why the buildings moved from one footage to the other.

[EvadingGrid]

(1) Look at some photos / video from 911

(2) Jump to wild conclusion based on Science Fiction

(3) If questioned, just insist look at the 'evidence'.

[Georgiacopguy]

I looked at the video, and all i saw was a steel beam falling behind an already existing dust plume, and the dust that had accumilated on it going airborne into its own plume. Given the low resolution of the video in question, it could leave alot to interpretation. Unfortunately, some people seized the poor excuse for video, and ran with it, and convinced enough people that people have now gone out and tried to prothletize the 'new truth.' And our truth movement wasnt as selective as it could have been what theories it backed or supported, which in the end can only damage our movements credibility with theories like this cropping up.

Why is it that thermite being used to take it down just isn't good enough of an explantion, especially when there is physical evidence of such. Why go with a theory where there is a complete lack of physical evidence, and the theory itself is stretched thin by it's own backstory and the tech involved to accomplish it?

[matrixcutter]

Hahaha pure comedy.

"So why is it turned to powder in mid-air?" Uhhh explosives?

I see steel getting blown hundreds of feet away, I see a huge pile of steel everywhere and never once one beem turn to dust lol.

This poor clown doesn't know what he believes from one post to the next.

yes... I want to ignore all the evidence

even if some of it is factual it cant be trusted.

It's amazing what some people can admit to, without realising what they are admitting.

[matrixcutter]

Why is it that thermite being used to take it down just isn't good enough of an explantion, especially when there is physical evidence of such.

Do you actually want to know, or are you just trying to ridicule something that appears to be brand new to you?

Questioning "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe"
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60

The evidence that cannot be explained by thermite and bombs/explosives has already been discussed in this thread, and is documented in detail on Dr Wood's website.  Many people opt to reject all of this evidence without even looking at it, let alone studying it properly.

Other people believe that Al Qaeda managed to bring the three WTC buildings down by flying planes into two of them, and then ridicule anyone who questions such idiocy.  Very similar behaviour is displayed throughout this thread.

Why go with a theory where there is a complete lack of physical evidence,

Good question.  That's certainly not what Dr Wood is doing, no matter how many times certain people pretend otherwise.

and the theory itself is stretched thin by it's own backstory

The number of times somebody has been smeared/ridiculed has no effect on the validity of their evidence.  If it has an effect on you, then you are not judging the evidence by the evidence itself.

and the tech involved to accomplish it?

The technology involved in accomplishing something that happened does exist, obviously.  It's amazing how many people actually argue otherwise.  Presumably they don't understand what they are saying.

-----

Key Evidence (videos)
Archive of Presentations/Events
Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects
Qui Tam Case

[Georgiacopguy]

Do you actually want to know, or are you just trying to ridicule something that appears to be brand new to you?

Questioning "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe"
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60

The evidence that cannot be explained by thermite and bombs/explosives has already been discussed in this thread, and is documented in detail on Dr Wood's website.  Many people opt to reject all of this evidence without even looking at it, let alone studying it properly.

Other people believe that Al Qaeda managed to bring the three WTC buildings down by flying planes into two of them, and then ridicule anyone who questions such idiocy.  Very similar behaviour is displayed throughout this thread.

Good question.  That's certainly not what Dr Wood is doing, no matter how many times certain people pretend otherwise.

The number of times somebody has been smeared/ridiculed has no effect on the validity of their evidence.  If it has an effect on you, then you are not judging the evidence by the evidence itself.

The technology involved in accomplishing something that happened does exist, obviously.  It's amazing how many people actually argue otherwise.  Presumably they don't understand what they are saying.

-----

Key Evidence (videos)
Archive of Presentations/Events
Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects
Qui Tam Case

I think part of your problem debating this accurately is your confrontational angle on things, and the evidence itself. Having looked at as much as I could while working and such, some of the evidence you feel is conclusive is not as it relates to one theory. Some of it could very well encompass multiple theories, but does not conclusively satisfy the test of being applicable to one explanation, especially your theory. That does not throw your theory out, it just indicates you need more conclusive proof in order to reflect your theory as being a concluded fact.

Just a few examples of pictures that could interpreted to reflect multiple theories;

The photo of the fire van with burn holes. It’s a known fact there were fires that day. Of course there would be burn effects to van with large masses of thin metal.

Cars thrown about- The buildings coming down displaced massive columns of air that could theoretically lift a vehicle and flip it.

The video clip you reference is a low quality, grainy shot from 9 years ago. There was a plume at the base of the beam you refer to, and as that beam continued its collapse into the bottom plume, the dust that accumulated on it, plumed up to mask where it had been.

So long as your evidence can reflect more than one theory, you will be hard pressed to convince people.

[matrixcutter]

I think part of your problem debating this accurately is your confrontational angle

There may be some truth in this.  It's an unfortunate consequence of having to deal with the kind of idiotic and pathetic behaviour seen all over this thread, as well as repeated intellectual dishonesty.  I'm sure you've seen some of it.

Having looked at as much as I could while working and such, some of the evidence you feel is conclusive is not as it relates to one theory. Some of it could very well encompass multiple theories, but does not conclusively satisfy the test of being applicable to one explanation, especially your theory. That does not throw your theory out, it just indicates you need more conclusive proof in order to reflect your theory as being a concluded fact.

When you put all the evidence together, it is conclusive.

When you extract single pieces of evidence, then yes, you can use some of the single pieces of evidence to support alternative theories, which can be rejected when all of the evidence is taken into account.

Obviously you have to study the evidence properly, as opposed to pretending that it doesn't exist.  (I'm not referring to you here.)  There is a two-part lecture, for example, that really needs to be part of any serious attempt to understand Dr Wood's work:

9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#
9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#

There are many important points made and questions asked in this presentation.  If people choose to watch the videos and then simply ignore all of the points and questions, then they might as well not have watched it in the first place.

There are also various other presentations and interviews on Dr Wood's website.

Just a few examples of pictures that could interpreted to reflect multiple theories;

The photo of the fire van with burn holes. It’s a known fact there were fires that day. Of course there would be burn effects to van with large masses of thin metal.

There is other evidence which shows that it is not a simple case of normal fires e.g. vehicles that were badly burned in the same place that paper was not burned at all.

Cars thrown about- The buildings coming down displaced massive columns of air that could theoretically lift a vehicle and flip it.

If you look at all of the examples of cars being "thrown about" and conclude that they were all lifted and moved by displaced air, then I would have to conclude that you are not being serious about your interpretation of the evidence.

The video clip you reference is a low quality, grainy shot from 9 years ago.

9/11 happened 9 years ago.  There's nothing anybody can do about that.

There was a plume at the base of the beam you refer to, and as that beam continued its collapse into the bottom plume, the dust that accumulated on it, plumed up to mask where it had been.

No, that isn't true.  The steel can clearly be seen turning to dust.
I'm not going to argue with you over what happens in video footage.  If you disagree, you disagree.  But I can see steel being turned to dust, very clearly, and not just in that single video clip.

So long as your evidence can reflect more than one theory, you will be hard pressed to convince people.

So long as people are dishonest about the evidence, the evidence will make no difference to them and their pre-existing beliefs.

And as long as there is an organised "truth movement" telling people how to think, there will always be people thinking in exactly that way, whether or not the evidence proves them wrong, and whether or not their own beliefs contradict themselves (Orwell's doublethink).

Anyone who is willing to study Dr Wood's work and analyse it objectively for themselves is free to do so, whatever the "truth movement" tells them to think.

[Xill]

I used to laugh about the no-planers until I saw the video of the plane going THROUGH the second tower. Now I'm just not sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTLi4-fxaO0

The video footage seem faked. It does not mean that no planes were involved of course, but it does mean they were prepared to zoom in at the precise time the second plane came even if the smoke was hiding it and overlap the video of a plane and an explosion. Also, that live-footage only appeared once on television, they then cut the frames of the plane going through the building in all subsequent broadcasts of the video.

For the Illuminati it was quite a success, 10 years later and still justifying a century of public oppression, spying, fascism, economic destruction and war.