Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

[Guardian]

Couldn't agree more. Letting personal bias lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a mistake. I'm not sure how this thread got to the point where Wood's book is being described as disinfo.

Actually what I said was "Now why would I want to waste my time reading a book written by a disinfo puppet?" ...and that's still my question.

I know she's a liar, because I heard her lie, over and over again, with my own ears. She repeatedly said something along the order of "you have to find out how a crime was committed first, before you can pursue/catch the criminal"

That is a blatant lie, which I think is designed to distract people from what we should really be doing....working to bring the perps to justice. She's flat out giving people an excuse not to.

In a crime the very first thing Investigators do is start looking for the criminal, usually longggg before they know the details of HOW the crime was committed.

Say Detectives are called to the scene of a murder. They know it's a murder because the door's kicked in, the house is tossed, and there's a dead body laying on the floor. They don't yet know HOW that person was killed, and they won't until the Coroner's report, toxicology results, etc. come back. This can take weeks, if not months, but that doesn't stop them from IMMEDIATELY starting to look for the murderer.

They do this by looking for motive, opportunity, witnesses, financial and phone records, etc. HOW the victim appeared to have died DOES NOT affect the immediate investigative process. Even if the victim had a bullet hole in him, the Investigators don't know that he wasn't strangled first, then shot afterwards to make the scene look like a burglary until they have a coroner's report. Depending on the evidence and witnesses available, they may have already arrested someone before they even get that report.

Often in murder cases, the manner of death is ruled "unknown due to advanced decomposition", and someone is still be convicted of the murder, 'cause dead people don't bury themselves.

The same rule is especially true for computer crimes. Most often Investigators are looking for the hackers longggg before they know the details of HOW the hack was achieved. Once someone posts evidence that they have hacked someone's system, the search is on, longggg before the forensic techs can say how the system was breached.

So I know Dr. Cheeto is at least lying about this VERY important fact. Again, why should I read a book written by someone I know lies? How to I believe anything in the book?

If I was a Theoretical Physicist, I might be able to separate her lies from the truth, but I'm not, so I can't, so why read a liar's book?

 

[Joe]

I know she's a liar, because I heard her lie, over and over again, with my own ears. She repeatedly said something along the order of "you have to find out how a crime was committed first, before you can pursue/catch the criminal"

I think that would fall into the category of opinion rather than a lie. What I mean is, I don't think she stated that it is impossible to find out who committed the crime without finding out how it was committed, but rather than she thinks that it is a better approach to figure out the how in order to establish the who. Also, I presume that she is advocating this approach for 9/11, and not necessarily for all crimes.

Edit: added the word "not" before "necessarily".

 

[Guardian]

I think that would fall into the category of opinion rather than a lie. What I mean is, I don't think she stated that it is impossible to find out who committed the crime without finding out how it was committed,

Actually I think that's exactly what she said, repeatedly...but I'm not willing to listen to her screeching again to prove it.

 

[Cosmos]

Couldn't agree more. Letting personal bias lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a mistake. I'm not sure how this thread got to the point where Wood's book is being described as disinfo.

Actually what I said was "Now why would I want to waste my time reading a book written by a disinfo puppet?" ...and that's still my question.

I know she's a liar, because I heard her lie, over and over again, with my own ears. She repeatedly said something along the order of "you have to find out how a crime was committed first, before you can pursue/catch the criminal"

That is a blatant lie, which I think is designed to distract people from what we should really be doing....working to bring the perps to justice. She's flat out giving people an excuse not to.

In a crime the very first thing Investigators do is start looking for the criminal, usually longggg before they know the details of HOW the crime was committed.

Say Detectives are called to the scene of a murder. They know it's a murder because the door's kicked in, the house is tossed, and there's a dead body laying on the floor. They don't yet know HOW that person was killed, and they won't until the Coroner's report, toxicology results, etc. come back. This can take weeks, if not months, but that doesn't stop them from IMMEDIATELY starting to look for the murderer.

They do this by looking for motive, opportunity, witnesses, financial and phone records, etc. HOW the victim appeared to have died DOES NOT affect the immediate investigative process. Even if the victim had a bullet hole in him, the Investigators don't know that he wasn't strangled first, then shot afterwards to make the scene look like a burglary until they have a coroner's report. Depending on the evidence and witnesses available, they may have already arrested someone before they even get that report.

Often in murder cases, the manner of death is ruled "unknown due to advanced decomposition", and someone is still be convicted of the murder, 'cause dead people don't bury themselves.

The same rule is especially true for computer crimes. Most often Investigators are looking for the hackers longggg before they know the details of HOW the hack was achieved. Once someone posts evidence that they have hacked someone's system, the search is on, longggg before the forensic techs can say how the system was breached.

So I know Dr. Cheeto is at least lying about this VERY important fact. Again, why should I read a book written by someone I know lies? How to I believe anything in the book?

If I was a Theoretical Physicist, I might be able to separate her lies from the truth, but I'm not, so I can't, so why read a liar's book?

How do you difine a "disinfo puppet"? If you look at it strictly, you might say that almost any research or book out there is made by a "disinfo puppet" because in the end, there are just very very view researchers outhere who engange also in serious self work and networking, wich is ultimately the key to not be a "disinfo puppet" anymore.

And further more, there is a whole brigade of research and researchers out there who made a fabulous job in specific areas, while they on the other hand completley missed the point, or even support lies in other areas. Are we supposed to shut our eyes to their research?

If SOTT, Laura or this forum had followed this black and white approach you seem to take ("why would I want to waste my time reading a book written by a disinfo puppet?") they would have never got to where they are today OSIT. They would never have learned or found out what we know today. In Judy's case we simply have the fact that she has wrote a fabulous and groundbreaking book (If she wrote it). Point. We can ignore that, or we can read it with a wider critical understanding of who she might be and what possible agendas are at work (conscious or unconscious)

And another question is how you difine a lie or a liar?
It is one thing to be a conscious liar but another to be a unconscious liar. Yes the end result is almost the same in both cases. But this important question has to be asked, because at the end every single human on earth is a liar both to his self and to others as long as he doesn't start to work seriously on himself.

In Judy's case we can't say for certain wich kind of lie it is (at least that is where it seems to be at the moment), therefore it is foolish to through the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems to me, that you fall easily into black and white thinking, every now and then, and a kind of a heroic approach on matters.

But of course I could be wrong about this assessment...

 

[Niall]

Judy Wood brought a refreshing approach to investigating 9/11, but of course she and her work are subject to the same laws of entropy as everyone and everything else. I think the very fact that she is surrounded by handlers and cult-like groupies speaks to the importance of her message: 9/11 was out of this world.

I suspect that because that message approaches the 'big secret' - that we "are an experiment" and "are not in control of [y]our lives" - certain players have loaded the 'exotic technology' train with nuclear capabilities in the same way they did with David Icke.

I'm not suggesting that Wood 'bust it wide open'. Wood herself doesn't seem to understand the deeper implications of the evidence she collected. She seems to be playing her part in a grand scheme she doesn't understand.

Again though, that could be said for anyone!

 

[sitting]

Wood herself doesn't seem to understand the deeper implications of the evidence she collected. She seems to be playing her part in a grand scheme she doesn't understand.

Now that the waters have calmed down a bit, I will venture this assessment.

I'm not sure that she does not understand the deeper implications of the evidence she collected. I have no way of telling her degree of awareness of the wider implications. But I don't think it's zero.

 

[Carl]

How do you difine a "disinfo puppet"? If you look at it strictly, you might say that almost any research or book out there is made by a "disinfo puppet" because in the end, there are just very very view researchers outhere who engange also in serious self work and networking, wich is ultimately the key to not be a "disinfo puppet" anymore.

And further more, there is a whole brigade of research and researchers out there who made a fabulous job in specific areas, while they on the other hand completley missed the point, or even support lies in other areas. Are we supposed to shut our eyes to their research?

If SOTT, Laura or this forum had followed this black and white approach you seem to take ("why would I want to waste my time reading a book written by a disinfo puppet?") they would have never got to where they are today OSIT. They would never have learned or found out what we know today. In Judy's case we simply have the fact that she has wrote a fabulous and groundbreaking book (If she wrote it). Point. We can ignore that, or we can read it with a wider critical understanding of who she might be and what possible agendas are at work (conscious or unconscious)

And another question is how you difine a lie or a liar?
It is one thing to be a conscious liar but another to be a unconscious liar. Yes the end result is almost the same in both cases. But this important question has to be asked, because at the end every single human on earth is a liar both to his self and to others as long as he doesn't start to work seriously on himself.

In Judy's case we can't say for certain wich kind of lie it is (at least that is where it seems to be at the moment), therefore it is foolish to through the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems to me, that you fall easily into black and white thinking, every now and then, and a kind of a heroic approach on matters.

But of course I could be wrong about this assessment...

I couldn't agree more. Most of the books we deal with have to be read with at least some level of mental disinformation filters, but that doesn't mean important information can't be gleaned. Studying the book as it is, and the evidence within, is one thing, and there certainly is a whoole lot of really interesting stuff to think about there.
Who is handling Judy, whether she wrote the book, whether she is a conscious disinfo artist, who killed her student? That's another line of investigation entirely.

 

[anothermagyar]

I was just listening the show, - btw., great job, everybody! -
and I had the observation, Judy Wood(oops doctor! :))
was very, very nervous.
Sooo extremely nervous, her voice was literally shaking.
I could go on speculating why.
If I wrote a book with all the scientific evidence I wouldn't care if somebody wants to question my theory.

Especially when Ark came in she did not let him finish one sentence!!!
Let alone him asking a question.
That raises red flags osit.

 

[Guardian]

How do you difine a "disinfo puppet"?

Someone in the control of INTENTIONAL disinfo agents, most often, by choice and for financial compensation.

If you look at it strictly, you might say that almost any research or book out there is made by a "disinfo puppet" because in the end, there are just very very view researchers outhere who engange also in serious self work and networking, wich is ultimately the key to not be a "disinfo puppet" anymore.

Well yeah it looks like they would be by your definition of "disinfo puppet" (as would most of the world's population in general) but my definition involves intent. I think Santilli and Wood know EXACTLY what they're doing...and they're getting financial support for doing it.

And further more, there is a whole brigade of research and researchers out there who made a fabulous job in specific areas, while they on the other hand completley missed the point, or even support lies in other areas. Are we supposed to shut our eyes to their research?

Again, the issue is "intent" not ignorance.

If SOTT, Laura or this forum had followed this black and white approach you seem to take ("why would I want to waste my time reading a book written by a disinfo puppet?") they would have never got to where they are today OSIT.

I seriously doubt they would have gotten where they are today if they'd wasted their time on people who INTENTIONALLY lie to mislead others?

In Judy's case we simply have the fact that she has wrote a fabulous and groundbreaking book

In your opinion. I do not accept this so called "fact"

We can ignore that,

Which is exactly what I intend to do. Again, because I don't waste time reading an intentional liar's work...or work an intentional liar stole from someone else.

or we can read it with a wider critical understanding of who she might be and what possible agendas are at work (conscious or unconscious)

I don't need to read her book to do that...her website was quite enough. Same for Vincent Bridges, Jay Weidner, etc, etc,

And another question is how you difine a lie or a liar?

Someone who INTENTIONALLY does not tell the truth...most often for a self serving reason.

Instead of asking me for obvious definitions to simply words, maybe you should be looking at why you're so invested in defending this nutbag and her book?

It is one thing to be a conscious liar but another to be a unconscious liar.

Exactly, and I am convinced that Wood and Santilli are CONSCIOUS liars

Yes the end result is almost the same in both cases.

Not even close. Someone who is spreading lies unconsciously can, and most often will, change when exposed to the truth. Someone who is lying consciously will do everything in their power to suppress the truth so their lies are not exposed...just like Wood did in the interview.

In Judy's case we can't say for certain which kind of lie it is

Maybe you can't, but I can. I know what I'm looking at because I've seen it MANY times before.

It seems to me, that you fall easily into black and white thinking,

When we're talking about facts that can be proven or disproved, yes.

and a kind of a heroic approach on matters.

Yup, when I think it will work for whatever I'm trying to do.

But of course I could be wrong about this assessment...

Well you assessment of me seems pretty close, but I think your (and others) assessment of Wood is WAY off. I think some of yawl are being fooled by a cold, calculating predator, who knows exactly what she's doing .....and I really hope it doesn't come back to bite you.

 

[Guardian]

Now that the waters have calmed down a bit, I will venture this assessment.

I'm not sure that she does not understand the deeper implications of the evidence she collected.

I agree, I think she's completely aware of what her book was designed to distract people from.

I have no way of telling her degree of awareness of the wider implications.

Sure you do, just watch her reaction when someone tells her.

 

[Cosmos]

Guardian,

I'm simply saying that the evidence in the book makes a whole lot of sense and is quite groundbreaking and well researched.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I defend Wood. In fact I see the possibility that she might be a conscious disinfo agent. And I'm not in the business, nor do I intend or think that I'm defending her. And from what we have seen here, there is also the possibility that somebody else contributed to it or even wrote it.

But for me it is all in the realm of possibilities.
And even if it turns out that she is a conscious disinfo agent, it still remains that the book makes a whole lot of sense and is quite groundbreaking and well researched. That is what we have, you can ignore that, or actually try to find out why I and others think that way.

If you would actually read the book in question, you might understand better why so many here say what they say and are quite curious of what is actually going on there...

Even if we assume that she is a conscious liar, what we have in front of us is not the usual: We have a conscious disinfo agent and therefore the book from this person is or must be full of BS.

It is not that easy in this case.

I'm telling you that you can't understand where some of us are coming from, if you have not read the book and if you base your assessment on her interviews or website you are certainly missing exactly that crucial point people here find so interesting in that whole thing.

 

[Niall]

Much more dangerous than the 'conscious' disinfo agents are the ones who track the truth for much of the way, then veer off with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes in direction. And they themselves can have no idea they are doing this. They might just have picked up some infected material somewhere along the way, absorbed it uncritically, then it gradually begins to colour and misinform their worldview, which they then adamantly insist is correct. Only a willingness to at least accept the possibility that they might be wrong can provide them the opportunity to track back and see if they can pinpoint the source of infection and remedy it with proper reasoning.

For now I'm inclined to place Wood in the same category as Richard Dolan. Brilliant research that has succumbed to ponerization because of insufficient quality control - not so much over the fruits of their labour as over their own lives. Which is ironic given their professed adherence to strict scientific principles. Eventually, of course, their fruits turn sour. See Dolan's After Disclosure, for example, where he got hooked on this idea that disclosure is inevitable.

 

[loreta]

Just a question about this book: is it a very technical book? I love the book of Joe Quinn and Laura because it is well written and it is understandable. How is the book of Mrs. Wood? If I don't understand about physics or everything related to engineer it is a book accessible to people that are nul about it? Thanks!

 

[Cosmos]

How is the book of Mrs. Wood? If I don't understand about physics or everything related to engineer it is a book accessible to people that are nul about it? Thanks!

Definitely!

See what I wrote here:

[...]

I'm reading the book now and there is no doubt IMO that Judy is on the right track.
A wonderfull book with evidence on mass and striking scientific logic transported to the reader in a easily understandable way.
You can actually follow exactly how she comes to her conlusions since she also includes the simple mathematics and thus how she came to those reasonable explanations!

It is by far the best explanation and book I have read by now on what exactly happened that day in New York, physically speaking.
Also a vast amount of colour illustrations and pictures are in the book so it makes it very easy to follow her writing.
powerfull work! highly recommendet!

[...]

 

[Cosmos]

Much more dangerous than the 'conscious' disinfo agents are the ones who track the truth for much of the way, then veer off with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes in direction. And they themselves can have no idea they are doing this. They might just have picked up some infected material somewhere along the way, absorbed it uncritically, then it gradually begins to colour and misinform their worldview, which they then adamantly insist is correct. Only a willingness to at least accept the possibility that they might be wrong can provide them the opportunity to track back and see if they can pinpoint the source of infection and remedy it with proper reasoning.

For now I'm inclined to place Wood in the same category as Richard Dolan. Brilliant research that has succumbed to ponerization because of insufficient quality control - not so much over the fruits of their labour as over their own lives. Which is ironic given their professed adherence to strict scientific principles. Eventually, of course, their fruits turn sour. See Dolan's After Disclosure, for example, where he got hooked on this idea that disclosure is inevitable.

With the difference that Dolan is and always has been a very polite person, a gentleman, and is a very good speaker and much easier to interview, OSIT.

By the way it seems that Dolan is spiraling downward and that isn't really a surprise either.

From his Facebook posts of the last couple of months it seems that he is near a breakdown of some kind. As far as I can remember he even suggested at one point that he might even have to quit because of all the stress. He now seems to be quite gloomy and depressed at times.

Also I think you can see it on his physical appearance compared to a few years ago.
It seems he bettet on the wrong horse and got involved and trusted the wrong people and he is now investing a whole lot of energy on things that doesn't really matter. He is in a draining feast. That is what happens if you close your eyes to reality....

It is sad, but it isn't as though Richard wasn't warned here, about exactly what seems to be happening now with him..:

Rich, in the words of Neil Diamond:

Did you ever read about a frog who dreamed of bein' a king
And then became one
Well except for the names and a few other changes
I you talk about me, the story's the same one...

What you are writing, describing, etc, I could have said it all myself back when I got sucked into the Bridges-Weidner operation.

You know what happened? My readers started writing to me and saying "what the heck are you doing hanging out with those people?"

Well, what I was doing was responding to their offers to help me, to edit my stuff, to publish books, to have speaking engagements and "get the message out." That's what they offered me: a venue. I thought it was a good idea and I thought I could navigate it even though I could tell that we didn't see exactly eye-to-eye.

But when the readers started writing these things to me, like "you are selling out" or "do you realize what those people are into and believe?" and so on, I had to stop and really think about it. I did some research and quickly discovered that, no, I don't want to be associated with those ideas. And then I did some "tests" to see what the universe would show me. And, of course, I had the Cs. But still, I had to make the choice and do what was right. And that meant I had to admit in public that I had made a big mistake and I wasn't in that "camp." It wasn't easy, but it was right.

And yeah, I've suffered ever since for it. And that's what confirms my choice.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way...

Excellent points, SeekinTruth, RichardS and Skipling. Unfortunately, again and again and again human beings have thought that they, individually, (or with a little inside info from "highly placed sources") could suss things out and make a splash or a difference. The results of this kind of hubris are why we are still in the soup all these thousands of years later. The greatest minds in our history have applied themselves to these types of issues, and the issues are still issues while the brains that hosted those minds are dust.

What the Cs have taught us, urged us, exampled for us, is that ONLY a network can do anything. And we aren't even 100% sure what we can do. Not just a network, but a specific kind of network: an esoteric circle in Gurdjieff's terms.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

All of that is made abundantly clear by Richard's two books.

[...]

Seems pretty clear that Dolan has been "handled" and if he's now getting "paranoid", then maybe he's figuring it out. Probably too late, though.

On the other hand, maybe he's not really paranoid and it was all part of a plan that he was privy to from the beginning.

Either way, it's revealing.

Hmmm... it strikes me that all this disclosure nonsense is a bait and switch tactic to distract attention from the growing 9-11 Truth agitation. The exposure of 9-11 truth would, as a by-product, in a very real way, expose the psychopaths in power in a way that was grokkable (is that a word?) by even the mainstream public. It could be said that Disclosure would do the same, however, psychopaths in power have a lot more leeway to control information and the public with disclosure because so much of the public is conditioned to the knee-jerk "oh, that's crazy" response.

In the same way that the whole contactee craze was started as a psy-op to ridicule and distract from previous disclosure efforts, so it seems that Disclosure itself is now being used to distract attention away from psychopaths in power.

Bottom line seems to be that Dolan, whether he intended it or not and whether he likes it or not, is now part of the psy-op.

[...]

Based on both their FB page posts and interactions, they're way too much "acting nice" and way too little "drawing the line" [Richard and his wife].

new video from Richard Dolan called" The UFO Cover-Up in 10 Minutes ": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaxtKeWKPBs

last statement from Dolan: "the UFO secrecy, very soon, is going to be a thing of the past"

I think he's going to regret going out on that limb.

Some have to learn it the hard way....