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

[Guardian]

I'm simply saying that the evidence in the book makes a whole lot of sense and is quite groundbreaking and well researched.

If you can't trust the author, how do you trust her so called "evidence"? She acknowledged in the interview that she completely discounted any evidence that didn't fit her pet theory. She's flat out lying when she tells people they have to know how a crime was committed before they can find out who did it. She claims her pet theory is the ONLY possible way it could have been done (another lie) But you WANT to believe her "evidence"?

Again, I'm not going to waste my time reading a book written by a person who I believe is INTENTIONALLY trying to convince people not to look for the perpetrators of this horrible crime. I'm not going to waste my time looking at photos that I know she would have no problem photo-shopping to fit her disinfo campaign. I'm not going to waste my time looking at data I know she would have no problem altering to fit her disinfo campaign.

I do not think Santilli is her handler, he's just her lap dog. He's a screwed up failure in life who will do anything to snatch a bit of "fame" for himself. Of the two, he's the most pathetic. After five years in the Marines, he only made Lance Corporal, which means he is not the type of person who gets recruited to be a "handler"....if anything, he's just the tar baby for her many mistakes.

On the other hand, Wood is the person who got a "PhD" from a school that's known for its government/CIA connections...and she can't even discuss the actual science behind her theory with other scientists.

Wood is the person who's spent the last 6-7 years attacking the Engineers and PhD's who presented the "nano thermite" theory....ALL of them.

Wood is the person who is going to great lengths to convince the American public NOT to look at WHO committed this crime, because that can not be determined until we know how the crime was accomplished...which is not going to happen as long as the Perps are in charge of the investigating.

If you want to keep plugging someone who clearly has an evil agenda, ie: "Don't look for WHO did it!" that's your choice, but I recognize exactly what that woman is trying to do, and I'm not falling for it.

 

[Guardian]

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.

I'm telling you that you can't understand where I'm coming from because you are so enamored with her theory, you're ignoring the overall effect of promoting a book that has blatant and obvious lies in it's promotional material....not to mention content.

_http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

The order of crime solving is to determine

1) WHAT happened, then

2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then

3) WHO did it. And only then can we address

4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).

This is a LIE, and she'd have to be a complete and utter moron not to know it's a lie. She completely changed the process of crime solving. "Motive" is most often the primary way a perpetrator is found, and "how" it happened is frequently "unknown" especially if you've only got a skeleton, or no body at all.

This LIE Wood is telling all over the place is designed to keep people from actually DOING something about this crime, because according to her, they can't.

The TRUTH is that a person (or persons) can, and have, been convicted of murder (and that is what this crime is, mass murder) without ever finding a body and determining exactly how the murder was committed.

I think promoting Wood's book is going to come back and bite the group, and SOTT, in a BIG way. Shoot, it's already causing some regular readers to lose faith in SOTT's objectivity... just look at the comments on that article.

 

[Redrock12]

I've gotta go with Guardian and Lisa on this one.
Going to a poisoned well-Wood's book-for credible information, even if there are snippets of truth, can result in some nasty, if not lethal, side effects.
And with all the predators just waiting for a chance to pounce on SOTT, I personally wouldn't touch Wood's book, or any of her theories for that matter, with a ten-foot pole. I'm personally not knowledgeable enough to tell the difference between true science-based evidence and disinformation. And Judy Wood is FAR from being a trusted source.

 

[Joe]

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.

I can't see how anyone is being fooled. We're just saying that the objective data in her book is valuable and seems to support theories we have held for several years.

 

[Joe]

I've gotta go with Guardian and Lisa on this one.
Going to a poisoned well-Wood's book-for credible information, even if there are snippets of truth, can result in some nasty, if not lethal, side effects.
And with all the predators just waiting for a chance to pounce on SOTT, I personally wouldn't touch Wood's book, or any of her theories for that matter, with a ten-foot pole. I'm personally not knowledgeable enough to tell the difference between true science-based evidence and disinformation. And Judy Wood is FAR from being a trusted source.

Have you read the book Redrock?

 

[Guardian]

I can't see how anyone is being fooled. We're just saying that the objective data

Well, you're calling it "objective date" when the woman clearly stated in the interview that she discounted any data (like the thermal images, witness reports, etc.) that did not agree with her theory. How exactly is that "objective data"? I would call that "manipulated data" if not "data altered with intent"

When you know a person is intentional lying about one thing, how can you possible accept anything else she presents as "objective"?

Just 'cause her basic theory agrees with yours, it doesn't mean she's not lying through her teeth, hasn't photo-shopped images, changed dB reports etc.

Now if Ark writes a book for the layperson about that Information theory and DEW's, I'll read it because I believe he's presenting "objective data" INCLUDING any "objective data" that might not jive with his theory...although I expect he'd have that covered too.

That's the difference between a real scientist and a government shill...the scientist is always questioning himself and his data, and the shill only questions others and their data.

Ark managed to get his theory across to a woman who has a High School education, and two years of Business College, with 3 posts and a few links to basic information your average person can understand.

Once I understood what he was trying to get across, my first reaction was fear of the OMG! variety... which is pretty normal when I hear something I've never thought of before that has staggering implications. By the time I went to bed, I had visions of Home Breast Reduction kits dancing in my head. Maybe if I live long enough there will be technology available that can just tell the girls they need to be a few cups smaller?

Now that's a scientist for you...the REAL ones make you think.

Wood is actively trying to get people NOT to think....that's a disinfo agent, and ANYTHING she presents is worthless, because I don't know if it's true or not.

I KNOW that any data Ark presents will be the truth...his conclusions could be right or wrong, but I KNOW he won't misrepresent or falsify the data...which is exactly what I heard Wood do.

 

[dant]

Lions, Tigers, and Bears, Oh my! Perhaps we need to tame
the horse of different colours? And perhaps we ought not to
judge a book, solely by its cover?

Why not read this book, dissect, analyse with network support
in a separate post as we have done many times before? Those
who have not read the book are not fit to judge?

Give a lie or truth what it is due, and put prejudice outside the
door? And "Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater?"

FWIW

 

[Guardian]

Why not read this book, dissect, analyse with network support in a separate post as we have done many times before? Those who have not read the book are not fit to judge?

So by your logic we should be reading all of Jay Weidenr's and Vincent Bridges' books too, looking for some snippet of truth? Since I have not, and will not read their books, I'm "not fit" to conclude that they're disinfo agents?

By her own admission, Wood doesn't have access to any data that is not already available on the web. She's just cherry picked data from what's already available to promote her agenda.....ie: convince people not to look for WHO committed this crime because we don't know for certain, and may never know for certain, HOW the crime was accomplished.

If I want to look at the vid's, photos, dB reports, etc. that were found on the web after 9-11, I have Google. I don't need to buy a book from someone I already know changes facts to suit her agenda.

 

[Guardian]

Oh, and then there is the fact that Wood is using "copyright infringement" claims against anyone who PROVES that she is altering and/or misrepresenting the real "objective data"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXMiyH4NkY

This includes original videos, taken at time, of Wood's "cheetos"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngAI5rUbMCQ

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Guardian said:

"Wood is actively trying to get people NOT to think."

Well, she sure as heck doesn't seem to want people thinking about anything beyond what's in her book, which was made pretty clear ( at least, to me) on the show.

Don't think, Wood will think for you. Yeah. I've seen this before. You all have.
The book may be the next best thing to bacon, but this person is not to be trusted.
Now, you can take my words and disregard them, but I'm telling you all - I've seen her in action over the years - she's NOT one of the good guys and she's surrounded by people like this Santilli creep.

I wonder - and please forgive me if this is out of line, as I am not trying to be disrespectul, but the question occurred to me - if Jay Weidner or Victor Thorn or Vinnie Bridges wrote a fabulous book that aligned with and supported your own theories, would you have any of them on the show and promote them?

I just hope you won't come to regret promoting this person - because that's really what it boils down to - down the line.
What was said on that show was a clear endorsement of both her book and of her. You really cannot separate the two.
I had a very bad feeling about doing this show prior to doing it. And I was right to be disturbed because I've watched her over the years.

Some things take a little longer for us to see clearly. This applies to me as well.
Please don't take my words as some kind of slap. I love you all, respect you highly and hope you know that.
I'm just troubled about this. If I've been out of line, please forgive me.

 

[dant]

Why not read this book, dissect, analyse with network support in a separate post as we have done many times before? Those who have not read the book are not fit to judge?

So by your logic we should be reading all of Jay Weidenr's and Vincent Bridges' books too, looking for some snippet of truth? Since I have not, and will not read their books, I'm "not fit" to conclude that they're disinfo agents?

Without reading the various sources on "both sides of the coin,"
what can I say about one or the other? It was not my intention
to accuse you personally as being "not fit" but to the general
public: what can you say about a book if you have not read it?

I have not read a single book written by Wood, so I cannot judge
her or her book(s). So far, from what I have read, what people
say about her, but that is information needing more analysis?

If by reading the book turns out to be "horsey puck", well then,
it will be added to bin and marked mentally as such. Regarding
JW, VB, and others, it took awhile to discover their fruits and all
that followed.

By her own admission, Wood doesn't have access to any data that is not already available on the web. She's just cherry picked data from what's already available to promote her agenda.....ie: convince people not to look for WHO committed this crime because we don't know for certain, and may never know for certain, HOW the crime was accomplished.

Wood's behaviour is perplexing for reasons not yet understood but so
was JW, VB, and others. Perhaps the book itself might be a clue?

If I want to look at the vid's, photos, dB reports, etc. that were found on the web after 9-11, I have Google. I don't need to buy a book from someone I already know changes facts to suit her agenda.

True, that there are complementary sources. But what is in the book?

 

[jasstnhawk]

This includes original videos, taken at time, of Wood's "cheetos"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngAI5rUbMCQ

The beginning part of the video that Guardian posted is from “Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood” which I mentioned/discussed in this post: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31273.msg414304.html#msg414304

“Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood” (unedited)

This interview was conducted on 10 January 2007

I thought I would post this 3 part video here, because 1) this interview was done around the time DOCTOR Judy Wood’s work went public, 2) it is visual vs. strictly audio, perhaps lending to further understanding/knowledge of Wood via her body language, facial expressions, etc., and 3) it is interesting to watch her in the early phase of presenting “dustification” and “Energy Beam Weapons” (aka DEWs), all without a PowerPoint presentation to guide or keep her 'on point'.

Some initial observations while watching this interview: Wood repeatedly avoids, or declines to answer or discuss scientific matters Jenkins asks or puts forth; her communication ‘style’ in confusing in that she tends to go off-topic or jumps to another topic without follow-through on the prior topic; she is evasive, interruptive and off-putting; and she asks Jenkins many questions that you would think she should know the answers to e.g., when Wood attempts to explain “dustification” she uses a microwave as an example, and when she cannot answer the obvious questions that arise from her explanation, she begins to question Jenkins. This “questioning” starts around the 5:40-ish mark in part 1 of the interview.

Anyway, I thought I would share this video interview here.

Part 1: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc
Part 2: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEGXojifyD4
Part 3: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY9HpE6QHCY

Full transcript of the interview: _http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf

EDIT: Transcript link added

The YT playist for this video can be viewed here: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc&list=PLE10201ABD58E7253

 

[Cosmos]

I can't see how anyone is being fooled. We're just saying that the objective data

Well, you're calling it "objective date" when the woman clearly stated in the interview that she discounted any data (like the thermal images, witness reports, etc.) that did not agree with her theory. How exactly is that "objective data"? I would call that "manipulated data" if not "data altered with intent"

She has not "discounted any data" in the interview an neither has she in the book, at least not in the way you might think. I think you simply assume something and imagine things into her words wich are not there from a lack of understanding of what she is actually talking about. Again, if you had actually read the book you would understand it, but since you refuse to do so, no amount of us telling you that you might be wrong, will stick in your mind or make you understand.

It seems that you actually shut your eyes to something that will most certainly make you more capable to understand what she was talking about and where we are coming from.
She has adressed exactly those points like the thermal images and a whole lot of other well known "facts" and eye witness reports.

And she did it in a comprehensible and plausible way IMO, by the way.

And the book seems to make it abundantly clear that what people saw or thought they saw was most likely at least in part not normal heat or bomb explosions or nano thermite etc. pp.

When you know a person is intentional lying about one thing, how can you possible accept anything else she presents as "objective"?

Again how do you know that? It seems that you base this exactly on things like thermal images, witness reports of wich you imagine she is lying about simply because you don't understand how she came to the conclusions she did. Again you lack the critical knowlege of her book to really understand what she is saying and therefore you make probably false assumptions.

It seems to me that you base your assessment on a dogmatic theory of what you think she is saying thanks to not understanding the basis wich is the research in the book.

This kind of black and white thinking won't bring you nearer to understand what is actually the interesting meat of the discussion here OSIT.

Well then on the other hand we might have to rearead it, with all the new data that has come up now and take a even more critical look. But I don't think that it will change the fact that the book is very interesting and groundbraking.

 

[sitting]

Now, you can take my words and disregard them, but I'm telling you all - I've seen her in action over the years

FWIW Lisa, I think your experience (especially direct experience) would be an invaluable part of any overall assessment of the person and her work. I've lived long enough to know life is seldom just black and white.

PS BTW I do hope your health is improving. And I've enjoyed some of your political postings on Sott.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Thank you, Sitting. I'm doing better than I was a few months ago. The move and the warmer weather are helping me a lot.