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

[Guardian]

Regarding JW, VB, and others, it took awhile to discover their fruits and all that followed.

Really? I haven't read a single one of their books. I didn't need to read their books to figure out what they are....and in the case of VB, longggg before I met Laura and this group.

The WORDS of psychopaths are always misleading, you don't listen to what they say, you watch what they DO.

 

[Cosmos]

I can certainly understand that "what happened" on 9 11 in New York physically is indeed in part so strange and mind-boggling, that it makes the whole thing much more complicated and difficult. And by the way, what has been uncovered in the book certainly is supporting what the C's have said for years about it... Even before Judys book came out.

It is clear that what happened to all the WTC buildings and the area arround it on 9 11 (wich seems to have continued for several years afterwards) is clearly, at least in part combined with "high strangeness" or unconventional physics or weapons.

Here is what I wrote to the SOTT editors a couple of months ago about the book and the implications:

I don't know how you feel but from what I've learned from Judys book it makes the 911 case a even more difficult thing for the wide puplic to understand. It is kind of a tricky thing but it seems to be what happened there!

So how should we or anyone proceed to wake up those who still believe the official version if the true version is so far out there that even some alternative people have a hard time to crasp it?

Evidence is evidence but this evidence is so mind boggling that it makes the case of 911 even more difficult to bring to the attention of ordinary folks.

but still I think some things still hold true:

It was a false flag event,
some part of the US and Isreal Regimes seem to be clearly involved in some way,
what happened to the WTC buildings was clearly not a natural collapse of any sort wich the data proofs without a doubt IMO,
someone vanished those buildings with a scary (far out there) technology that can pulverise whole buildings including the steal in them in matter of split seconds.

So if we focus on what happened there physically (Wich Wood is hardly promoting) then indeed, it makes the whole 9 11 conspiracy thing much easier to dismiss for a wider audience and a whole lot of people who would normally get it, through the "Who" and "Why"...

Maybe that is the whole point of her agenda (If conscious or not) ? Steer people to focus on those strange happenings in New York and vector them to educate others about the 9 11 conspiracy, exactly through those unbelievable things? This of course has as a result that ordinary folks will be even more unable to get that 9 11 was indeed a conspiracy, in wich parts of their own and other governments (Israel) were involved and for wich millions of people died and are still dying. A bloody lie....

That brings me back, to what I wrote earlier:

Maybe the PTB knew if they would use such a extreme "out of the normal world" weapon, that it will be almost impossible to get to the bottom of what exactly it was and more profoundly make it much more difficult for much of the general public, to understand that it was indeed some sort of false flag operation, in wich parts of their own government were involved.

And yesm as we all know there is another much more comprehensible way to approach that 9 11 issue wich enables more people to get it.
The "Who" and "Why" might be indeed more important to enducate the public and wake people up then the "What" in this specific case.

 

[Guardian]

She has not "discounted any data" in the interview

Yes she did, when she said the thermal image data was faked. She discounted the witness testimony too, and the records of the tons of steel that was hauled away. She also said that she is the ONLY person with the correct theory about what happened to the buildings.

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.

I think you're so smitten by the theory in her book that you want people to ignore everything else she says, and more importantly, what she actually does.

Again, if you had actually read the book you would understand it,

Again I don't have to read a liars book to know she's a liar...'cause I already have her lies available on-line.

Now if I didn't have her website, I might need to read her book, but I do, so I don't.

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.

It seems that you have actually shut your eyes to the true nature of the person whose work you are promoting because it agrees with your own theory of the crime.

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.

Her conclusions, right are wrong, are irrelevant to whether or not she's a disinfo agent.

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.

Nope, my assessment is based on her lying about how crimes are actually investigated, and numerous other key "tells" that have already been mentioned.

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.

Maybe, maybe not, but I can tell you that my kind of thinking has prevented me from ever getting into bed with the likes of Vincent Bridges, Jay Weidner, Stormboob and the other "Judy Wood" like characters employed by my government to spread disinformation. You don't need a PhD for that, just common sense and a bit of research.

But I don't think that it will change the fact that the book is very interesting and groundbraking.

You keeping writing the "interesting and groundbraking" sound-byte like it actually matters when dealing with evil people who have an agenda?

 

[jasstnhawk]

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.

I think Lisa has a valid concern here about the promotion of Wood, and I agree with sitting that Lisa is "an invaluable part of any overall assessment' of Wood et al by way of her direct experience.

With that said, and as I discussed with Lisa yesterday in a FB message exchange ... ultimately objective Truth 'stands on Its own'. I also see this whole 'situation' as a possible means to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' ... If there are people within the SOTT/Cass network, or who are SOTT readers/subscribers, or who are new to SOTT/Cass, whatever ... that can come away with the thinking that SOTT is 100% behind Wood's work, completely dismissing or never looking at the massive body of credible Work done by SOTT/Cass/ Laura et al ... then it is their loss ... and the Universe has thereby separated the 'wheat from the chaff', leaving those within the SOTT/Cass network, who are seeking to align with objective Truth, a bit freer to do so.

Sure people can cherry-pick/point fingers/spread dis-info and claim that SOTT/Cass is not credible because a few of its members support Wood's work, or for whatever far-fetched reasons they come up with, but at the end of the day - SOTT/Cass does not need 'believers', it needs 'verifiers' ...

I would also like to add that before SOTT's broadcast on Sunday, I thought somewhat highly of Wood's 9/11 evidence analysis/gathering ... though I never thought of her work as the 'end all, be all', because, for me anyways, knowing the 'WHO', 'where', and 'when' is just as important as the 'WHAT", all which must always be researched/looked at before deducing the 'why' and explaining the 'how'. I have always felt that Wood failed to adhere to this form of research (e.g., her leap from 'what' to 'how'), the only method I know of that can possibly begin to reveal OBJECTIVE Truth. Which, if I understand correctly, is the purpose of this network.

Also, during the broadcast I felt 'jarred' (a result of thinking I am aware/awake when in fact I have allowed myself to enter a 'comfort zone' or sleep) by Wood and the Woodites in the chat room (who were also calling in), and this 'jarring' has called EVERYTHING into question, including the evidence Wood has gathered, analyzed, and is now shoving down other peoples throats as the 'end all, be all' without ever allowing anyone to ask reasonable questions. That's all before questioning if she even did the work herself (?) ... especially when considering the death of Zebuhr, who was supposedly one of her 'favorite' students.

Perhaps 'calling everything into question' was the purpose of Wood and her Woodites, either knowingly or unknowingly ... I do not really know ... But I do know this ... since I have discovered the work of Cass/SOTT, I have learned that it is not that simple/black & white ... in fact: "It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma!"

With that said, I have every confidence that the Cass network will continue to ask questions (like the ones Lisa has put forth) and 'dig' until we all have some clearer understanding of what exactly/objectively is going on here.

Just some thoughts, FWIW.

 

[Guardian]

I can certainly understand that "what happened" on 9 11 in New York physically is indeed in part so strange and mind-boggling, that it makes the whole thing much more complicated and difficult.

Really? Why? I have no problem imagining these types of very advanced weapons at all. They've existed in science fiction for decades and most science fiction becomes science fact eventually, except for jet packs....still waiting for my jet pack.

Please understand that I think large DEW's are not only possible, but inevitable...if we survive as a species long enough. There are already ADS (Active Denial System) weapons on the market, aka "pain rays" and "heat rays" to be used for crowd control. It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out that my government, or Israel, Russia, China, etc. have a DEW capable of taking down a few buildings....maybe even a whole city?

This does NOT change the fact that I think Judy Wood is an intentional liar, disinfo agent, and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[loreta]

My point of vue is this one: If Laura and the moderators of this forum say that this book it's important to read, I will accept that this book it's important to read because I believe in the good sense of Laura and the moderators.

I did not like Mrs. Wood, her personality, her attitude. But if Laura says that this book should be read to understand more clearly what happened that day, I will try to read it.

 

[Guardian]

My point of vue is this one: If Laura and the moderators of this forum say that this book it's important to read, I will accept that this book it's important to read because I believe in the good sense of Laura and the moderators.

I did not like Mrs. Wood, her personality, her attitude. But if Laura says that this book should be read to understand more clearly what happened that day, I will try to read it.

I guess I'm just a different sort of critter. I like and respect Laura and the other Mods enough to tell them when I think they're wrong. I will not blindly follow ANYONE, no matter how much I like and respect them. They're still human beings, and as such, fallible.

If Laura and SOTT decide to "Drink the kool-aid" and Jason put it on the radio show, that is certainly their choice, but a real friend doesn't just tell you what you want to hear....a real friend tells you what you need to hear.

 

[loreta]

My point of vue is this one: If Laura and the moderators of this forum say that this book it's important to read, I will accept that this book it's important to read because I believe in the good sense of Laura and the moderators.

I did not like Mrs. Wood, her personality, her attitude. But if Laura says that this book should be read to understand more clearly what happened that day, I will try to read it.

I guess I'm just a different sort of critter. I like and respect Laura and the other Mods enough to tell them when I think they're wrong. I will not blindly follow ANYONE, no matter how much I like and respect them. They're still human beings, and as such, fallible.

If Laura and SOTT decide to "Drink the kool-aid" and Jason put it on the radio show, that is certainly their choice, but a real friend doesn't just tell you what you want to hear....a real friend tells you what you need to hear.

I understand you clearly Guardian. And my words were not to "please" Laura and the moderators. But I am an ignorant in many aspects, and in this one I need to learn more. So I have confidence that my friends Laura and moderators know more than me. And like in other subjects that I gave them my entire confidence, I can do the same concerning this subject. But I repeat, I understand your position and respect it.

 

[herondancer]

I'm sorry Guardian, that this has you so upset. But there's a difference between examining the data Judy's accumulated, analysing it and taking what is verifiable with other sources, and the idea that to consider her data is the same as accepting her whole schtick unconditionally, which is what you seem to fear.

In listening again to the broadcast, you can sift out some very interesting data points which are worth looking at. She made a very good point about the whole steel boots melting thing, which is, if they were melting from heat, the foot injuries the emergency responders would have sustained would have been horrendous. But we didn't hear anything about massive numbers of foot injuries to this group of people (or perhaps the media suppressed them of course). But what it does seem to suggest is that the effect that caused the destruction of the towers (however it was accomplished) seemed to persist for a time in an attenuated form, disrupting the materials composing the boots.

This and other little bits of information are well worth having. If she's wrong about the thermal signatures overall, through comparison with other data, the network will discard that part of her data set. It's how the network functions, and it does it very well. :)

 

[Psalehesost]

Guardian, I do think that the judgment of the team is the one reason to read the book, despite what is known about Judy Wood herself. (Disclaimer: I haven't.) They are critical of Wood herself, and there is evidently quite a difference in how they view her and the book. They don't seem to have drunk any kool-aid.

If this is a case of a psycho stealing good material - without really understanding nor being able to present it herself - and claiming authorship, then this is not exactly new, and would also explain the difference in quality between the book, versus Wood's presentations and Wood herself.

 

[aragorn]

If someone wants to read the federal qui tam (whistleblower) case Wood filed in 2007, where she accused the defendants of science fraud - and associated papers - you can find those here:

_http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

I'm just in the process of reading those, checking if there's anything interesting.

 

[Psalehesost]

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?

They might if, hypothetically (imagine they had never had to deal with them before), they didn't know enough about them beforehand, and an initial search didn't bring about enough information to decide otherwise. Lots have come up about Wood since before they had her on the show that they didn't previously know, and while I can't speak for the team, I doubt they would have made the same decision had they had the whole picture in advance.

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.

I think this might be a good reason to suggest another 9/11 show, focusing on all that didn't fit into this one because Wood and her followers took up so much time. And the problem of Wood and her handlers, her general role, and if more comes to be known about it, digging into the relation between the book and its info and Wood as the (for now supposed) author. If a mistake has been made, saying so publicly is probably the best way to set things straight. And I think there would be plenty of interesting things it could cover beyond that, from the idea Ark explained to the questions of "who" and the Israeli/Mossad connection, and more on the bigger picture in general.

 

[Seraphina]

I posted this on the Pete Santilli/Dr. Wood thread, copying to here, not sure where it better belongs.

(Copy of my comment on Lisa's FB post)

"Ya know, back, right before DOCTOR (lol) Woods released her book, I looked into her research and her evidence presented. Even with my layperson scientific mind I found flaws. Her evidence on some things I was privy to by experience. She used pics of cars balanced on fences after Katrina as science of some kind of free energy type dynamic. Those pics were taken in my neighborhood and we're a result of the flood, not some spooky energy effect. That threw gaping holes into all of her research for me."

I thought I had made a post on a thread discussion of her work and upcoming book, but I can't find it. Come to think of it, there was a long post I had made one time and accidentally deleted before posting, that may have been it.

I'd like to go back and find the exact picture referenced when I have time. But, the point is still this, much of her evidence is pictures, those pictures may lack context to a 3rd party observer. Dr. Know-what-you-know-that-you-know makes too many assumptions to be able to come to a logical final conclusion.

My 2 cents

 

[Guardian]

I'm sorry Guardian, that this has you so upset.

Well it wouldn't upset me if I didn't care a LOT about you guys. If I didn't like you, I'd be happy to see you get screwed by associating yourselves with Wood.

But there's a difference between examining the data Judy's accumulated, analysing it and taking what is verifiable with other sources, and the idea that to consider her data

Actually it's the fact that you're accepting the data she's accumulated at all that concerns me.

In listening again to the broadcast, you can sift out some very interesting data points which are worth looking at.

All disinfo contains bits of truth mixed in with the lies.

She made a very good point about the whole steel boots melting thing,

No she didn't..she just omitted critical information, namely the heat resistant boots and special clothing used by professional Firefighters.

which is, if they were melting from heat, the foot injuries the emergency responders would have sustained would have been horrendous.

Only if they weren't wearing heat resistant boots, which are specially designed with heat resistant liners for Firemen. The rubber soles can and do melt, and you won't feel a thing. Later it's "Damn, I melted my boots"

The pair I have that I used for working around the HUGE (four stories high) bonfires at Brushwood are the Michigan brand and are only rated to 500 degs, but they make MUCH better, more heat resistant boots for the professionals.

Again, she's cherry picking through the data to support her conclusions. The FACT is that even I own a pair of boots I can walk across burning coals with, and mine are the cheapies compared to what the pro's have.

Just because someone's outsoles melted does not mean the heat made it past the heat resistant liners.

 

[Seraphina]

I'm sorry Guardian, that this has you so upset.

Well it wouldn't upset me if I didn't care a LOT about you guys. If I didn't like you, I'd be happy to see you get screwed by associating yourselves with Wood.

But there's a difference between examining the data Judy's accumulated, analysing it and taking what is verifiable with other sources, and the idea that to consider her data

Actually it's the fact that you're accepting the data she's accumulated at all that concerns me.

In listening again to the broadcast, you can sift out some very interesting data points which are worth looking at.

All disinfo contains bits of truth mixed in with the lies.

She made a very good point about the whole steel boots melting thing,

No she didn't..she just omitted critical information, namely the heat resistant boots and special clothing used by professional Firefighters.

Edited for spelling and errors.

which is, if they were melting from heat, the foot injuries the emergency responders would have sustained would have been horrendous.

Only if they weren't wearing heat resistant boots, which are specially designed with heat resistant liners for Firemen. The rubber soles can and do melt, and you won't feel a thing. Later it's "Damn, I melted my boots"

The pair I have that I used for working around the HUGE (four stories high) bonfires at Brushwood are the Michigan brand and are only rated to 500 degs, but they make MUCH better, more heat resistant boots for the professionals.

Again, she's cherry picking through the data to support her conclusions. The FACT is that even I own a pair of boots I can walk across burning coals with, and mine are the cheapies compared to what the pro's have.

Just because someone's outsoles melted does not mean the heat made it past the heat resistant liners.

Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. My husband wears steel toe boots. It is quite possible to melt the exterior of the shoe without melting the steel, and these shoes are also insulated on the inside. If a shoe were just steel, without any insulation, sure the foot would be cooked. Again more assumptions without proper context on her part.