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

[Cosmos]

I don't know though if If you understand what I'm trying to say here?

You are trying to say, I think, that even if Mrs. Wood looks or seems incoherent in public, in a interview, maybe she is not in real life or writing a book. Is that so? So we have to be careful when judging someone?

Yep, pretty much I think.

 

[Cosmos]

This brings me to a something I want to mention.

From my personal experience, I have a real problem to discuss and explain something to somebody in a coherent way when I know (or think I know) that this person can not crasb what I'm trying to say at all. And it gets worst when I know (or think I know) that the other person does not even want to understand something that I want to say from the get go, but is rather trying something else, like to fooling me or make me look silly.

Have you considered Fear of Rejection/ridcule from early childhood parental raising or friendships ?.
Did you accept mentally the possibility of failure to convince other so that that doesn't lead to perceived system 1 social rejection. This is system 1, as our mind's social/emotional circuits are build in such a way we want to be the part of the crowd, despite system 2 tries to be otherwise. Same with "Fear of being exposed". some thing to think about.

Even though I can't quite follow you, because I haven't read that book, about the two systems that are running us, yet. I have the feeling that something of what you are saying really applies to me.

 

[herondancer]

Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

Totally agree, except that Dr. Wood can and does deliver coherent speeches. But yeh, she should drop interviews.

http://vimeo.com/57923364

Yeah, just looking at another one (with my old 'pal' Theo Chalmers) where she actually does a decent job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmQ6OWMHTI

Maybe the problem is that she is unable to keep it together when she is being (of thinks that she is being) challenged. That's still a problem because she needs to be able to handle challenges.

This is a real possibility. I am doing the transcription, and the interesting thing is, when the recording is slowed by about 25%, where she appears to be talking a normal speed, she seems to makes some good points, such not speculating beyond what the objective observations can support. Her discussion of the strange weather patterns and magnetic anomalies that happened around the collapse are good.

It could be brain damage, or childhood experiences, or Santilli winding her up, or whatever, but the impression you get is that she's panicked, and she feels she's got to get everything out she wants to say while she can. Like she's been ridiculed (sometimes rightly), and shut down and this is the way she tries to get around it.

 

[Windmill knight]

Moreover, physicists in their papers discuss the possibilities of "breaking the fundamental laws of physics" on a daily basis. We know that that these "laws" have their limits and their possible exceptions.

I think physics (and all sciences) would be very well served if they removed the word "law" from their vocabularies and used a wordlike "suggestion" instead - that way they could say the "fundamental suggestions of physics" - it might allow some inherent freedom of thought that use of the word 'law' shuts down. After all, a law can't be broken, but a suggestion? Heck, a suggestion can be entirely ignored if the data takes you in a new direction. :)

Rupert Sheldrake makes the point that instead of "laws" of science we should speak of "habits". As an example, he mentions the speed of light, which has been measured several times with different results. Scientists assume that the variations are a result of human error and other external variables, so they simply take an average of a number of the measurements and then they agree that's going to be the speed of light. When the speed as measured decades ago is significantly different, they say it's an embarrassment that it was measured so badly back then. But, Sheldrake says, what if the speed of light does change? Sort of joking, he suggests having a monthly or weekly index of such 'constants', like financial indexes. :)

Recently there was this:

http://www.sott.net/article/261518-Speed-of-light-may-not-be-constant-physicists-say

The Cs have also said in more than one occasion that gravity was different in the past on this planet at different points in time, which again contradicts the idea of constants and laws.

 

[jasstnhawk]

Her claim of being able to demonstrate everyone of the high strangeness effects in Hutchinson's lab (and I've seen pictures of his lab...boy oh boy!) has never sat well with me. Yet this is the big pillar in her argument. Hutchinson can do it and I've seen it! Then it gets worse. It goes something like: well he just mixes and matches the various component waves you know, whatever he feels like that day...you know, he doesn't really understand it you know...but it all just happens. And I've seen it.

I too have had a problem with certain "pillars in [Wood's] argument" and her unyielding, unscientific 'stance'.

Concerning her witnessing Hutchinson's "high strangeness effects" and certain other "pillars in [Wood's] argument" or her book/analysis, we are expected to just 'take her word for it'.

Moreover, during some if not most of her 'speaking engagements' (like her interview with SOTT Talk Radio), we are told repeatedly, most times aggressively/combatively so, that Wood's book/analysis is THE definitive 'what & how' by Wood and her Woodites, and that there is no need whatsoever to ask any further reasonable questions, consider any credible research by other scientists, look further into or examine/re-examine the physical evidence, or investigate 'who' executed 9/11.

To my mind, not good enough.

I concur.

 

[Niall]

Yeah, it's pretty much the same way she acted on our show. She appears to be REALLY bad at coherently explaining her point, she seems unable to calmly listen to a question and formulate a straightforward and simple answer. If her brain wasn't 'fried' already as a result of genetics or life experience, then maybe her brain got 'fried' as a result of looking at all of the details of the WTC collapse. Whatever the case, she is NOT a good spokesperson for her own work. It's really maddening because I'm pretty sure I (or anyone here) could do a far better job at explaining the basics of her research. In one sense, 'it's not rocket science', pretty much anyone can look at the pictures and video of the towers "collapsing" and realise that they really didn't collapse but we "pulverized" in situ. Wood seems almost paranoically cagey about being pinned down on any specifics to the extent that she can't, or won't, formulate even a basic theory and deliver it. She hears or translates questions or comments in a selective way in her brain and immediately tries to dodge giving a straight answer to the question or comment. The result is a discombobulated exchange that makes her appear rather loopy. It would be better if she just stopped giving interviews or speeches at all and just allow her book to speak for itself.

Totally agree, except that Dr. Wood can and does deliver coherent speeches. But yeh, she should drop interviews.

http://vimeo.com/57923364

Yeah, just looking at another one (with my old 'pal' Theo Chalmers) where she actually does a decent job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmQ6OWMHTI

Maybe the problem is that she is unable to keep it together when she is being (of thinks that she is being) challenged. That's still a problem because she needs to be able to handle challenges.

Yeh it's like she was in amygdala hijack mode where you just couldn't get a word in edgeways because shields were up full and her emotions were running the show - literally!

No doubt Santilli played a role in getting her into that state with his 'oops, did I just call in to your radio show? Well, I just happened to be passing by and noticed that you having Judy Wood were on air' line of BS.

 

[Niall]

I am not sure of comparison of energy levels from molecular disbonding through information induction w.r.t pure 3D level energy usage for forced breaking of bonds.

I don't mean to mystify the situation.
The manipulating phonon stuff with modulating over carrier frequencies is a mind blowing concept in itself. I haven't read this one yet.

They( 4D or 3D through hierarchy ) can map the area of target at the molecular level including 1D to 3D (just like our CAD software for building but at molecular level including every thing in the area) and create modulating frequencies and scoop it out and release crumbles.

This makes the antics of entire NWO gang as useful idiot acts ( a setup) - like changing hands for the insurance, advanced stock market future trading, dubaya reading book to school children, subsequent patriot act imposition etc.

This israel security company worked weeks before is a facilitation instead of collapsing itself and shutting down the air traffic security to avoid complications.

At the end, we are 3D, can only explain in 3D terms possibly with technology that is bordering 4D. Fascinating to think of possibilities - A Mass abduction in front of billions of people to create 911 religion( MSM followers) ?.

I think that's pretty much 9/11 in a nutshell.

It might be a good idea to take all the Cs Transcripts on the 9/11 WTC Complex events, then place them side by side with relevant or supporting evidence/eyewitness testimony from Wood's book. Anyone with a copy of her book want to get started on that?

 

[seek10]

Again we were told in elementary science education, energy either can be destroyed or created, only converted. Again 3D sensor/equipment measurable energy vs 3D unmesaurable energy is another factor here. Or some of the energy released is scooped out to 4D.

I meant to say energy neither can be destroyed or created, only converted

 

[jasstnhawk]

It might be a good idea to take all the Cs Transcripts on the 9/11 WTC Complex events, then place them side by side with relevant or supporting evidence/eyewitness testimony from Wood's book. Anyone with a copy of her book want to get started on that?

To help with locating some of what the C's said concerning 9/11, here is a possible starting point/post:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,27467.msg336469.html#msg336469

Within the post, you will need to scroll down to "9-11 & IT’S AFTERMATH".

NOTE: Session dates are NOT included and the original block formatting has been removed.

 

[aragorn]

To be fair, the previous scientific papers produced by Wood between years 1982-2004 seem pretty legit. I just browsed through the ones I could access, and ther is "real science" and calculations in those. Most of them are about something called 'Moiré interferometry'. As far as I can see, all the papers are written by research teams, where Wood is one of the members. But this is pretty much standard procedure in research circles, I guess. To get a feel how she writes 'alone' I tried to access her dissertation: "Determination of thermal strains in the neighborhood of a bimaterial interface", but without success.

The latest paper I could find is from 2007: "Measurement of microstrains across loaded resin-dentin interfaces using microscopic moiré interferometry" (Judy D. Wood, Paul Sobolewski, Varun Thakur, Dwayne Arola, Ahmed Nazari, Franklin R. Tay, David H. Pashley).

 

[Seraphina]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

 

[Laura]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

That's a definite black mark against her: very sloppy research or conscious prestidigitation.

 

[Cosmos]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Can you point out exactly wich of those Figures from 16-24 you can definitely account for being caused by flooding istead of "levitating"?

Notice also that on top of the page it saying "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

 

[Seraphina]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Can you point out exactly wich of those Figures from 16-24 you can definitely account for being caused by flooding istead of "levitating"?

Notice also that on top of the page it saying "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

Figure 16, 18, and 20 were definitely taken in my parish. Notice that you can even see the water lines on the cars.

Figure 30 is also interesting. It is a picture of flooding outside East Jefferson Hospital. Her question, "Why are there still leaves on the trees?" I'm really boggled by this question and don't even comprehend where she was going with it, really. Not all leaves will be torn off of trees, even in a very powerful hurricane. You can have trees next to each other where one is ripped to shreds and the other is relatively unscathed. This can be the result of variable turbulence and micro vortices.

Edit: spelling

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Notice also that on top of the page it saying "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

And that it has not been updated since 2008...