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

[shijing]

Based on what we know so far, we know that there's something seriously wrong with Judy Wood and that her involvement with Santilli stinks something awful. There's certainly an overtone of manipulation, and some kind of a psy-op going on -- the question is, what is the exact nature of it. Given what's been uncovered so far, possibly implicating Wood's former student Zebuhr in at least some (and perhaps very much) of the original research, there are two scenarios that seem possible (and there are certainly more, I'm sure):

(1) The whole thing is a psy-op and cover-up from beginning to end. It was designed that way from the beginning, and is just one more very elaborate tar baby that's been thrust into the world of 9/11 research to mislead and misdirect.

(2) There was some original research that was solid, damning, and potentially dangerous to those out there who were originally involved. It couldn't be allowed into the public in its original form, but it was also perceived by someone as too good to be done away with completely since it had the potential to make somebody famous and sell some merchandise to boot. Pure ambition and greed then actually kept it afloat, although in the hands of someone who could be managed by one or more handlers, allowing the information itself to be discredited by association.

If we could be sure it's (1), we would be right in tossing it on the fire and not looking back. If (2), it would be wrong to throw it out without subjecting it to more analysis. At this point, we're not sure -- so taking a cautious approach to the data itself and nitpicking it as best we can seems to be the most reasonable choice to me at this point.

 

[Horseofadifferentcolor]

This thread is very emotional. All other threads contain bits of info from authors. Why are the folks saying "well ya gotta read it to understand" not posting why they say this? Give me some meat please. Yes, the radio show was head ache but, why is their no posting of the work being defended. I so far have not learned anything!

Maybe others can jump in and give their assessment?
But I for one don't feel emotionally invested in either side.



And the meat as you might suspect already is in large portion, suprise suprise, in the book. And you can't really understand it as long as you haven't read it OSIT

But yeah we already know or at least should know that and also that others disagree or think that we are mislead here in some way.

So yeah to recap that over and over again doesn't make a whole lot of sense anymore OSIT.

mmmmhhh huh I can only know after reading being repeated by Woods and others..... I find this not normal for this forum is all I am saying.

 

[Guardian]

This guy explains how Wood's seismic "evidence" is totally flawed too.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

It's a pdf so I can't cut and paste, but the guy is essentially saying that "While it is true that Richter scale readings are used by seismologists to estimate the amount of energy released by an earthquake, the same methodology cannot be used after a building collapse or implosion to determine the total GPE that was originally in the building"


...and he explains why.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

How about checking the book out and discovering it for yourself? Maybe you can find out more?

Again, because I can NOT trust the contents of the book due to the interview and the material on her website.

I won't read her book for the EXACT same reasons I don't read VB, JW, etc. books. I do not waste my time on disinfo.

I think this is a good point for why Judy Wood is NOT a conscious disinfo artist. If she were trying to promote this material as a misdirection, then it would not make sense to present herself as someone who can not put more than 3 coherent sentences together at a time and can not carry on a conversation. If she were acting like a nut bag purposefully to discredit the material, then that speaks for itself.

If there were evidence that the signature of the devastation at the WTC site could not be from any weapons system that a current government or corporate power admits to having, then it would eliminate as suspects any parties that do not have access to the highest technology research that exists. That could be important.

Somebody brought up Dolan's work in this thread, and that is an important example of how SOTT interacts with a particular author's work even if their current direction diverges from their own. Though SOTT does not endorse in any way Dolan's current direction about the inevitability of disclosure nor his belief in the eventual arrival of some kind of technological singularity, there is no doubt that his first volume about the history of the UFO phenomenon is unparalleled. I doubt any SOTT editor would hesitate to suggest this first work of his.

As we know here by experience, once a person believes one lie of a certain nature there can be a very rapid degeneration of intellectual functions. What has happened to Judy Wood since this book was released? What was she like, what was her communication style, say, before this book was released? Could the defensive ramblings and inability to dialogue that we heard on the interview be a development of the last few years? Furthermore, the questions brought up about what the role of the deceased student was in writing the book further complicate the picture.

I don't think spending a few forum threads on deciding if this smoke has any fire to it (no pun originally intended) will tar the SOTT team with some unriddable stain. They are pretty much the black sheep any way just from being willing to speculate from time to time how other principalities (the hyperdimensional aspect I mean to say) might be affecting this realm of suffering we currently observe.

 

[Keit]

Again, because I can NOT trust the contents of the book due to the interview and the material on her website.

I won't read her book for the EXACT same reasons I don't read VB, JW, etc. books. I do not waste my time on disinfo.

Actually, I can totally get it and my natural tendency is to act with a similar approach. And not only when it comes to "non-fictional" topics, but also with fiction, like books, movies, etc. There were many cases when I was impressed by someone's creation, especially if it was particularly deep, later to find out that the level of depth didn't match at all the depth of character of the individual who created it. In some cases, their character was quite repulsive. And for me, this fact influenced everything and caused me to dismiss their work, because I thought that one's creation is an integral part of the creator; that since it is his/her "baby", it should match their inner landscape, otherwise it's nothing but a lie.

And I still think the same, but with a few modifications, especially after learning that we are all machines, full of contradictions and myriad of influences that act upon us. I've learned that it is possible to produce something that can be of value to those who can see and are able to utilize the knowledge and yet to find oneself on a downward spiral and lose the opportunity to grow if one isn't too careful. There is also the issue of inspiration, like tuning in and receiving something creative without being able to utilize it.

So, maybe it's similar in this case, when a person with questionable character supposedly wrote a book that can be of value. It's not even clear if she herself wrote a book, but the information in it perhaps could be utilized somehow by those who are able to weed through the garbage and find the gems.

edit: grammar

 

[Guardian]

I think this is a good point for why Judy Wood is NOT a conscious disinfo artist. If she were trying to promote this material as a misdirection, then it would not make sense to present herself as someone who can not put more than 3 coherent sentences together at a time and can not carry on a conversation.

Well that certainly doesn't seem to have stopped some people from believing her so called "evidence" even though a simple google search can debunk EVERYTHING on her "evidence" page?

 

[Guardian]

A google search for "molten metal" images yields thousands of results:

https://www.google.com/search?q=9-11+molten+metal&client=firefox-a&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MZ6NUbbOMJWj4APGzoDACg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1138&bih=532

Likewise for "9-11 steel girders"

https://www.google.com/search?q=9-11+molten+metal&client=firefox-a&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MZ6NUbbOMJWj4APGzoDACg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1138&bih=532#client=firefox-a&hl=en&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=9-11+steel+girders&oq=9-11+steel+girders&gs_l=img.3...3725.7502.1.7754.13.13.0.0.0.0.193.1561.1j12.13.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.L4wGA3H9G5Y&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=b12a8f537bc43531&biw=1138&bih=532

 

[Guardian]

Ok, so that's her boots, beams, and seismic measurements when something goes "boom" claims shown to be false.

What other "empirical evidence" have I missed?

 

[John G]

Ok, so that's her boots, beams, and seismic measurements when something goes "boom" claims shown to be false.

What other "empirical evidence" have I missed?

Here from the first review of Wood's book on Amazon are the ideas I think relate most to ideas from Laura & Joe's book:

1. Dr. Wood starts by examining the free-fall speed at which the buildings began to plummet, but also graphically explains that very little of the huge structures actually ended up hitting the ground.

2. A structural engineering firm involved in building the Trade Center estimated there should have been almost 1.2 million tons of rubble. But, because we see mostly dust and unburned paper on the ground and a minimum of debris in the basements,Dr. Wood asks, "Where did it all go?"

3. We see large steel beams and columns bent, twisted, thinned and rusted in peculiar ways that heat cannot cause.

4. We see vertical circular holes in adjacent World Trade Center buildings that we were never shown before.

5. We see cars blocks away that were "toasted" or flipped over.

6. Dr. Wood goes on in the latter chapters of the book to acquaint us with something she calls the "Tesla-Hutchison Effect" and its similarities to what happened in Manhattan on 9/11.

The Tesla-Hutchinson stuff in general is longitudinal wave stuff which is very related to Ark's conformal gravity work which in my view is the best way to relate Classical physics with information theory/quantum physics.

 

[Lan8r]

I just want to say that I am still very disappointed with Judy Wood and how she came across in this show. After what I have seen and read since then, I am more than certain that she didn't even write this book.

The thing that upsets me the most is how she brushed off Ark. I was very interested in hearing what he had to say. What he thought of the evidence she presented. Reading this thread and hearing the many comments about 'You have to read the book' is a little frustrating. I have the book and have been trying to read it, I've been distracted by other books that hold more interest though. I was so looking forward to hearing Judy Wood speak on the evidence and findings that she supposedly published in her book. And even more looking forward to what Ark had to say about that evidence.

Can anyone who has read the book elaborate a little past the 'you gotta read the book' and point out why? What is it that you have found in this book that can support the insistence to read it. Particularly how the evidence supports what the C's have to say. And I am very interested in understanding how it can show any proof of directed information, information as energy.

Thank you

 

[WhiteBear]

Well, this is a disturbing thread, for me, to say the least. The main gist of what I'm getting out of this is that I need to read the book, to really grok what's going on. Somehow, and nobody seems to be able to explain exactly how, the information in the book corresponds with what the C's have said.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, because yes, it's my perception, but I see a schism in the forum over this.

What if Judy didn't write the book? What if it's an advanced form of neuro-linguistic programming? What most people who have read the book are saying appears to be repetitious, with no further clarification using examples from the book. "You need to read the book." Almost like a virus, or what came to mind immediately was a sci-fi movie where rocks fell from the sky, and someone picked one up and got "stung", and taken over by an alien life form inside the rock....who then gathered up more rocks and handed them out to other people, to be stung and taken over. Join us...be one of us.

I don't know if we have any experts, or even anyone who's casually informed about neuro-linguistic programming, who could examine the contents of the book without becoming "infected"...but it might be worthwhile to examine.

 

[Guardian]

Ok, so that's her boots, beams, and seismic measurements when something goes "boom" claims shown to be false.

What other "empirical evidence" have I missed?

Here from the first review of Wood's book on Amazon are the ideas I think relate most to ideas from Laura & Joe's book:

Well that's an interesting list. Has anyone every explained the difference between "evidence" and an "observation" to Dr. Cheeto?

 

[Lisa Guliani]

FAQ #3: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html

Excerpt: "At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding."

 

[Lisa Guliani]

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers
(Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
Co-author: Matt Sullivan

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

Excerpt: "As Dr. James Fetzer suggests, Dr. Judy Wood may be unable to provide answers to basic questions regarding her own speculative hypothesis. However, this paper does quantitatively analyze those issues raised during the interview as well as address other evidence advanced by Dr. Judy Wood and others that the WTC towers may have been destroyed by directed energy weapons. The following arguments will prove that the degree of implausibility places the hypothesis squarely in the realm of the impossible.

Dr. Wood’s hypothesis is predominantly based upon the premise that large amounts of debris were ‘missing’ from the post-coll apse rubble. A detailed analysis clearly demonstrates that all the debris is accounted for if sublevel collapses are considered. This paper addresses the massive energy requirements, issues involving the use of directed energy weapons, and misinterpreted phenomena used to support the thesis such as the Richter scale measurements, Bathtub damage, holes in adjacent buildings, charred cars, etc. "


Edit=Paragraphing for readability. :)

 

[John G]

Has anyone every explained the difference between "evidence" and an "observation" to Dr. Cheeto?

The Cs I think have mentioned that for situations like this it can be good to look at what people are saying right afterwards before the disinfo stuff really kicks in...

From Laura & Joe's book:

Joe Casaliggi a firefighter with Engine 7 commented: “You have two 110-story office buildings: you don’t find a chair, you don’t find a telephone, a computer... the biggest piece of a telephone I found was half a keypad, and it was this big (holds up thumb and forefinger). The buildings collapsed to dust.”[129]

As for the Cs view itself, from the 20 Oct 05 session:

(A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.
Q: (J) What did they use then to make the steel beams collapse in the way they did, so completely? Did you have a question about that? (A) Well, specially prepared is essentially explosives that would cut the beams. But there are many. (H) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (S) Yes, EMP (J) Conductors with shaped EMP. (H) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (J) If they could take down the Columbia… (H) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.