Project GNOME

wordpress analytics

Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F for 6 months after 9/11. Ed Ward has pointed out this most likely due to retained heat from an underground nuclear explosion rather than a fission process advocated by the Anonymous Physicist. The MASSIVE explosion heard 17 seconds before the North Tower came down is a good candidate for the explosion that caused the elevated ground temperatures:

wtc1summary01

As an example of retained heat from a nuclear explosion, Ed references The Project GNOME detonation on December 10, 1961 near Carlsbad, New Mexico:

Measurements of an earlier underground detonation had indicated that roughly 1/3 of the energy was deposited in the melted rock at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This information encouraged hopes that a nuclear detonation in a dry medium might cause heat to be stored long enough to permit efficient recovery. GNOME was developed with the idea that a nuclear detonation in a salt deposit would create a large volume of hot melted salt from which heat might be extracted. The possibilities to be investigated for the production of power were the tapping of the steam created by detonation itself and the generation of high-density, high-pressure steam by the circulation of some heat-absorbing fluid, like water, over the heated salt. This generated steam would be used to drive a steam or hot gas turbine coupled with an electric generator.

When workers reentered that cavity on May 17, 1962, they found temperatures around 140 degrees Fahrenheit but only small amounts of residual radiation. The earlier intense radiation had colored the salt of the cavity wall various shades of blue, green, and violet.

Project GNOME was part of Operation Plowshare. Plowshare was an attempt to use nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes like excavating ditches and canals and mining. Concerns such as blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere created public opposition to the program and it was terminated in 1977 after $770 million had been spent.

The YouTube video below has a lot of useful information for 9/11 researchers. One minute into the video you see a nuclear explosion.

You can see similar shaped comet trails of dust at the WTC. Chunks of earth turn to dust before landing which is also observed at the WTC as chunks of steel disintegrate before hitting the ground. Judy Wood calls this “dustification” caused by some unknown DEW weapon but here we see the same phenomenon in an early 1960s nuke bomb test.

WTC1 Exploding

Pyroclastic cauliflower shaped dust clouds also appear in the video and those type of dust clouds are also observed at the WTC:

new911-04

Also observed in the video are rows of underground nukes being detonated sequentially. At the WTC they were detonated sequentially from the tops of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. I heard from a lot of people that was impossible in 2001 yet here in the video we’re seeing it in the early 1960s.

The Plowshare video was produced by the US Atomic Energy Commission. Per Wikipedia: “The AEC was furthermore in charge of developing the United States’ nuclear arsenal, taking over these responsibilities from the wartime Manhattan Project. Over the course of its first decade, the AEC oversaw the operation of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, devoted primarily to weapons development, and, in 1952, the establishment of a second weapons laboratory in California (the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). It also implemented the “crash” program to develop the hydrogen bomb.”

When looking at who had the technology to pull off the WTC demolitions names to keep in mind include Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak Ridge – the nuke labs. A lot of the same names you see in the Plowshare video should be familiar to serious 9/11 researchers.

Judy Wood’s Script

wordpress analytics

Below is the script that the Judy Wood Cult members must stick to. It’s from an email I got from Thomas Potter last year. You will be subjected to propaganda from this script if you interact with any members of the Wood Cult. This is just a heads up to all of the unsuspecting 9/11 researchers out there who haven’t encountered The Wood Cult yet.

The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page textbook about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood’s textbook has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.

It wasn’t poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.

The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or “belief”. Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood’s research and collection of evidence as compiled in her textbook the truth is known, so there is no need to “Re-investigate 9/11”. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her textbook. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people? This isn’t about beliefs, it is about evidence.

Now those that have read her textbook know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up? Should they face a firing squad or spend life in prison?

Sincerely,
Thomas Potter

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
Hardcover: 540 pages
Publisher: The New Investigation (September 11, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10:
0615412564
ISBN-13:
978-0-615-41256-6
LCCN:
2090916516
Images and Diagrams: over 860 full color
Shipping Weight: 3.5 pounds
Product Dimensions: 10.25 x 7.25 x 1.4 inches
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

WorldCat Listing
http://www.worldcat.org/title/where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911/oclc/704874500

On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining ‘why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,’ the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood’s disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.

She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood’s investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.

Please find below an October 2011 two hour interview with Dr. Judy Wood from the One Step Beyond TV show with Theo Chalmers on SKY 200 in the U.K. and a book review by Eric Larsen, novelist and Emeritus Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York.

One Step Beyond with Dr. Judy Wood
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2011/11/judy-woods-where-did-towers-go.html

Where Did The Towers Go? – Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11 – Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html

by Eric Larsen Ph.D.
What a complete, unmitigated disaster 9/11 and the ten awful years following it have been—ten years of murder, crime, lawlessness, deceit, stupidity, and blindness that are only now meliorated, at long last, by the publication of Dr. Judy Wood’s unique, revelatory, and unequivocally welcome book, Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.
Where Did the Towers Go? is a work that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.
As everyone knows, 9/11 has been “the justification and starting point” for all manner of destruction, loss, crime, and horror. Without 9/11, there would have been no “Patriot Act,” no abuse of FISA and stripping away of privacy rights, no Military Commissions Act of 2006 with its setting aside of Habeas Corpus, no implementation of Northcom and deployment of our own military forces on domestic American soil (for use against who, you might ask?), and no trashing of Bill of Rights and Constitutional guarantees, no programmatic and precedent-setting weakening and eliminating of right and guarantees so that the very concepts of “citizenship” and “freedom” have been emptied out to the point where setting up concentration camps inside the U.S. is now legal and not a one of us would have any recourse whatsoever if it were decided that we should be thrown into a cell in one of them and forgotten forever.[1]
Without 9/11, there would never have been any fake and opportunistic “Global War on Terror,” would never have been Guantanamo as we know it now, never have been official programs of torture or fake demonizing of Islam in order to justify wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, or to justify overt plans for the murder of U.S. citizens living in places like, say, Yemen.
There’s more, much more. The complete list of atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities triggered by or justified by 9/11 could fill whole chapters, even books. By using 9/11 as propaganda—by using it as trigger, excuse, justification, or catalyst—the U.S. has betrayed itself, its principles, and its people, and has made itself the world’s most dangerous enemy of all mankind and also of Earth herself.
How can it conceivably be, given these facts, that we, a nation of people who presumably have minds of our own—how can it be that we have done nothing to stop this hideous parade of monstrosities and horrors? In the Foreword to Dr. Wood’s book, I wrote:
It is now almost a decade since 9/11 took place, and in all that time no unassailable, permanent, or, in pragmatic terms, politically influential progress has been made in determining exactly and irrefutably what took place on that day—or what did not take place.
We—that is, we the potential resistance or opposition to U.S. criminal policy—have been spinning our wheels for a complete decade. There are a lot of reasons for this wheel-spinning, including various programs of very skillful and extraordinarily devious cover-up after cover-up after cover-up of the central question of what did happen on 9/11. For, as long as that central question remains unanswered, or for as long as that question can be caused to remain obfuscated, blurred, muddled-up, in doubt—as long as that situation continues, the wheels will continue to spin and people won’t quite know what to do. Dr. Wood is very well aware of this fact. Her own way of putting it is that before accusing someone of a crime, you’ve got to know what crime they committed. In her Author’s Preface, she writes:

You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it.

That kind of clear, cool, commonsense logic is rare among the many who for ten years have talked a very great deal about 9/11, although it’s obvious that in Dr. Wood such good sense resides in abundance. Here’s the opening of her Author’s Preface:
For the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01—nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of belief [Dr. Wood’s emphasis]. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.
Yes. To say that George did not do X hardly means that Al did do X. Even worse is to imagine that someone’s belief that George did or didn’t do X has any necessary relationship to the truth or the fact of the matter at all. Dr. Wood will have none of this substitution of “belief” for “thinking.” She is a scientist, and a very highly educated one, with “a B.S. in Civil Engineering, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science” (again from my Foreword). Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.

This means also that in undertaking a “forensic study of the evidence” left behind after the 9/11 disaster, if that study is to be scientifically valid, the researcher must analyze and study not some of the available evidence, not most of the available evidence, but all of the available evidence.
To my knowledge, no one other than Dr. Wood has done this. She alone has persisted unflaggingly in her study of all available concrete, empirical evidence, has assiduously avoided any and all argument about 9/11 that may be based on politics, desire, belief, emotion, or pre-set theory but instead has stuck indefatigably, solely—and, I must say, courageously—with the gathering of and the forensic analysis of all the evidence left behind after the 9/11 events.
No wonder it has taken Dr. Wood a considerable time to complete her enormous task of, first, finding and gathering every last shred of available evidence, then of organizing her findings, and after that preparing the entirety in book form—in a volume of 500 pages that contains not just the exhaustive primary text itself but many, many hundreds of photographs, maps, drawings, graphs, charts, illustrations, explanatory passages, not to mention powerfully relevant—and revelatory—historical scientific background material (chapter 17, “the Tesla-Hutchison effect”) and even a “Glossary and Supplemental Information” section that includes, among much else, the terms Dr. Wood has invented or adapted in order to describe in as connotation-free a way as possible the unusual and unfamiliar phenomena she has observed—words like “Cheetos,” “Donuts,” “Lather,” “Fuzzballs,” “Sillystring,” “Toasted Cars,” “Weird Fires”—but that also includes highly technical plates and charts such as “Melting and Boiling Temperatures for Selected Elements” and “Tritium Values,” these being relevant to Dr. Wood’s discussion of the molecular dissociation of materials that, as she proves, took place during the apparently chaotic but in actuality diabolically precise destruction that took place on 9/11.
What emerges, for the reader, from all of this? What emerges is a lucid, clear, riveting, thorough, spell-binding, page-turning, eye-opening description and analysis of that terrible day—Dr. Wood has referred to it as the “new Hiroshima”—when the fearsomely destructive power of directed-energy in weaponized form was demonstrated to the world, and when, at the same time and however bitterly and ironically, the liberating promise of free energy as a means by which both Earth and all humanity might be saved from certain destruction was also demonstrated for everyone in the world to see.

And just what, then, will readers find upon buying, opening, and reading Where Did the Towers Go? They will find an immensely informative, engaging, detailed, thorough, and humane portrayal of the events of 9/11. They will find the telling of a calamitous, hideous, and horrifying story that, thanks to the clear eye and conscientious mind (and enormous heart) of the teller, is made a testament of homage to all those who suffered and died while at the same time remaining a scientific and forensic descriptive analysis of what actually happened that day: That day when directed-energy weaponry was brought to bear on the World Trade Center buildings, destroying them completely while at the same time leaving almost no rubble, producing no high temperatures of the kind conventionally associated with explosives on the one hand or molten materials on the other, and leaving behind a surreal aftermath of tumbled and overturned firetrucks, scorched cars, missing engine blocks, hundreds of thousands of sheets of unburned office paper floating down to rest, still unburned, amidst flames that have little or no heat of the kind that is produced by oxidization, and an absence of the seismic shock that would be expected from “collapse” at free-fall speed of buildings weighing many hundreds of thousands of tons, including the North Tower, South Tower, World Trade Center Seven, and other WTC buildings that underwent destruction.
In the story of 9/11 as told by Dr. Wood, everything is observed, analyzed, and evaluated for exactly what it is, and therefore almost nothing is the way we have been told it was. Readers will find for themselves Dr. Wood’s proof that the extremely minimal amount of rubble (the hurried shipping of mass amounts of steel to China is a falsehood and red herring) left behind after the disappearance of the towers indicates that the vast tonnage of these enormous buildings never did reach the ground but instead, through a process of molecular dissociation (Glossary: “Molecules separate or even repel each other”), the buildings’ mass was turned to dust in a shorter time than would have been required for that same mass, in solid form, to have reached earth.
The seismic evidence, fastidiously laid out for the reader in prose, charts, graphs, and maps, shows the same reality: Even were WTC1 and WTC2 actually to have “collapsed” at free-fall speed (a speed that physics proves unattainable but that’s used by Dr. Wood for argument’s sake), they would have required a minimum of ten seconds for that process to be completed, whereas no seismic signal from weight hitting the ground exists for more than eight seconds, while in the case of the 47-story WTC7, which disappeared with equivalent speed, there is even less seismic disturbance recorded, bordering on none.
Dr. Wood is a highly gifted observer of multitudinous varieties of evidence—manifestations of evidence that she looks at for what they are, not for what others may have suggested, said, hinted, or believed they are. Here are the opening five sentences of Dr. Wood’s Introduction:
On 9/11, I realized that what was being seen and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. I remember watching the TV in the faculty conference room. The TV kept playing the same film over and over, showing what appeared to be a building unraveling like a sweater. I had never seen a building unravel like a sweater, and I tried to imagine what was going on that might make it look that way. Certainly the time it took the building to go away did not make sense.
This is the same independent, thoughtful observer who has studied literally thousands upon thousands of images from 9/11, noticing things that others might miss entirely. On the broad expanse of ground zero, for example, “believed” to have had a lake of molten steel underneath it, Dr. Wood notices rubber hoses lying around, and puddles of water, the hoses not melting, the water not boiling or even steaming. Workers are seen walking around on this same expanse—and they are not being cooked like fricassees.
Again and again, Dr. Wood looks at images and finds in them revelatory and notable details. In “Weird Fires” (Chapter 13), most of us see flaming vehicles, but Dr. Wood notices, just above the “fire,” a tree with green leaves that are un-burnt, unaffected, un-scorched, and unseared, another indication that this “fire” or these “flames” were without high heat. In “Toasted Cars” (Chapter 11), most of us see only the dreadfully scorched interior of an automobile, but Dr. Wood notices the un-“burnt” window-trim. Or most of us see only the “toasted interior of car 2723,” not noticing the curious fact of the many small circular holes that have been created in the metal floor of the car, almost like holes caused by birdshot, but similar in shape to the curiously circular holes in the broken window-glass of buildings across the street from WTC1 And WTC2.
Time and time and time again Dr. Wood sees things for us that are right in front of our eyes but unnoticed. Among the most moving examples of this gifted vision may be Dr. Wood’s seeing more than the rest of us do in the images of “jumpers” from WTC1 and WTC2 before those buildings “went away.” This is in the book’s third chapter, called “The ‘Jumpers’” and sub-titled “It Was Like Raining People.” It opens this way:
Among the most horrific images from 9/11 is that of “The Falling Man,” who came to represent the many people who fell to their death that day. These people are often referred to as “jumpers,” but did they all, in fact, jump? And if they did, why did they do it? Once again, the question requires a closer look and examination.
Dr. Wood continues:
Looking at these images can be difficult. It was too difficult for me until I realized that these people are communicating to us. They want us to hear them and they want their stories told. Once I realized this, I could not look away, for I had made them a promise to look at what they were trying to tell us. In this chapter I attempt to fulfill my promise to them.
And fulfill that promise indeed she does. This chapter of Where Did the Towers Go? should be reprinted in every journal, magazine, and newspaper across the country and throughout the world, so immense is its sensitivity, so humane its sympathy, and so extraordinary its descriptive power. Many of the “jumpers,” Dr. Wood observes, seem to be trying to take off their clothes, sometimes even as they are already in free-fall toward the street below. It may be, she suggests, that they are in a reflexive reaction against a pain comparable to that experienced by inadvertently placing one’s hand on a hot burner. One’s response in that case is instinctive and wholly involuntary, like people’s responses when they are hit by “active denial” micro-wave weaponry, which may quite possibly have been akin to the “directed energy” force those in the towers were being subjected to when they became what we now call “jumpers.”
Dr. Wood, however, never does and never will make any conclusion regarding the “jumpers” or anything else that’s in excess of what the empirical evidence simultaneously causes and allows her to make. A prominent motif in the book is the statement that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic,” said by Dr. Wood to have been “A powerful statement by someone who has taught me well.”
Certainly so. Dr. Wood makes no assertion beyond what the available evidence can cause or allow her to make—and yet her observations about the jumpers are among the most intensely fascinating and moving sections of a book that, throughout, will surprise readers by its poignancy and emotional power, all the while impeccably honoring the strictness and necessity of its scientific, forensic, empirical method.

It’s not easy to close a discussion of a book as rich, broad, significant, timely, and revelatory as Where Did the Towers Go? The range of research reflected in the book is immense, the power of its conclusions equally so. Dr. Wood does nothing less than show us that a source of power—power reaped from energy already existing in the world around us, what is called “free energy”—does indeed exist, has a long scientific history, and can be used either for monumentally destructive purposes, as it was on 9/11, or for peaceful, non-polluting, life-enhancing and earth-preserving purposes of the kind envisioned by one of its earliest interpreters, Nikola Tesla (1856-1943).
Probably nothing has resulted in more calumny, derision, misrepresentation, and programmatic smearing of Dr. Wood than this central element of her research. Even the ever-dubious Wikipedia gets in on the act, declaring that “in pseudoscience” the term “free energy,” as in the phrase “free energy suppression,” refers to “a conspiracy theory that advanced energy technologies are being suppressed by special interest groups.”
Every intelligent, attentive, and open-minded reader of Dr. Wood’s paradigm-changing book, however, will quickly discover that Wikipedia and those akin to it are the tendentious and devious pretenders, while Dr. Wood brings to this part of her subject the open eyes and mind, the objectivity and steadiness of view, not to mention the courage, that mark her here as being, once again, the true, observing scientist.
One of the most commanding sections of Where Did the Towers Go? is its seventeenth chapter, “The Tesla-Hutchison Effect.” The thoroughness and clarity of that chapter, the immense detail of it, not to mention its close analysis of enormous numbers of pieces of evidence—these characteristics, along with the historical background that the chapter provides, make it the foundation stone for every other part of Where Did the Towers Go?
I won’t duplicate the entire argument of the Tesla-Hutchison chapter, or summarize it, or even try to. The case is there for all who are interested—for everyone—to see. The observable evidence is there, examples both of the curious results achieved by the Canadian experimenter and researcher himself—John Hutchison, for whom the effect is named—and examples of the great number of parallel results that are observable in materials left behind after the destruction of 9/11. Dr. Wood assembles and organizes these examples, and then she guides the reader through descriptive explanations of what her eye saw but that the reader’s eye may have missed: The close detail, for example, of fissured metal, peeled beams, or materials ruptured from the inside.
In Table 15, on page 349, Dr. Wood provides a list of “Characteristics of the Hutchison Effect and the WTC remains.” I won’t re-create the whole list, but, among others, it contains the following:
Slow Bending of Metals, Shredded Metal Structures, Fractured Metal Structures, Peeling appearance, Fusion of Dissimilar Materials, Thinning and Rapid Aging, Lift or Disruption, Toasted-Looking Metal, Circular holes in material, Rounded Holes in Glass, Lather, Fuming, Transmutation, Weird Fires, Melting Without Heat, Metal Luminance Without Heat
For reasons doubtless best known to them, those who have placed themselves in opposition to Dr. Wood’s research and work—and now in some cases in opposition to the unmolested public circulation of Where Did the Towers Go?—have often chosen this segment aspect of her studies as a target for smear and calumniation. John Hutchison, perhaps because he holds no academic affiliation, has been attacked as a quack and showman, although if such were really the case I find it curious why the military both of Canada and the U.S. would have shown such interest in his work as they have or why researchers would have attempted—sometimes successfully—to repeat his experiments.
The suppression of breakthroughs in the exploration and mastery of free energy has a long history, beginning with Nikola Tesla himself, whose transmitting tower in Shoreham, New York, built (1901-1905) with financial support from J. P. Morgan, “was planned to be the first broadcast system, transmitting both signals and power without wires to any point on the globe” (http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm). The effort ended poorly. “Because of a dispute between Morgan and Tesla as to the final use of the tower. . . Morgan withdrew his funds. The financier’s classic comment was, ‘If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?’” (same source)
Near the same time as the construction of Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Laboratory and transmitting tower on Long Island, George Piggott, in his own laboratory, achieved the levitation of small silver balls (Where Did the Towers Go? p. 352), while Edward Leedskalnin, “a Latvian emigrant. . . known for his unusual understanding of the interaction between magnetism and gravity,”
single-handedly built the home he called Coral Castle, in Florida City, cutting and moving limestone pieces weighing up to 35 tons using simple tools and a chain hoist that could not in “real” terms support such a load. (Where Did the Towers Go? .p. 352)
In 1953, another inventor and experimenter, Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985), proposed that a consortium of major universities and research institutes join together in what was to be called “Project Winterhaven,” the purpose being to continue “Research on the Control of Gravitation.” “In exploring the ‘electro-gravitic couple,’ Brown had already brought about the levitation of materials in his own experimentation, but he was convinced there was much more to be learned about the process he had begun to control,” a process that he “felt certain. . . would make possible enormous advances not only in communication but also and more notably in propulsion.” In his proposal for the project, he wrote:
It is believed by the sponsors of Project WINTERHAVEN that the technical development of the electrogravitic reaction would usher in a new age of speed and power and of revolutionary new methods of transportation and communication. Theoretical considerations would predict that. . . top limits of speed may be raised far beyond those of jet propulsion or rocket drive, with possibilities eventually of approaching the speed of light in “free space.” The motor which may be forthcoming will be essentially soundless, vibrationless and heatless. (Where Did the Towers Go?, pp. 355-356)
It is impossible for any reader today, especially one who was also alive in 1953, in the time of the newly-accelerating and ever-accelerating corporatizing of America, to be surprised that so promising an exploration of a non-polluting and renewable energy source as Project Winterhaven represented would in fact have come to no fruition, or that Thomas Townsend Brown would have ended his life in relative obscurity.
Oil-for-profit interests ruled and reigned in 1953, just as we all know they still do—providing reason for scientists, writers, and researchers like Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison to be maligned, sidelined, and made ignorable by smokescreen, trickery, and deceit. And yet at the same time as the Earth-rapists’ do all they can to kill off public awareness of free energy and to smear and tamp down socially-conscious research into it, there are others who are ever so eager to find out everything they can about it and to carry on secret programs of research into it. Who? Well, the militaries of the world, for one.
And so we have the schizoid situation of seeing, on the one hand, organized calumniation and programs of deceit aimed at figures like Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison for exploring the free-energy tradition of Nikola Tesla, while, on the other hand, we have the demonstration, on 9/11, for all the world to see, of just exactly how horrendously destructive weaponized forms of directed free-energy can be.
The inescapable conclusion is that those who are dictators and controllers of the world have galloped ahead in their work of weaponizing free energy while those seeking, in the tradition of Tesla, to explore the benefits of free energy for humanity are ridiculed, silenced, and persecuted.
It is time to bring this piece of writing to an end. It is time for a conclusion. And I conclude that any intelligent, interested, and open-minded reader of Where Did the Towers Go? will come away from the experience of that reading with something of extraordinary value. Another passage from my Foreword:
Those who read Dr. Wood’s book fairly, openly, and thoroughly will take away with them the gift of knowing once and for all what happened on 9/11. They will take away the gift of knowing that they have at last been shown the truth clearly and plainly, no matter how different this truth may be from what they have been told for many years by supposedly higher authorities, from the government itself on through newspapers, journalists, progressive radio programs and commentators, even figures from the “9/11 truth movement.” Dr. Wood’s book will give all those who read it carefully a solid foundation for the courage to believe not what they may have been told by one authority or another on any level and for many years, but to believe instead what their own minds, their own eyes, and their own reason tell them: That is, scientific truth as revealed through close forensic study of all of the evidence that has been left behind. As Dr. Wood says again and again, she arrives at truth through the study of evidence. The truth is not what anyone, no matter who they are, might say it is. To the place where the evidence leads, and to that place alone—that is where the truth is.
Readers of Dr. Wood’s book will see for themselves evidence of levitation (overturned firetrucks and automobiles, testimony from people again and again that they were lifted up, transported thirty feet or sixty feet, then let down again); will see for themselves evidence of the absence of heat on 9/11 (unburned paper; the EMS worker whose coat, sneakers, and hair caught on fire as she ran but who had no injuries beyond bumps and bruises the next morning); evidence of molecular dissociation (automobile engine blocks simply missing); evidence of the alteration, including the liquification, of materials without the heating of materials (writes Dr. Wood: “Things that are hot glow, but not everything that glows is hot”); and evidence again and again that the weight of the WTC buildings never did hit the ground (the reinforced cement “bathtub” that ringed the below-water-level WTC complex remained almost entirely unharmed—and yet after 9/11 the mere rolling over it of heavy machinery endangered the integrity of the cement ring, this while the unimaginable “weight” of all the great towers had not harmed it).
The examples are immense in number and in impact, as readers will find. Again, from my Foreword:
Let us make a list of the things that Dr. Wood proves in Where Did the Towers Go?—proves not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever:
1) That the “official” or “government” explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is, scientifically, false through and through.
2) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by heat generated from burning jet fuel or from the conventional “burning” of any other substance or substances.
3) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by mini-nuclear weaponry.
4) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by conventional explosives of any kind, be they TNT, C4 or RDX, nor were they destroyed by welding materials such as thermite, thermate, or “nano-thermite.”
5) That there was in fact no high heat at all involved either in bringing about the destruction of the buildings or generated by the destruction of them.
And yet once more:
And now let us turn to what Dr. Wood proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
She proves that the kinds of evidence left behind after the destruction—including “fires” that emit no heat and have no apparent source (“Weird Fires”); glowing steel beams and molten metal, neither of them emitting high heat; the levitation and flipping of extremely heavy objects, including automobiles and other vehicles; patterns of scorching that cannot have been caused by conventional “fire” (“Toasted Cars”); the sudden exploding of objects, people, vehicles, and steel tanks; the near-complete absence of rubble after the towers’ destruction, but instead the presence of entire buildings’-worth of dust, both airborne and heavier-than-air (“Dustification”)—Dr. Wood proves that these and other kinds of evidence cannot have been created by conventional oxygen-fed fire, by conventional explosives, or by nuclear fission. At the same time, however, she shows that all of them are in keeping with the patterns and traits of directed-energy power, of force-fields directed into interference with one another in ways following the scientific logic of Nikola Tesla’s thought and experimentation—and in ways also paralleling the work of contemporary Canadian scientist and experimenter John Hutchison, who, following Tesla’s lead, has for many years produced again and again and again “the Hutchison effect,” creating results that include weird fires (having no apparent fuel); the bending, splintering, or fissuring of bars and rods of heavy metal; the coring-out, from inside, of thick metal rods; and the repeated levitation of objects.

There are important things that I haven’t mentioned—the presence and bizarre behavior of Hurricane Erin offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in the days preceding 9/11 and on the day itself (why didn’t news and weather reports so much as mention the presence of this massive, Category 3 hurricane just offshore?); the recording of thunder at all three of the major NYC airports on 9/11, a clear-blue-skied day of “perfect” weather; the presence of an enormous high-pressure cell approaching the New York City area from the west; the dramatic fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field at key moments in the destruction of the WTC buildings, as recorded by six Alaskan magnetometer data sites.
Dr. Wood’s book is of an almost indescribable importance. Her research has been denigrated and accused as incomplete, and now her book is being denigrated and accused as incomplete, for failure to identify (and, as Dr. Wood says, “give the serial number of”) the precise, specific, exact “weapon” that was used on 9/11 “as well as the social security numbers of all who were involved.” But as Dr. Wood writes,
Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic. I have repeated this statement several times in this book because its importance cannot be over emphasized. In today’s culture of over simplification and standardized multiple-choice testing, many have an impulse to name a known technology (e.g. thermite, TNT, RDX, nukes, progressive collapse, HAARP, scalar weapons, torsion physics, Nazi Bell, etc.) instead of looking at the evidence that the use of one technology or another has left behind. …
Some people feel they are being more scientific when they use the name of a known technology to describe unknown phenomena, but the opposite is true. Such an approach omits evidence that does not fit any known technology. For some people, the term “HAARP” or the term “scalar weapons” or the term “Nazi Bell” is used as a catch-all weapon that can be blamed for whatever evidence needs to be explained, like the ultimate “boogieman,” and without their even knowing what these weapons can do. Furthermore, if the full capabilities are classified information, they would not be publicly known. And a weapon that could produce all of the effects we saw on 9/11 would certainly not be in the public domain, no matter whose weapon it was. For these reasons, I have tried to focus on the phenomena, not on a trendy name of a particular technology. The evidence must come before the theory. It is understanding what the technology can do that matters, not the name of it. For these reasons, I have resisted the impulse to name a known technology and instead have focused on the physical evidence. There will likely be those who will not be as successful in resisting the impulse to put a name of a known technology on the producer of this evidence. This naming, however, will only serve to pull a veil of mystery over it.
Clearly, we have been lied to for an entire decade in regard to the truth of 9/11. Just as clearly, the “9/11 truth movement” has revealed itself to be as much a part of the cover-up as it is of anything else. At the same time, knowing what really did happen on 9/11 is the only way—is the essential first step—toward any significant taking of positions or any significant political action.
9/11 was an enormity—an event greater in its importance and in the vastness of its result than was the sinking of the Maine, than were the manipulations that brought about Pearl Harbor, or than were the falsifications that led to the Tonkin Bay Resolution. 9/11 was the faked “attack” that “justified” the “Global War on Terror,” that “justified” the demonization of Islam, that “justified” war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere, and that “justified” the reduction of the United States from a free republic into a police state, albeit, perhaps, not yet an entirely realized one.
I wrote that “Where Did the Towers Go? is a work, assuming that its content and message are properly and fairly heeded, that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.”
In our world, science and politics may be inextricable from one another. Dr. Judy Wood has shown us, scientifically, the full extent and the obscene measure of the enormous lie that was 9/11. It is now up to all of us to study the lesson she has offered us, since without having learned that lesson, it will not be possible to know how to take the next steps toward the freeing of humanity from the half-visible tyranny that now marches it toward its destruction.
Emeritus professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, Eric Larsen is founding Publisher and Editor of The Oliver Arts & Open Press. His most recent book is The Skull of Yorick: The Emptiness of American Thinking at a Time of Grave Peril—Studies in the Cover-up of 9/11.
[1] “Consider where we’ve come. Torture is legal. The stripping of habeas corpus is legal, not just for outlanders but for citizens. With the Bushiscti’s change of the Insurrection Act, and with that change’s attendant weakening of Posse Comitatus—Treblinka would now be legal in America. Treblinka is now legal in America.” From my book, The Skull of Yorick, chapter 4, “The Aftermath of the Great Crime of 9/11: America Aids in the Staging of its Own Murder,” page 24 (from The Oliver Arts & Open Press).

__________________________

Below is a list of some of the principal data involved with the destruction of the World Trade Center complex that must be explained. What I find intriguing is point 39, Hurricane Erin.

1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.”

2 They underwent mid-air pulverization (dustification) and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.

5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that “The Gap” was looted.

6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.

8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.

9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.

12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.

13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.

14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.

15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.

16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.

18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.

19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.

20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.

21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.

23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.

24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.

25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.

26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.

27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.

29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.

31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.

32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.

33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.

35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.

36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.

37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth’s magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.

39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.

40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.

41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

Hurricane Erin is covered in Chapter 18 (pages 395-412) of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood.

This is the introduction to the chapter:

“It was a beautiful early-autumn morning in New York City. September 11, 2001, started out calm, with pleasant temperatures and crystalline blue skies. Some had taken time to do early morning errands. But very few of those people, in fact very few among the entire population of New York City, knew that a massive hurricane was located at that very same time just off the shore of Long Island. That storm was Hurricane Erin, as seen in Figure 411:”

Why was Hurricane Erin traveling straight for NYC from September 3rd-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by any major media broadcast in that area? Most people are totally unaware that Hurricane Erin came closest to New York City and reached its largest size on 9/11. Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina (i.e. Kinetic Energy as measured by Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index*), and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on by any major corporate media station? Furthermore, why was Hurricane Erin still not reported on when it reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it diverted from its straight-line trajectory by suddenly turning and heading out to sea? How were meteorologists absolutely certain that this hurricane would make a sharp right-hand turn away from New York City? Not only is New York City near sea level, but so is most of Long Island. Evacuation from those areas would be a mammoth undertaking and could not be organized at a moment’s notice and yet the public remained uninformed. The data shows that Erin slowed down as it approached New York City and then remained almost stationary during the morning of 9/11. Immediately after the World Trade Center complex was attacked, Erin began to move away from New York City. Coincidentally, Hurricane Erin was studied more than any other hurricane had been studied before, and more was learned from it than had been learned from any hurricane before it.

NASA Makes A Heated 3-D Look Into Hurricane Erin’s Eye
Hurricane Erin raced across the North Atlantic and along the eastern seaboard in September 2001. She was used as an experiment for a study to improve hurricane tracking and intensity predictions, allowing meteorologists to provide more accurate and timely warnings to the public.

The mission originated from the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla. The mission united researchers from 10 universities, five NASA centers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CAMEX-4 is a series of field research investigations to study tropical cyclones — storms commonly known as hurricanes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051007090048.htm

Mission Summary – Hurricane Erin
http://web.archive.org/web/20040116023331/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/HFP2001/Mission_Sum_010910H.pdf

9/11 Morning Weather Reports | NYC Not Warned of Approaching Hurricane Erin
http://www.youtube.com/v/1xWjdYnpxUg

*The accumulated cyclone energy index (ACE) for Hurricane Erin was HIGHER than the ACE index for Hurricane Katrina. This subject is covered in Chapter 18, section E, page 405 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the North Atlantic hurricane season. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and by adding together the energy per some interval of time, the accumulated energy is found. As the duration of a storm increases, more values are summed and the ACE also increases such that longer-duration storms may accumulate a larger ACE than more-powerful storms of lesser duration.

To buy bulk volumes of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? send an email to: book@wheredidthetowersgo.com

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Open Letter to Pete Santilli: Shove It Up Your Ass

wordpress analytics

Here is a post from Pete on Jim Fetzer’s review of Judy Wood’s book:

Peter Santilli says:

“Who do you work for? Obviously you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, because you are very unaware of your surroundings. You should be petrified of what I am about to expose about Fetzer’s treason against the USA.

If you call me a fraud, you will need to back it up with evidence…..quit treating me like your hap-hazard, bogus 9-11 investigation. I will hold you accountable for evidence you’re spewing about me as I will on your 9-11 fraud.

I heard you & jabba-the-hut claimed I am not a certified crime scene investigator. If I wanted to waste my time to counter every inaccurate statement about me, I would make you both look as incompetent in your investigation of my background as you are with presenting 9-11 evidence. NO WONDER WHY YOU HAVE ME ON YOUR ARSES. You guys are a mess when it comes to presenting facts, and just because you lie with a smooth tone & confidence, it doesn’t make you credible as a con-artist.

The burden of proof is on you. I am focused on EVIDENCE on 9-11, as well as EVIDENCE about James Fetzer (Jabba the hut). You and Jabba focus on attacking….except you picked the wrong person to attack. Of all the inaccuracies you have presented to the public, I would give you & Fetzer 1 trillion dollars for every negative; PSY-OP style statement about my background. You guys are about as far off the mark on my background as you are on 9-11 evidence. Tell Fetzer, if my background was able to withstand Coca-Cola’s background check by their HUGE legal team (I’m absolutely untouchable—CLEAN) his attacks are a piece of cake. I prosecuted as the lead plaintiff & former executive for Coca-Cola a $200 million class action lawsuit….tell him I’m about to spend every dime of my confidential settlement to make sure he goes to a concentration camp in shackles; if he doesn’t die of a stroke from the pressure of his outting.

When you attack me, I laugh. I will respond to your attacks in a way that will make you wish you knew that I am the one person you never should have messed with.

Tell Fetzer I was informed that he said I was FiRED from Coke…and no; I was not a driver (Same style fact finding with my background as his 9-11 fraud, but confident delivery doesn’t cover up the lies; especially when I am on his arse)….I was fired because I refused to take their hush money when I discovered they were stealing $200,000-400,000 MONTHLY IN OVERTIME WAGES FROM HOURLY EMPLOYEES. They fired me, and guess what……they are STILL paying out to this day. They absolutely regret ever messing with me, because when I set my sites on the big fat prize: exposing truth: I can never be stopped. Unlike all of Fetzer’s fraudulent 911 assertions, all of these facts are on the public record in the court system.

My goal is to make sure you all have the same regret that Coke did. and BTW…spend your time elsewhere if you want to find anything factual about me or the Coke case….they spent MILLIONS scrubbing; covering up their deeds and settling with me. Nothing is in the public domain, but I will say this:

Don’t make the same mistake Coke did & when you start believing your lies; that’s when I have you. This thread is something you should use as confirmation of everything I have been saying….and this thread is the beginning of one of the most horrifying experiences in your entire life if you chose to continue in my path…..make the right choice, because this will be the moment you look back upon to say “DANG, I should have backed off when I had the chance”

If you want to be so creative in making stuff up about 9-11 & my background, use some creativity & ~pretend~ that you know what I am about to do on behalf of the American public…just pretend and spare yourself the agony of making the wrong choice (as Coca-Cola did)

Here’s what I did with them. First I told them about “truck of truth”; then I showed them the truck of truth; then I told them they were about to get run over by The truck of truth…it’s part of my ethical code of conduct……they ignored my ethical standards & thought I was bluffing. I finally GAVE them The truck of truth, and brought them to their knees & they are regretting their fatal business error to this day.

Fetzer and Fox:

This….as a means of “Telling you about the truck of truth”……. is your final warning: What I am about to do will bring you to your 9-11/PSY-OP knees, and the truck of truth cannot be stopped if you tried.”

Obviously Mr. Santilli has a greatly exaggerated opinion of himself. He barely knows the first thing about 9/11 and can hardly carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject. I could care less about his dealings with Coke or the rest of his background. He’s on my radar because he is the newest addition to the Judy Wood cult. Judy Wood is a known 9/11 disinfo agent. She denies that nukes were used to destroy the WTC buildings. She stands in front of a video of the North Tower being nuked and a mushroom cloud rising and tries to convince everyone that the building is “turning into dust” as the result of “directed free-energy technology.” Judy Wood has no credibility to discuss the destruction of the WTC buildings. Pete Santilli has even less credibility than Judy Wood if that is possible.

Pete you have no “truck of truth.” There is no truth in you. You are an obnoxious attack dog blowhard shilling for Judy Wood. It won’t take long for your audience to figure out you’re a complete fraud and a shill. In fact Hatrick Penry has already exposed you: http://hatrickpenry.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/stewart-rhodes-and-sheriff-mack-are-controlled-opposition/

We’re not intimidated by your bully tactics or lunatic Judy Wood cult BS. Shove it up your ass!

Dr. Judy Wood: 9/11 Gatekeeper Extraordinaire

wordpress analytics

Abstract: Dr. Judy Wood steadfastly denies that bombs were used in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Indeed Wood attempts to eliminate ALL of the prominent theories of the WTC destruction including nuclear bombs, nanothermite and controlled demolition. While she claims not to have a theory she clearly attempts to persuade readers that directed free-energy technology was used to destroy the WTC buildings. After closely examining what she says in interviews and presentations and what she writes it has become clear that she is a 9/11 gatekeeper. I don’t have a paystub with her name on it from Langley to confirm this, but it is still reasonable to conclude that, if Judy Wood is not an operative or a “shill,” she acts as if she were one. If she is not getting a paycheck from Langley, she should be!

And, as Jim Fetzer and I have previously observed, Wood and her followers have the
characteristics that define a pseudo-scientific cult that claims to possess
privileged knowledge of 9/11, where they treat her book as though it were a
sacred text and refuse to engage in an open, scientific exchange about it’s
merits, which has become all too apparent from the discussion thread of the
Fetzer review on amazon.com.

For the record here is her bio from the script that her cult works from: “Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.”

Whatever Judy Wood is, she is NOT a 9/11 Truther. She makes that clear. As their script says “The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or “belief”. Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood’s research and collection of evidence as compiled in her textbook the truth is known, so there is no need to “Re-investigate 9/11”. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her textbook.”

On January 5th, 2013 Pete Santilli interviewed Jim Fetzer about the events of 9/11. It appears that Santilli was trying to work himself into a lather and confront Fetzer about his suppressing Judy Wood’s “evidence.” Although what Judy Wood presents in her book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 cannot be classified as evidence.

As Ben Collet so adroitly points out in the discussion thread of Fetzer’s review of Wood’s book on Amazon.com: “In fact nothing in Dr. Wood’s book is evidence. They are facts, but they are not evidence. As Dr. Fetzer explained, facts are only evidence if they contribute to showing the truth or falsity of a theory or hypothesis. Since Dr. Wood says she has no theory or hypothesis, therefore, by definition, she has no evidence. So either stop claiming the book contains evidence, or else tell us what definition of the word “evidence” you are using – because it’s not the one used by everyone else.”

Hurricane Erin: Irrelevant to the Events of 9/11

The first item on Santilli’s script was hurricane Erin. However Wood never explains to us how Erin is relevant to the events of 9/11.

On drjudywood.com Andrew Johnson states: “One of the most striking pieces of the data presented is that from a set of magnetometers monitored by the University of Alaska. Several instruments show significant deviations from “background” or “normal” readings as the events of 9/11 were unfolding. A further selection of this data is presented in relation to variations during the hurricane seasons of 2001, 2004 and 2005. A later part of the study examines some of the data relating to patterns of earthquakes in 2008 and possibly associated unusual weather patterns, which may be related to secret or partially disclosed environmental modification technology (such as HAARP). However, the study does not establish any clear links between HAARP and the events in New York on 9/11.

The National Hurricane Center’s website states: A few hours later, the eye of the hurricane passed within about 90 n mi east-northeast of Bermuda, which was Erin’s point of closest approach to the island. After brushing Bermuda, the hurricane continued to move mainly toward the north-northwest. On 10 September, Erin began to weaken, however the weakening was slower than usual over the ensuing days, due in part to slightly warmer than normal waters over the western subtropical Atlantic. A series of short-wave troughs weakened the western portion of the Atlantic subtropical ridge. This caused the motion of the hurricane to turn toward the right, with a decrease in forward speed, on the 11th. Erin’s heading veered toward the east-northeast and east on the 12th. Then, a broad, amplifying mid- to upper-level trough over eastern Canada accelerated Erin toward the northeast. The center passed just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland at 0000 UTC, while the system was weakening to just below hurricane strength. Then, Erin lost its tropical characteristics. The extratropical storm accelerated north-northeastward and passed over southern Greenland on 16 September, and merged with high-latitude cyclonic flow over eastern Greenland on the 17th. There were no reports of damage or casualties associated with Erin.

From the Weatherwise Magazine website: Several hundred miles out in the Atlantic, Hurricane Erin—the first Atlantic hurricane of the 2001 season—was weakening as it began to turn toward the north-northeast, away from the East Coast. Though it posed no threat to land, Erin had been producing large swells along local beaches and was one of the main headlines early that morning. In fact, The New York Times weather report on September 11 included a special “Focus” write-up on what it called “Hurricane Day,” explaining how in “9 out of 10 years since 1886, at least one tropical storm or hurricane has raged in the Atlantic on Sept. 11.”

“For those heading to an airport,” the 9/11 Commission report stated, “weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey.” The 8:51 a.m. temperature reading was 68°F at Central Park, 72°F at La Guardia, and 73°F at both JFK and Newark Airports.”

Erin caused no precipitation let alone physical damage to New York. Erin WAS reported in the New York Times weather section so it was NOT ignored in the media. A hurricane spinning out in the Atlantic happens 9 out of 10 years on September 11 so this was routine and hardly worthy of front page headlines. Wood fails to demonstrate HOW the hurricane was used to demolish the WTC buildings. The material on Wood’s website certainly is intended to lead a reader to believe that the hurricane played some role in the events of 9/11 but they DO NOT attempted to explain what that role is. How can we be accused of covering up evidence they don’t even present? One can conclude that they are using the hurricane as a distraction from what really happened to the WTC buildings.

Evidence for Mini-Nukes: Proof of Fission at the WTC

If the Hurricane didn’t have anything to do with the destruction of the WTC buildings then what did? Two government reports and a government IT article shed considerable light on this matter. First we will look at the dust and girder coating samples analyzed in the US Geological Survey report Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson never make an attempt to explain the data in this report.

Jeff Prager has done extensive work with this data and we will use his analysis to help us understand the findings of this report. Jeff states: It is critical to remember that we follow over a dozen elements across just as many locations and these elements must be viewed as they interact together, not as separate elements. The elements we’re about to examine work together, as we should expect. Thus, one might expect to see the presence of uranium refuted. One might expect to see the presence of strontium or other elements refuted individually. Yet when the elements are studied together as they increase and decrease predictably across a dozen locations the outcome is clear. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places). So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect.

The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed.

What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place.

It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission. When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

Ground Zero Temperatures Elevated for Six Months after 9/11

An article on the Government Computer News website Handheld app eased recovery tasks by Trudy Walsh September 09, 2002 states “Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn. For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

‘In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,’ Fuchek said.”

What fire can burn underground for six months? The only process that can explain this is fission. The temperatures stayed elevated until hundreds of dump truck loads of dirt had come and gone from Ground Zero and removed the nuclear material.

Proof of Fusion at the WTC

The next report we will look at is from the U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002) Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Tritium is an extremely rare hydrogen isotope. Hydrogen-3 or 3H is known as tritium and contains one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus. It is radioactive, decaying into helium-3 through β− decay with a half-life of 12.32 years. Small amounts of tritium occur naturally because of the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric gases. Tritium has also been released during nuclear weapons tests. It is used in thermonuclear fusion weapons, as a tracer in isotope geochemistry, and specialized in self-powered lighting devices. The most common method of producing tritium is by bombarding a natural isotope of lithium, lithium-6, with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. The presence of tritium in large quantities is a telltale sign of a hydrogen bomb.

It is vitally important to correctly interpret the data in the DOE report. So to help us make sense of the DOE data Ed Ward breaks down what is meant by “traces of tritium” in the basement of WTC 6:

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values. http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022)

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: · <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) · 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water · 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) · 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf  But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs.

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm) – http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure”. http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf. Interesting isn’t it.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

Ed Ward’s Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Fire Hose Water, 4 Million Gallons of Dilution:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx.)

WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft. (depth) by 120 ft. (diameter) crater.

WTC 6 was hot – see thermal images 2nd article on WTC Nukes.

Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.

There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but let’s be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).

8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre.

Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft. (depth) by 120 ft. (diameter) crater.

1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC 6 (no other places were checked.)

This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.12 BILLION TUs.

This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal.

Conclusions on Tritium

Tritium levels in the basement of WTC 6 were still 55 times greater than background 11 days after 9/11 and a million liters of rain and firehouse water had diluted the samples. Had the samples been collected before it rained twice and the fireman sprayed all of the water they could have potentially been above 6.12 billion TUs. That level would be equivalent to a leaking nuclear power plant (hot fusion). Wood offers no explanation for where the tritium came from. She has a graph in her book that shows the tritium levels were below EPA limits. Wood fails to explain HOW the tritium got there if not for nuclear bombs.

Synopsys of the WTC Mini-Nuke Theory

The basic tenants of the mini-nuke theory are that there were mini-nukes placed in the basements of the Twin Towers and buildings 6 and 7. There were also a series of mini-nukes placed in the core columns of the Twin Towers. The mini-nukes in WTC1 and 2 were configured to detonate from top to bottom to simulate a free fall collapse and to explode upward. This explains what is observed: a series of massive underground explosions precede the destruction of each tower, the buildings are destroyed from the top to bottom and the inside out and debris is ejected upward and outward. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction lands outside of the buildings’ footprint, destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance, 1/3 of the towers are completely vaporized, pyroclastic flow made up of a fine powder of gypsum, cement and steel covers Lower Manhattan.

Stairwell B

The Wood cult promotes the story of the North Tower survivors as proof nukes were not used. From the nymag.com website: Sixteen people survived inside the collapse of the World Trade Center, and they were all in Stairwell B of the North Tower, in the center of the building. The survivors were spread out between floors 22 and 1. A step or two slower meant death, but so, too, did a step or two faster. Captain Jay Jonas and five of his firefighters from Ladder Six, based in Chinatown, had been on the 27th floor of the North Tower when they heard a rumble, felt the staircase sway, watched as the lights flickered off and on. A captain from another company let Jonas know the cause of the disturbance: The South Tower had just collapsed.

“I’m pulling the plug,” Jonas said, and gave the order to evacuate. He didn’t tell his men why; they didn’t know that the South Tower was gone. “For me, that was the scariest point,” said Jonas. “I’m thinking, we’re not going to make it out.”

September 11 overran the usual defenses. Jonas and his men, finally freed from their stairwell, looked around at fires and flattened buildings. They thought they were witnessing a nuclear attack. “We usually show up at a chaotic situation, we make it better and we go home, almost every time,” says Jonas. “In the World Trade Center that really didn’t happen.” Well-disciplined emotions were suddenly impossible to contain.

Dustificiation

Wood denies that the buildings exploded. She believes that they somehow just “turned to dust” in a process known as “dustification.” This is patently absurd. The buildings clearly exploded. Below is a YouTube video of a Wood presentation. At 2:00 of the presentation she shows the North Tower EXPLODING and a mushroom cloud rising. And she denies nukes:

The buildings DID NOT TURN TO DUST IN PLACE! Indeed a 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected 600 + feet into the Winter Garden:

300 ton chunk of debris smashes into the Winter Garden

The FEMA debris pattern map demonstrates that the buildings exploded. 90% of the debris landed outside of the buildings’ footprint:GW500H493

Underground explosions precede the destruction of each Tower: wtc1summary01

 precollapsenew

The Judy Wood bottom line: no explosives, no nukes, no thermite and no need to re-investigate 9/11 because she has already done the investigation. If that isn’t a gatekeeper then what is?

At the WTC the dust and water samples tell the true story of what happened: 9/11 was a nuclear event. There is a reason it’s called Ground Zero folks. The time has come to recognize Judy Wood for what she is: a disinfo agent. She is there merely to confuse and obfuscate. Her group is not interested in free and open debate. They don’t spend any time going after the folks who brought you 9/11. All of their time is spent plugging her book and attacking other researchers. Her purpose is to crush the 9/11 Truth Movement.

To that end they have brought in Pete Santilli to be their new attack dog. Neophyte Pete goes after veteran 9/11 researchers with religious zeal. You can see why he fits right in to Wood’s cult.

Judy Wood has done enough damage to the 9/11 research community.

If you really want to learn what happened on 9/11 get past the gatekeepers and go read the presentations of Jeff Prager, Jim Fetzer, Nick Kollerstrom, Barbara Honegger and Chuck Boldwyn here on my blog. Go read Dr. Ed Ward’s blog. Read the Anonymous Physicist’s blog and the Finnish Military Expert. And while you’re at it watch 9/11 Eyewitness:

2012 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 11,000 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 18 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Saturday Night Special: Vikings vs. Packers NFC Wild Card Game

The Minnesota Vikings travel to the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field Saturday night to take on the Green Packers in what should be a wild Wild Card matchup. The Vikings have somehow managed to cobble together a four game win streak and make it into the NFL’s post season tournament. The last win came Sunday at the Dome against the Packers in a shootout 37-34. Aaron Rodgers has pretty much owned the Vikings throwing for 2,840 yards on 70% passing with 24 touchdowns and only four interceptions (116.4 passer rating). He got his again Sunday throwing for 365 yards and four touchdowns but came up short as the Purple hung on to win.

Conventional wisdom says that in order to win in today’s NFL you need a stud quarterback and complex passing attack. Indeed the Packers used that formula to win Super Bowl XLV two years ago. However the Vikings base their Neanderthal offense around future Hall of Fame RB Adrian Peterson. Running behind a fullback out of the I formation Peterson has rushed for 2,097 yards after tearing two knee ligaments a mere 373 days ago in a meaningless game against the Redskins. The Vikings rarely try to fool anyone. They just line up and knock you on your ass. Everyone knows what’s coming but they still can’t stop it.

Peterson gouged the Packers for 199 yards on Sunday. Peterson runs hard and with authority. Sure he can make people miss but he’s not afraid to put his head down and run someone over either. He wears down and demoralizes defenses. A prime example of that was a 28 yard run on second and 27 last Sunday against the Pack. For 99% of the teams in the NFL that is a passing situation. Not for the Vikings. Peterson can break a big run at any time.

The Vikings fortunes turned for the better this year when offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave shrunk the playbook and simplified things for second year QB Christian Ponder. Most coaches think that they have to fool the other team’s coaches in order to win. Musgrave has refreshingly simplified things and let the players play. The Vikings have some very talented players on offense but aside from Peterson most of them are offensive lineman. Center John Sullivan should be starting in the Pro Bowl. Tackles Matt Kalil and Phil Loadholt had great years – especially run blocking. FB Jerome Felton is starting in the Pro Bowl. Felton is an excellent blocker. He buries linebackers and paves the way for Peterson’s big runs. The WR corps may be the worst in the NFL but they CAN make some plays here and there as evidenced by Jarius Wright’s 65 yard catch and run last Sunday.

Watching the Vikings may give you flashbacks to 1966 but winning supersedes style points. Musgrave has come up with a formula for winning: give the ball to Peterson, make a few plays down the field and don’t turn it over. As long as Ponder doesn’t throw interceptions the Vikings are very difficult to beat.

Since 2002 the Packers are an underwhelming 2-4 in playoff games at Lambeau Field. In fact the Vikings won the last time they faced the Packers at Lambeau in the playoffs 31-17 after the 2004 season. Coming off a big win at home the Vikings are confident and not all intimidated by the Packers and their home crowd. Let all of the Hype begin and look for the Purple to come out with a hard fought 31-27 win. SKOL VIKINGS!!