Dr. Judy Wood: 9/11 Gatekeeper Extraordinaire – Dr. Judy Wood Liar

Veröffentlicht: März 13, 2015 in Uncategorized

dr.-judy-wood

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 bookWhere 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 statesA 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 websiteSeveral 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 tritiumhttp://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 websiteSixteen 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:

Advertisements
Kommentare
  1. Before you can charge someone with a crime, you have to know what crime was committed. Should a death be ruled a homicide by gunshot, there better be a bullet hole in the body…

    The order of crime solving, that one must first identify:

    1) WHAT happened before determining
    2) HOW „it“ happened…before one can determine
    3) WHO did „it“ or
    4) WHY they did „it.“

    Since writing her book, Dr. Wood has come to understand more clearly how cover-ups work. People are encouraged to skip step #1 and begin arguing about step #2. In order to argue about HOW „it“ happened, people are left to IMAGINE what „it“ was that happened. From then on, they are only addressing an imaginary problem, not a real problem. And they can never ever solve the real problem unless they begin with step #1, which defines WHAT the problem is they need to solve.

    THE DIRECTED ENERGY COVER-UP TEAM

    Other examples of Directed Energy (not necessarily used as a weapon) are radio waves, cell phone signals, TV remote control signals, wireless internet signals…etc.

    Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or „spacebeams“). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave in California (available in the internet archives), telling his audience that „Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space“ while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

    At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing „name the weapon“ game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting „HAARP“ for „Bin Laden.“

    In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to „naming a weapon“ is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

    Early on, Steven Jones created a website he called „The Journal of Nine Eleven Studies“ or J.O.N.E.S. It is referred to as a „peer-reviewed journal“ but the only peer-reviewing was to screen out true scientific work and post what he wanted his followers to believe. For the first two years, it was primarily used to promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work. For example, Jones recruited a patent attorney for the oil and gas industry (James Gourley) to write hit pieces on Dr. Wood, refuting „ray beams from outer space.“ This convinced his readers that „Judy Woods“ must be talking about „ray beams from outer space“ and that „such nonsense has been refuted.“ Refuting false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work does not refute Dr. Wood’s work — yet it creates the belief in the average person that Dr. Wood’s work has been refuted.

    Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or „outer space“? LOL Steven Jones used to ridicule Dr. Wood during his talks saying that „Judy Woods needs to make calculations to see if it is even possible to turn the buildings to dust“. But any reputable scientist knows that calculations are not a part of observing empirical evidence. What are the calculations for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence.

    The bottom line is that no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book nor can they. They only refute their own false propaganda about her book, not her book. Other detractors claim that „she hasn’t identified the weapon that was used so she’s got nothing.“ To the contrary. The evidence is PROOF that there exists a technology that can do what was done. It happened. That is, the fact that the buildings mostly turned to dust in mid-air shows that there exists a weapon that can turn buildings into dust in mid-air. It happened.

    The sub-title of the book, „Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11“ indicates that the book contains evidence of what happened on 9/11 and it is indeed evidence that a technology exists that can do what was done. But this technology does not have to be used for evil purposes. It can be used to provide free-energy to the world much to the demise of the oil and gas industry. That is, Dr. Wood is noting that the same technology that was used for evil can also be used for good. It’s a silver lining in the dark cloud… while also trying to stimulate thought about „what are we doing here? learning new ways to kill or to live“?

    „Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.“ -Dr. Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

    (Dr. Wood provides extraordinary, overwhelming, and conclusive evidence.)

    CONTROLLED EFFECTS
    by Dr. William L. Baker*

    „The effects can vary in the type of damage mechanism (e.g., blast/fragment, thermal, or ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE [c-DEW: been there, done that]) as well as the magnitude of the energy deposited on the target so that it will be just enough to defeat the target while minimizing collateral damage.“

    „Scientists will have to overcome technological hurdles, such as the production and storage of antimatter, the ability to propagate sensory information, OR THE ABILITY TO HARNESS AND EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT [Hurricane Erin 2001: been there, done that], before these sciencefiction concepts will become reality.“

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040608025356/http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html

    *Dr. William L. Baker retired on 1/2/10 as the Chief Scientist of the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. With an annual budget of more than $300 million, the directorate is responsible for all of the Air Force research and development of lasers, high-power microwave and advanced optical technologies. The directorate conducts advanced technology research to support major applications such as airborne lasers, large optical systems for space situational awareness, airborne high-power microwaves, long-range non-lethal weapons and improvised explosive device defeat. The Chief Scientist is the directorate’s primary adviser on scientific and technical matters and the primary authority for the technical content and quality of the science and technology portfolio.

    Dr. Baker was born in Columbus, Ohio. He received his doctorate in nuclear physics from The Ohio State University in 1969 and served four years on active duty in the Air Force as a nuclear research officer. In 1973 he became a civilian scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory where he performed and led high-energy plasma and pulse power research to develop new techniques to simulate nuclear weapon effects. His work in directed energy weapon technology began with high-energy particle beam weapons. Dr. Baker led a joint effort to develop a unique accelerator and used it to demonstrate stable beam propagation in open air. He then created and led the Air Force high-power microwave weapon technology program. As Chief Scientist, he led research and development on high-energy laser weapons technology and the application of advanced optics to space situational awareness. He is a nationally recognized contributor and leader across the entire spectrum of directed energy technologies. He has been president of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the past two years.

    Dr. Baker has written more than 50 publications in nuclear physics, plasma physics, pulsed power and directed energy.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20131214121916/http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107794/dr-william-l-baker.aspx

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s