!!!!! An important 9/11 Comment by Emmanuel Goldstein in response to a Reader

It is very apparent that Dennis Roundtree (wolf727) has not read Dr. Wood’s book and has a greater interest in parroting disinformation than the truth. Why would a Canadian building inspector for a small municipality (pop 918) believe he is more knowledgeable and has more expertise than a qualified forensic scientist? BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to…

Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book can give at least 10 reasons that rule out the theory by “AE911trutherd” that welding material destroyed the WTC. How many can you list ? Hint: the bottom of page 45, the top of page 171, the diagrams on page 81 and 84, the diagram at the bottom of page 11, and of course pages 122 to 127. The list is endless, actually.

Better yet, go to any engineering professor or professional engineer and ask if the welding material, thermite, can turn a building into dust in mid air in 10 seconds – or if thermite can turn a building to powder in mid air. You might leave red-faced, but at least you will know you’ve been fleeced.

By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.

>Bombs don’t do that.
>Thermite does not do that.
>Thermate does not do that.
>Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
>Nano-thermite does not do that.
>New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
>Firecrackers do not do that.
>Fire does not do that.
>Nukes do not do that.
>Megga nukes do not do that.
>Milli-nukes do not do that.
>Mini-nukes do not do that.
>Nano-nukes cannot do that.
>A wrecking ball cannot do that.
>A slingshot cannot do that.
>Missiles cannot do that.

We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the “dustification” was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, “dustification” was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy Weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers)

If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with “free energy” (i.e. “off the grid”). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood’s book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing “free energy” (“off the grid”) exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that “free-energy technology” exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood’s research.

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. (Chanting “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” is equivalent to chanting “Yes To Fascism!”)

AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control” ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought.

The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable

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 is why Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don’t. That is why those in charge of a cover up don’t want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood’s book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideasŠ That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book know this to be true.

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.

*Chapter 31. AE911 “Truth” and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010
AE911 – Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300) of 9/11Finding the Truth – A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood

**In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia’s book, “Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation”, the name “Judy Wood” is a search term used to disqualify a person’s affiliation with AE911Truth.

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to !!!!! An important 9/11 Comment by Emmanuel Goldstein in response to a Reader

  1. I have researched AE911truth tax returns and the following confirms my findings.

    We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.


    • Jean says:

      Even though this issue is closed, I will publish this link! It needs to be out there in the public domain so everyone can take a look . . .Thanks and hugs, ~Jean

  2. If anyone has questions that are related to Dr. Wood’s book I suggest that instead of spending hours and hours posting on forums to simply read her book! 🙂

    Remember how the tobacco industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of tobacco and cancer? Remember how the petroleum industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of the health consequences of tetraethyl lead in gasoline? Remember how the NFL ridiculed the scientific correlation of football-inflicted head injuries and irreversible brain damage? Remember when the asbestos companies ridiculed the scientific correlation of asbestos and lung cancer? Ask yourself, what business interests would benefit from ridiculing the scientific correlation of the WTC destruction by DEW and free energy (off the grid)? I can guarantee you that it’s not the thermite industry! 🙂

    • Jean says:

      Robin, in case you aren’t aware, I’ve already closed this discussion. Since your comment is filled with angry statemetns, I’m not going to publish it. Hugs, ~Jean

  3. “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” ― Winston Churchill

    Mr. Rowntree,

    If Richard Gage has evidence of WTC destruction with the use of a welding material (thermite), then why hasn’t he filed a court case like Dr. Wood did? Dr. Wood does not ask for donations. Why does Richard Gage ask for donations to his truth club? Where did Richard Gage come from? Dr. Wood has a long and verifiable history.

    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. Truth is singular and unifying. By reading Dr. Wood’s research and collection of evidence as compiled in her book the truth is known, so there is no need to “Re-investigate 9/11” or “call for a new investigation” unless the objective is to divert everyone away from the truth. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her book. 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.

    The thermite bandwagon is an excellent demonstration of just how easy it is to herd public opinion. Magicians don’t need to lie; they just need to charm the audience into making wrong assumptions and the audience will generate the lies themselves. (Mr. Rowntree) The lies don’t need to last forever. They only need to last until it is too late to undo things and see more clearly. The simple fact, validated by the almost complete lack of commensurate debris on the ground, indicates that the buildings went up, they did not come down.

    Now those who have read Dr. Wood’s book 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 Mr. Rowntree?

    Thank you for bringing to my attention the correct spelling of your name and other errors Mr. Rowntree. I’ve corrected my file.

    Dennis Rowntree (wolf727)

    I was born in Canada with an Italian (Roman) mother, English father and Argentinian grandfather. At the age of 10, I was uprooted and made to move with my mother to live in England for eight years. My father would continue to travel and live in foreign lands. He was working with the U.N. Because of his work I have visited foreign countries in Europe, Africa, South America and West Indies. I slowly came to the realization that one’s true home was to be found within oneself. There is within every Being an essence that is part of the Divine. We and Everything are all connected to that Divinity. We realize that connection through Silence or meditation, when we still the chatter of our minds. Truth is in spirituality and not in religion. God is bigger than religion. I look forward to the day when real ‘truth’ and not ‘propaganda’ lies reveals the mass corruption that has taken hold of the planet. May the days of the NWO global elites come to an end.


    YouTube wolf727

    Has Mr. Rowntree merely projected his own theories onto what he wishes to believe? To put it simply, what happened to the buildings (mid-air dustification) is evidence that a technology exists that can do that to buildings. But that technology doesn’t have to be used to do that to buildings but can instead be used for good purposes, like freeing people from the energy-control system by providing free energy to the world. So, the evidence of what happened on 9/11 is evidence that free-energy technology exists. Capisce?

    How to Disappear Completely – A Short Film About Dustification

    It appears that Mr. Rowntree has not read Dr. Wood’s book and has only read rumors about Dr. Wood’s work or watched a YouTube video or two. It might come as a surprise to Mr. Rowntree, but Dr. Wood does not present a theory in any way, shape, or form. Dr. Wood presents a forensic study. And, because she only presents evidence and an analysis of the evidence, her work cannot be refuted. This causes a lot of problems for those interested in covering up what happened. (transnational energy lobby)

    Dr. Wood does show parallel evidence, such as an incandescent light and a fluorescent light in her book, to demonstrate the fact that although “hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot.” This does not mean that Dr. Wood has “a lightbulb theory.” Similarly, it does not mean that Dr. Wood has a Thomas Townsend Brown theory either. She also doesn’t have a Leedskalnin theory, or a Tesla theory. And surely Tesla was not the first. John Hutchison replicated the work of Tesla. So, those that claim John Hutchison is a fraud would be claiming that Tesla was a fraud too.

    Dr. Wood does not have a Tesla theory or a light bulb theory or any other kind of theory. You cannot solve a crime with a theory. Either you know something or you don’t. You can’t file a federal qui tam case based on a theory without being sanctioned (fined) for wasting the court’s time. Dr. Wood filed such a case and was not fined by the court.


    But again, the easiest way to cover up evidence is to refer to it as “a theory.” After all, why is there still a cover up of 9/11? The facts are known to those who want to know them. But most people would rather call these facts “a theory” and keep them covered up. Knowing that Dr. Wood does not have a theory, she doesn’t have one to be wed to. In contrast, perhaps we should question Mr. Rowntree on why he is so wed to his theory that thermite destroyed all seven WTC buildings?

    Occam’s Razor is to minimize assumptions. Dr. Wood only looks at evidence and does not make assumptions. If there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, Dr. Wood states this. But from the evidence, we can rule out Thermal Energy and Kinetic Energy as the destructive mechanism. And from the evidence, we can conclude that energy was instructed (directed) to do something differently so that the binding energy of matter was affected in a particular geographical region (directed).

    The evidence that Dr. Wood presents rules out Thermal Energy as the destructive mechanism. So those who claim “Dr. Wood promotes laser beams from space” actually identify themselves as promoting disinformation. The buildings were not cooked to death nor beaten to death.

    9/11. Finding the Truth. A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson. Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood.

    • wolf727 says:

      Mr Goldstein,

      Interesting that you seem to want to put me in one of your files.

      You wrote all that and still you have not addressed my question. Why?

      I shall repeat it. Why does Judy Wood claim there were no “extreme temperatures” and no “molten steel” and yet evidence provided by NASA and EarthData satellites confirm there were extreme temperatures, and witnesses including firefighters state categorically there were “pools of molten steel”.

      You wrote: “Has Mr. Rowntree merely projected his own theories onto what he wishes to believe?”

      You say I am projecting my own theories on what I wish to believe? You consider NASA and EarthData satellites indicating extreme temperatures a theory? You consider the videoed evidence of firemen stating there were pools of molten steel “as if you’re in a foundry” to be a theory?

      Judy Wood states there were no extreme temperatures and there were no molten steel. I have brought forward to you evidence from NASA and EarthData satellites confirming extreme temperatures and evidence of actual firefighters on video stating categorically they witnessed pools of molten steel. And you call that projecting my own theories.

      Judy Wood claims steel from WTC1 & WTC2 simply turned to dust. The following link shows how there was a lot of steel spread about that did not turn to dust. This is video evidence of steel that did not turn to dust.

      Look at how much steel was remaining and scattered all over the place which she says turned to dust.

      I don’t see piles of dust. I see piles of steel and debris. This is what I call evidence. Take a good close look at the following photos and tell me if that is dust or piles of steel and debris. If you say you see dust, then you are obviously hypnotised by a Judy Wood club and are refusing to see evidence before your eyes.

      You show me a YouTube short film as if to say that is evidence of “dustification”. That is not evidence of dustification. That only shows a building collapsing that is typical of any building being demolished in controlled demolition.

      Here is how Judy Wood blatantly misrepresent the amount of steel, the nature of the active thermitic material found in the dust and temperature of the dust:


      Here is how scientific she treats the subject:

      From frame:7:32 in following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCFmhWIKk4 you have WTC7 on the left and an acknowledged controlled demolition building on the right. Both buildings create clouds of dust as is normal in controlled demolition.

      Just by pointing at clouds of dust and saying that is evidence of dustifcation by DEW is a theory you are forcing to put to the viewer. All videos of buildings being demolished release clouds of dust. That is a fact.

      This is not evidence. Judy Wood is merely projecting her own theories onto what she wishes to believe.

      Your video is showing clouds of dust which is what you would see in any building being demolished and especially by controlled demolition using thermitic material. And we have the evidence of thermitic materials found in the dust.

      “The chemical signature of the examined spheres matched the chemical signature of spheroids produced by common thermite and by red/gray nano-thermite composite chips found in the WTC dust, indicating that thermitic reactions took place as part of the towers’ demise. The DEW hypothesis does not address this and cannot account for it because it is inconsistent with the extreme heat required to produce it.” – Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
      Sunday, 18 May 2014 00:00

      Once again we have witnesses to explosions in the buidling. We have from frame: 23:38 once again firefighters saying categorically ‘that floor by floor it started popping out; it was if they had detonators planted to take down a building.’ And at the same time his hand shows how these explosions were moving down the sides of the building. Once again evidence from firefighters.

      Again you refuse to answer my questions regarding firefighters’ witnessed accounts to pools of molten steel and NASA and EarthData satellites confirming evidence of extreme temperatures. You cherry pick the data.

      I discovered in an interview with Jim Fetzer on RBN Live – WTC Destruction 11 Nov 2006

      [audio src="http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Jim%20Fetzer%20&%20Prof%20Judy%20Wood%20on%20RBN%20Live%20-%20WTC%20Destruction%2011%20Nov%202006.mp3" /]

      She says from :0:59:41 the evidence of “molten steel” given by witnesses is a ‘cover story’. A cover story? She says she has not seen evidence of it.

      She calls all witnesses, including firefighters, to be lying – they are involved in a cover story.

      Sorry. I don’t buy that. She now deliberately accuse all firefighters to be involved in a cover story.

      From frame: 0:50:05 she states categorically that “the steel was not there… was never there”. She was saying there was no steel to be transported to China. Look again. There is steel there!

      Here is a photo of steel that she says in the interview was never there:

      and here:

      And once again look closely at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcM-B-pFuc

      Those long strips in the photo are steel beams. There are a lot of steel beams in the picture shown. And yet, Judy Wood in the above interview categorically states: there was no steel there – none! Why do we see steel in the pictures if there was not meant to be any steel left?

      You say I am “projecting” a theory. No, Mr Goldstein, it is Judy Wood who is projecting a theory by ignoring evidence.

      Any evidence that does not fit with her story is a “cover up”. Yeah… right. Funny, this sounds very much like what the 9/11 Commission Report does, ignore and deny witnesses and evidence to explosions, extreme heat and pools of molten steel.

      Mr Goldstein, Judy Wood calls all firefighters and witnesses to be in a “cover up”. In other woods, they are “all” lying.

      That is how you and all your followers treat your American firefighters? You deny the statements from firefighters who said categorically there were pools of molten steel.

      It was so much a “cover up”, according to Judy Wood, that NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a 30-year NYFD veteran, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT first responders to record their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11. The entire testimony was “chucked out” and refused by the 9/11 Commission.

      If this is a “cover up”, why would NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen set up interviews with his firefighters in order to collect evidence of what they saw, heard and felt that day?

      They reported explosions, extreme heat, molten steel etc. And Judy Wood is saying categorically that several hundreds of these witnesses are lying and involved in a conspiracy – a cover story!

      “Within a month of 9/11, NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a 30-year NYFD veteran, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT first responders to record their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11.
      The stories of 503 men and women ran to 12,000 pages. Graeme MacQueen, a recently retired religious studies professor, read them all. In addition to the heartrending nature of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions, a controlled demolition. Failure to officially acknowledge this evidence is further proof of an inside job. MacQueen (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada) narrowed down the testimony of 118 first responders as especially court-worthy testimony. But he notes the entire testimony was excluded by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [Part 1 of 2; Part 2: First Responders Testimony] Video prepared for the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, June 22-24, 2007 / snowshoefilms yoryevrah

      Sorry, Mr Goldstein, I listen to firefighters and what they have to say. From frame: 0:24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
      is a firefighter who tells you point blank he saw molten steel. His body language is telling me he is telling the truth. Judy Wood is telling me this is a cover up. Prove it.

      I believe the firefighter who saves lives. I believe the hundreds of firefighters who were interviewed by NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen. It doesn’t make any sense at all for Judy Wood to say there is a cover up and that the firefighters are involved in the cover up when NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen took the step to interview hundreds of firefighters on that day and all of his testimonies from firefighters were rejected by 9/11 Commission. Judy Wood rejects the firefighter.

      Is Judy Wood controlled opposition by any chance trying to discredit AE911Truth and firefighters?

      I listen to the firefighter.

      NIST and 9/11 Commission do not hear what the firefighter has to say.

      Judy Wood does not hear what the firefighter has to say.

      The only organization that actually listens to what firefighters have said is AE9/11Truth.

      • Jean says:

        Wolf, if Emmanuel wants to respond to this, that’s fine, but I am then cutting off anymore of this back and forth. Hugs, ~Jean

        • wolf727 says:

          I totally agree with you Jean – I don’t blame you. This was actually going to be my last response, even if he replied. I’m tired with all of this. Anyway, thank you for your patience in this.

  4. Robin says:

    Well done Emmanuel Goldstein! Brilliantly said! I love your logic and your support for Judy Wood. And your enthusiasm is so infectious. Yes, we know we have evidence of some destruction that must have been caused by some new energy space weapon even though we have no proof that it exists! Seriously, you now know why many respectable people do not want to hear about you or Judy Wood if they cannot prove the existence of this kind of weapon! I am not saying that it is not possible, but it really is ridiculous to go on about it!
    So Judy Wood is a so-called forensic expert…so what? Guess what, even those in NIST are meant to be experts in their fields and I certainly do not trust them! What I do believe is that the thermite or thermate residue is the smoking gun because it should not even be there in the dust and it is the result of hot chemical reaction. So that is all the proof you need that some sort of incendiary device was used and that thermite or thermate does exist and you have the physical proof definitely showing that Islamic terrorists were not involved because only military or high tech companies can produce these things. So, I really resent the fact that you seem so vociferous in attacking Richard Gage and others who have started this research and are responsible for bringing it to the general public. They have a hard enought time trying to convince others with sound evidence without resorting to space weapons that cannot be proven to exist!
    Oh by the way, I am one of those crazy people that actually believe in the first responders reports like firemen etc who heard bombs going off and who have seen molten steel flowing along the ground like a river. I am very sorry, I prefer to believe in down to earth evidence from firemen whose evidence would be used in a court of law.
    By the way, Richard Gage uses Tower No.7 as the smoking gun. You can think what you like about the other two towers, but definitely tower no. 7 was caused by demolition because it fell like a demolished building as claimed by demolition experts! So, please do not go on about this crap about tower no. 7 being zapped by some space wweapon because it fell down symetrically and loud explosion sounds were heard by firemen and by many people. So, really I do not give a damn about Judy Wood’s theory nor yours. I prefer to remain sane. By the way, you can give me all of your flack if you want and I would take it as a compliment. I certainly do not want people to think that I have the slightest respect for your opinions which I DO NOT!

    • Jean says:

      If we have a trial that goes beyond the obvious – we will learn about the secret government, and I should think that is where the proof of the use of DEWs will come from. If that is kept hidden, then so will all the other technologies that we so desperately need like free energy products. I think it is quite possible, and indeed logical that there was more than one type of demolition employed to bring down the towers, don’t you?


      • wolf727 says:

        Jean, you say “you” think it is “quite possible, and indeed logical that there was more than one type of demolition employed to bring down the towers”.

        According to Judy Wood, in the interview with Theo Chalmers, she stated unequivocally there were no extreme temperatures and no evidence of molten steel.

        This means she does not think there was more than one type of demolition employed. Why Jean are you going against Judy Wood here?

        She is ruling out extreme temperatures and pools of molten steel because this evidence points to some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures, which goes against her DEW hypothesis.

        She wants to rule out any evidence that does not fit in with her DEW hypothesis. Extreme temperatures and evidence of molten steel do not fit in to the DEW hypothesis.

        Judy Wood does not believe in more than one type of demolition because she has already denied the existence of extreme temperatures and denies any evidence to pools of molten steel.

        Judy Wood rules out extreme temperatures and she rules out pools of molten steel. She is denying what firemen have reported – seeing pools of molten steel.

        This means therefore she does not believe in any other type of demolition other than the DEW theory.

        So why are you, Jean, saying you believe in more than one type of demolition?

        By making that statement, it means you accept temperatures and pools of molten steel because that in itself points to another type of demolition other than the DEW hypothesis?

        In saying that, you are therefore going against Judy Wood because Judy Wood has categorically denied extreme temperatures and molten steel. Why, therefore, am I getting so much flak from people here when I simply state what firefighters have seen – pools of molten steel?

        • Jean says:

          Wolf, I have a very simple response to your question: I studied the information enough to know that what Judy Wood suggests is IMO ‘real’. I did not have the time to study it to understand if it was used to the exclusion of everything else 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

          • wolf727 says:

            Fair enought, Jean, that is what you believe. I respect your belief.
            I do not believe in Judy Wood because she refuses to acknowlege witnesses, including firefighters, who claim to have seen pools of molten steel and extreme temperatures which she categorically denies exist. She is ‘cherry-picking’ the data. That is not scientific methodolgy. In essence, she is calling firefighters liars.

          • Jean says:

            Wolf, I didn’t say I believe this!!! I send I haven’t studied this enough, and that perhaps this is a possibility 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

  5. “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley

    Dr. Wood presents evidence and it is conclusive evidence. How does someone running a cover up attempt to cover up irrefutable evidence? They refer to the evidence as a “theory” or “hypothesis,” promote false propaganda about it, then surround it with controversy, including character assassination. Once you recognize this pattern, you’ll recognize it’s use in many other events.

    Remember Mr. Roundtree (Wolf727)…On November 11, 2006, Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Are the towers still there? If they have been destroyed, then obviously there was enough energy to destroy them in the way they were destroyed. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? 🙂

    A dozen firemen, a civilian, and a police officer, who were on Stairway B between floors 1 and 6, survived the “dustification” of the 110-floor north World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001. How did they get out? Did they do the backstroke through rivers of molten metal?

    How Washington and its Allies Use Social Media to Topple Governments & Manipulate Public Opinion

    In 2011 it came to light that the U.S. military had developed a ‘sock puppet’ software for creating and managing fake online identities. These sock puppet accounts were to be used to spread propaganda on social media sites, forums and blogs. The software which was described as an “online persona management service” allows one soldier to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world. When this program was exposed the U.S. government claimed that the program was never used on English speaking audiences. Considering that these are the same people who swore up and down that the NSA surveillance program never targeted U.S. citizens, we can take that with a grain of salt, but it’s worth noting that they explicitly acknowledged in their statement that the program was intended for covert operations in foreign countries. BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to… Don’t expect U S Secretary of State John Kerry to ‘man up’ and admit this.


    • Jean says:

      Emmanuel, your efforts to help us wake up and think for ourselves, to look at the logic of what people say after studying the facts is really important. Many thanks for taking the time to share with us . . . Hugs, ~Jean

    • Franz Glaus says:

      I have shared this with otherwise wide-awake people who insist on the AE911 trutherd line of thought. If only one of them finally gives up their fellowship with the faulty, I will be grateful. I am grateful anyway for this excellent missive, Mr. Goldstein.

    • wolf727 says:

      Firstly, you spelled my name wrong.

      Secondly, I am not a Canadian building inspector.

      Thirdly, you seem to spend more time investigating my name and profession when you could have spent that time dealing with my questions.

      Fourthly, You keep refusing to deal “directly” with the questions I raised.

      No one has attempted, as far as I am aware, to deal with the questions I asked as to why Dr Judy Wood claims there were no extreme temperatures and no molten steel and yet evidence provided by NASA and EarthData satellites confirm there were extreme temperatures, and witnesses including firefighters state categorically they witnessed extreme temperatures and pools of molten steel.

      All you seem to do, Sir, is play cheap shot games of resorting to ad hominem attacks without having the professional courtesy to deal with my sincere questions on what I find confusing.

      You start your arguments assuming automatically that the towers were turned to dust without actually considering there were possible simple explanations that gave the impression of dustification as given here:


      In all honesty I am simply asking you for clarification or explanation as to the statements made by Dr Judy Wood where she claims there were no molten steel and extreme temperatures, yet witnesses from firefighters claim there were pools of molten steel.

      I don’t see why I am being subjected to childish ridicule and slander by you just for asking questions to explain something that bothers me and does not seem to fit between what Dr Judy Wood states and those stated by witnesses.

      When people begin attacking the person instead of dealing with the questions, it means they don’t want to answer the questions raised and are on the defensive. This is precisely what government does by calling it a “conspiracy theory” so they don’t need to answer difficult questions.

      If you consider my conduct to be out of order for simply asking for clarification or understanding as to the discrepancies between Dr Judy Wood’s statement and those statements made by witnesses including firefighters, then you, Sir, are the one who is on the defensive and refuses to be professional about this by not dealing with questions raised instead of making wild accusations about me “parroting disinformation”.

      When is someone here going to answer the questions I raised in my previous posts rather than slap each other on the backs ignoring the questions in a kind of childish search for reassurance?

      I thought this blog was about finding truth by asking hard questions and facing those questions to arrive at the truth, rather than people wasting time ganging up on someone with personal emotive attacks instead of dealing directly with the questions raised.

      Thank you.

    • wolf727 says:

      You wrote at the top of your comment this:
      “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley

      I wholeheartedly agree with Aldous Huxley.

      Why therefore are “you” and Judy Wood ignoring simple plain facts presented by many witnesses, including firefighters, who claimed on video, meetings and statements that there were molten steel at the WTC sites?

      These are statements made and presented as facts by witnessed accounts.

      I would like to hear in plain English from you if you are saying that the firefighters are all lying together in unison or that they all are mistaken and cannot tell what pools of molten steel look like?

      I find it incredible to imagine that every single individual and firefighter all agreed to lie together or they all at the same event made a mistake and cannot tell what a pool of molten steel is or what something “hot” looks like.

      Deal with the questions I raise this time and not with an attack on me.

      I await your response.

    • Just A Man says:

      It is interesting that the only people who talk about “space weapons” are those who attack Dr. Wood. I wonder why that is. Dr. Wood does not discuss “space weapons” or any theory. She only discusses evidence and an analysis of the evidence. So why does discussing evidence bring about such violent reactions from people? It seems as if they have been brainwashed with beliefs that are not a part of reality.

      I agree with Emmanuel Goldstein that the evidence rules out Kinetic Energy as the destructive mechanism (the buildings were not beaten to death) and the evidence rules out Thermal Energy as the destructive mechanism (the buildings were not cooked to death). But the binding energy in the material was directed (or, given instructions) to act differently than it usually does, causing the material to come apart (turn to dust) in mid air.

      Robin, I’m sorry you are so upset. But you have no reason to be upset with Dr. Wood. You are upset with stories you have been told about Dr. Wood that are not true. Who told you these stories? For example, do you know how many first responders Dr. Wood interviewed for her book? Do you know how many first-responder testimonies she has in her book? Did you know that Dr. Wood actually does include first-responder testimony of the sound of explosions? There are some first-responders that even identified what was exploding. Air tanks on fire trucks at ground level were exploding. What would cause that? Another first responder determined his emergency vehicle exploded — and it was parked at ground level. Why would his vehicle explode at ground level?

      Dr. Wood also shows images of firefighters wading in knee-deep water right where it was said to be over 800 degrees.

      I wonder where Robin was given this false information about Dr. Wood and why she has so much anger toward Dr. Wood.

  6. Nine says:

    Dearest Jean,

    With much love to you and your readers…

    If I might…

    It might be that Dr. Woods theories might be true….however, the powers that be will never admit to any of this.

    It is a fact that America has a Zionist problem….

    Well I think its a fact that there was a huge radiation leak on 9/11/01….

    70000 folks have cancers with that signature….

    And a lot of wall street folk are dying from such….is Karma not a bitch I suppose?

    And those powers that be let this happen to their very own….think about that….

    I take no pleasure in the problems that folks who deserve such do endure…..

    And I cringe at the folks upon the net that blame the Jew for all of our problems…however, It is not Jewishness that I have a big problem with but I do have a problem with Zionism….

    Many here upon this site believe that the Israeli Mosasd and rouge elements of our very own US government were behind the 9/11 operation and the subsequent psyopps operations to follow up to this very day….

    And if Dr. Woods is in any way correct it means that there is very powerful suppressed technology that would eliminate all scarcity on our dear planet and that very technology would allow a paradise and peace to envelop our dear world….

    That is what I hope for and meditate upon….

    For this to be possible we must believe that it could be possible….

    If I might…it is so very easy to demonize those in our systems of government with out understanding the complexities of the vast bureaucracy and of course I experienced that system and learned from it….

    And to Mr. Duff…..he is a good man…served in Viet Nam and he cares about his fellow soldiers and how they have been totally neglected by said bureaucracy…..

    And if I might….many in our military complex plan upon that OPM pension….do they not understand that if said system would collapse that the pension that they plan upon collecting will not be there?

    If said folks think upon those things that I politely mentioned things will change in a hurry….

    The US government does not run upon logic…..but upon money and power…..


    • Jean says:

      Nine, Neil Keenan has pledged publicly at the request of the Pentagon, that funds from the Accounts will continue to pay the military. This will not be a problem. If I remember correctly the military will be transitioned to a peace-keeping organization. Hugs, ~Jean

    • Just A Man says:

      Dear Nine,

      As Emmanuel Goldstein stated above, Dr. Wood does not present a theory, much less “theories.” Dr. Wood presents evidence, conclusive evidence. This is evidence hidden in plain sight, and it is hidden due to the many individuals who refer to it as a “theory.” That is what inserts the doubt that is at the core of the cover-up. The evidence is rather obvious, but it requires an unbiased observer.

      You said, “It might be that Dr. Woods theories might be true….however, the powers that be will never admit to any of this.” Think about how you came to believe that Dr. Wood presents “theories” in her book. If someone told you there was a theory that seven WTC buildings were destroyed on 9/11/01, would you have doubt and call it a theory? But if you had gone to New York on 9/12/01, you would have found that all seven WTC buildings were indeed destroyed. That is not an opinion or view or hypothesis or a theory. It is a fact. Seven World Trade Center buildings were destroyed. There is no theory that will advance the understanding of this simple fact. The evidence Dr. Wood presents in her book is just as obvious. In light of this understanding, it becomes clear how a cover-up is conducted; evidence is referred to as a “theory” or a “view,” and then a well-crafted controversy ensues.

  7. lecox says:

    I think Dr. Wood’s ideas stand as one of the most plausible explanations of what happened to those buildings. However, extreme heat was obviously also involved, and I don’t see that her hypothesis rules that out. Her ideas point in the direction of a technology that is not officially recognized as existing on or in the vicinity of earth today. That is probably why she is singled out for ridicule, as gone over in the article.
    I am not unfamiliar with the phenomenon of various “let’s get at the truth” people being set against each other. It is also plausible that such a group could be set up just to invalidate and divert attention from another group that actually has much more workable ideas.
    Yet this whole discussion distracts from the more general awareness that has been arising on the planet: The authorities have been lying to us. And the resulting problem that this awareness brings forward: How do we obtain reliable data if we cannot rely on professionals to be ethical?

    • Just A Man says:

      Dear lecox,

      On what page of Dr. Wood’s book do you find her hypothesis? I have read her book and cannot seem to find this hypothesis. As Emmanuel Goldstein stated above, Dr. Wood does not present a hypothesis, she presents evidence.

      I’m glad to see you are interested in ethical conduct. I would think that a person interested in ethical conduct would read Dr. Wood’s book so that they could comment on what is contained in that book rather than the gossip about her research.

      • Robin says:

        You say Dr. Wood presents evidence? She was on The John Moore’s Show on 20 Feb 2013 where she was making her famous point on where did the towers go? The issue being discussed was about where did the tons of steel go? And John Moore quickly remarked that all of the steel was shipped to China! To which Dr. Judy Wood replied: “Oh no! What steel?”

        So I assume that the rest of her book will be as scientific and full of good evidence as provided by her in this interview. So where did the towers go? Well, the cement was pulverised by the thermitic explosive material whose remains are found in the dust samples. And the steel was shipped off to China which would explain why there wasn’t hardly any steel on the site.

        No, I have not read Wood’s book and I do not wish to, especially if she presents her evidence as she has done in The John Moore’s Show.

        • Jean says:

          Robin, is it possible that she was saying there was no steel left to ship to China? Sounds like that’s a real possibility to me . . . Hugs, ~Jean

          • Robin says:

            Jean, she could be saying that and she could be saying many things. It makes no difference. It all comes down to the fact she is saying that there was no steel to ship to China because the steel was “dustified”.

            But my point is that there is evidence showing that steel was shipped to China and to India which is why there was no steel and why the victims families were angry because of the destruction of evidence.
            I quote: “A shipment of scrap steel from New York’s collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
            Baosteel Group, the nation’s largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from “Ground Zero,” the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday’s Beijing Youth Daily. ” Source: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

            And here is another source from which I quote:
            “The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero:
            Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it! Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city’s decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city’s hasty move has outraged many victims’ families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
            The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.”

            In conclusion, she says there was no steel left, and information on the contrary reports that steel was shipped abroad to be recycled.

          • Jean says:

            Robin, as I read what you wrote, I thought that you’d made some pretty strong statements, so I wondering how much studying you have actually done on this topic. How many videos, how many books, how many articles have you gotten into? How much time has you spent on this topic? Over this one issue, it seems you’ve taken a stand, and I’m not sure you are absolutely correct. . . Who says your particular sources are telling the ‘real’ truth? Wouldn’t there be plenty of people who would want to help to cover this up who would be willing to write such articles? The cabal is truly diabolical.

            I realize you want more than anything to make your point and to be heard. Nothing wrong with that. . . but until we finally get to the truth, can you absolutely say that DEWs were NOT used? After you’ve made your point, isn’t that enough? What more is there to say . . . and in some ways I’m just as interested in why this is such hot button issue for you — if, indeed, it is 🙂 . . . Hugs, ~Jean

  8. gear13 i says:

    Flight 175 holographic projection

    • kibitzer3 says:

      Thank you for this posting, gear13 i.

      Every little bit of info helps to alert the public to the extent of the evidence there is that the official version of what happened on 9/11 is the largest conspiracy theory of them all.

  9. jayo says:

    check out john hutchison and hutchison effect. vids. also dr ibraham karim for Egyptian bio geometry re ley lines

  10. Angela says:

    The Evil Empire and their employed whores are doing the old “bait and switch” game by pointing to nonsense.
    Dr Judy Wood is a brilliant woman who continues to demonstrate a professional manner in which she researches and delivers evidence in her book and lectures about the TRUTH regarding the “evaporation” of the tons and tons of building material. I found it interesting that she is the ONLY person mentioning that an unknown device could melt the steal beams (the firemen said steal flowed like in a foundry) and pulverize building material and office equipment but it did not set paper on fire (paper is seen floating in the air) as the building free fall onto their own foot print.

    • wolf727 says:

      You wrote: “I found it interesting that she is the ONLY person mentioning that an unknown device could melt the steal beams (the firemen said steal flowed like in a foundry)”

      That’s strange. You’re now stating that Dr Judy Wood is saying that beams were “melted” by an unknown device. If beams were melted then you have what firemen witnessed pools of molten steel.

      And yet, Dr Judy Wood states in the link below, from frame: 23:36 she says categorically there is “no” evidence of molten steel!

      She responds to Theo Chalmers saying some say there were molten iron in the ground and Dr Judy Wood says: “I’ve not seen any evidence of it”.

      Which story is Dr Judy Wood saying here? Can someome please make up their minds on the story!

      Ever heard the expression, “the devil is in the detail”?

  11. wolf727 says:

    I am not parroting disinformation, Sir. I am only looking at scientific evidence presented and I listen to what witnesses on the ground have to say. Maybe you call “that” disinformation.

    Let’s keep this simple and basic, shall we? The following link shows hard evidence of high temperatures, persistent heat and molten steel:


    In the following link you have firemen giving witnessed accounts on video of seeing molten steel.

    Dr Judy Wood says in the following interview with Theo Chalmers,

    from frame: 23:14 that there was no extreme temperatures and from frame: 23:36 she says there is no evidence of molten steel.

    Please explain to me why she made those assertions of there being no extreme temperatures and no evidence of molten steel when firefighters are there on video stating in plain English they saw pools of molten steel?

    This is where I have the problem with Dr Judy Wood.

    My question to you, Sir, is why do you want me to disregard these firefighters – witnesses who say they saw pools of molten steel?

    Or do you think they are in another conspiracy to tell lies? Do you actually believe these firefighters who save people’s lives are involved in a political agenda? You explain to me, Sir, why I should ignore what these witnesses are saying?

    There were thermal images taken by NASA and EarthData satellites that confirm there were extreme temperatures. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

    You want to believe in DEW, that is fine, Sir. You believe what you like. I believe what firefighters are telling me. Is it disinformation because I listen to firefighters?

    When I have firefighters and other important witnesses, thermal images from NASA and photos revealing evidence of extreme temperatures and molten steel, then that is evidence. I am interested in what firefighters tell me and surprised that Dr Judy Wood for some reason ignored them. Why?

    My problem with Dr Judy Wood is when she stated there were no extreme temperatures and no evidence to molten steel when all evidence proves there were. That is what I am focusing on. I am simply asking the question why is she ignoring evidence and witnesses to extreme temperatures and pools of molten steel? That, Sir, is my contention with Dr Judy Wood. You can call it what you like.

    You may wish to ignore that but I am not because that was an important statement she made. My question is why she went against the experience of firefighters who were there on the ground.

    Don’t you tell me that firefighters don’t know what, in the words of Dr Judy Wood, “hot, hot, heat” is and don’t know what pools of molten steel look like! They should know.

    Saying there were no extreme temperatures, no molten steel and ignoring what firemen saw – that is disinformation and lack of respect for firefighters. I would rather listen to what a firefighter has to say than a politician.

    If you ignore what firefighters and other important witnesses are saying to seeing pools of molten steel, then you are like the 911 Commission Report refusing to listen to key witnesses because it does not fit in with your agenda, your story you are selling.

    You can call me any name you like, Sir, but at least I am one person who is listening to what firefighters have to say – telling me what they saw.

    This is basic investigation that any detective would follow – interview the witnesses. Yet Dr Judy Wood discounts all witnesses to molten steel and extreme temperatures! Why?

    We owe it to them to listen to what they have to say in simple words what they saw and not come out with the lie there was no evidence of molten steel.

    Don’t believe me? Here is a firefighter from frame: 0:23 in following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

    Thank you.

    • Truth Must Be Told says:

      Well said. Cherry-picking data to match a predetermined conclusion is the exact opposite of science. A youtube search of “Judy Wood Debunked” will also turn up plenty of evidence that she left out of her book.

  12. Pingback: 9/11 Theories: In Defense of Dr. Judy Wood | Exopermaculture

  13. Susanna Horton says:

    Emmanuel Goldstein, your comment deserves to be published on the front page of the New York Times, where those who have the interest, or the open mindedness, to follow your logic might get beyond their agendas and see the material truth of the matter, as you articulate so thoroughly. And those who still cling to the ridiculous official story of events sound more and more like those who believe God created man from the dust, women from his rib, and the hijacked plane stories, might begin to see through the cracks of “the system” that continues to prop up the massive lies of 9/11.

    And Jean, if you ever thought your blog isn’t making a difference, here’s a very large golden nugget your mining, and miners, have brought forward. Much appreciation to you both, Mr. Goldstein, and Jean, for all your continued efforts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.