Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Roadrunner cutout - impact 1st Beamweapons

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner -- Laws of Physics

The impact planes follow the laws of cartoon physics, like Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner.


Click on the picture for a larger version

Click on the picture for a larger version


Stuff like this should be

Stuff like this should be removed.



Submitted by justacitizen on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 3:56pm


Judy Wood -- Beam Weapons used at WTC!!

911 WTC Demolition | pulverisation | pulverization | wtc

Important NEWS!

I know DZ will not DARE to copy this to the front page. u2r2h not be credited with pointing this hugely important new finding out to everyone... Could it be that 'truthers' are tired of new revelations? That would be a pity!

Ask yourself:

What steel was shipped to China?

Hugely interesting read!!



stop this

OMG !!!

Hello, folks...let's have a

Hello, folks...let's have a quick reality check. Mr. William Rodriguez, are you out there? Can we all say hello to Mr. Rodriguez and then say, all together, "BOMBS IN THE BASEMENT". So why, if there was going to be a "beam weapon" used at the WTC, would there also be subterranean bombs planted as well? Seems like a lot of trouble, just one of the reasons this beam weapon thing seems illogical out of hand, and YES, I'M AWARE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY REVIEWED; THAT'S SORT OF THE POINT. Furthermore, concensus is that the people suggesting this theory are not the most trustworthy, and they have themselves to blame for that. So getting adversarial, Nico, is counter-productive.

Now, thermate does account for the slicing of the towers and proves that this was a collapse due to fire or "19 Arab hijackers", which is pretty much ALL WE HAVE TO SHOW AT THIS POINT, and have done so, exceedingly well. This, LIKE "TV FAKERY", like the hologram jests, is coming out of a small cadre of, yes, I'll say it, intentional trouble-makers, in Nico's case, what seems to me to be an egomaniac with zero control over his emotions, who really seems to enjoy this sort of chaos and commotion, which, I suggest we consider, may be subsiding a bit now that the movement's been so successful at breaching the message to the general public that this wasn't the work of the "Arab 19"?? And I will state right here that a bit of his intentions may be gleaned from the headline, "judy wood -- beam weapons used at wtc!!" (note: not one, but TWO exclamation points) This should read something more like, "Judy Wood Posts a Webpage Claiming That Beam Weapons Were Used at the WTC." The following blurb describes this as a "hugely important new finding", AS THOUGH IT WERE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN. But while the thermate may have cut the towers apart, something has had to account for the pulverization and explosive energy of the building. What was it? We don't know. Was it "beams"? Uhh, can we check for explosives, first, if we're even going to go that step with the kind of restrictions on evidence available?

Everybody, let's look back at the evidence, ALL the evidence we have seen thus far (that is, in the form of videos, photographs and audio), and there is quite a lot of it. Just in cursory reflection while writing this sentence and then looking at this blog heading, I have to declare this post an insult, especially in the way it is written, half-baked idea presented as fact. Take out "Painful Questions", for example, if you've got a copy, or any of the other videos which show, really clearly the WTC demolition, and while we have all agreed that one can observe a pulverization, I haven't heard ANYONE suggest to date that the thing looked like it just disintegrated or "withered" non-explosively due to a beam weapon. And if so, why would there be the audible "snap-crackle-pop" as with a typical controlled demolition then, as can be heard on some of the more close-up news footage? Or how about that seismic data? Or again, Mr. Rodriguez' experience? Or, best of all, the squibs coming out of the building, one of the main controlled demolition selling points? Or the firefighters' "floor-by-floor, it started popping out"/multiple explosion accounts? Or were these "TV fakery", too?

And on that note, did something hit the Twin Towers? Thousands of people saw planes. Were they the actual, official-story jetliners? Maybe, maybe not. Strongest evidence that this was not the "Arab 19"? Definitely not. Maybe a cargo plane, like that reporter witnessed? Maybe. Who cares? We know for sure from so many other ways that THE OFFICIAL STORY DOES NOT ADD UP. This makes me really mad, the attitude displayed here, because it is so reckless in such a serious place. It is not appreciated.

Lastly, now, if this were to go in front of a jury tomorrow, could we all agree that this "beam weapon" HYPOTHESIS, is still in its very rough early stages and has not yet stood the test of repeated examination and scrutiny, etc., that so many of the other pieces of evidence have and thus, should be held back in favor of better-tried hypotheses and questions? I hope so. This is just insulting, and Nico, I don't know if you can feel shame, but you ought to be feeling it right f'ing now, for the mockery you are making of 9/11 with this and all your other jabs on this site.

I can't believe

I can't believe it...

fantastic info:

As I was running north in this park, and then I could start seeing again a little bit, and I just kept looking in the sky. Cause the captain was saying there's another plane heading in our direction, I was looking for another plane. I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.

Did you girls and boys hear anyone else mention this before?

Is this the MEDICAL woman? Where have I heard her eyewitnes account before.. (audio, mp3) I remember her talking about exploding cars, but not exploding aeroplanes in the distance.

OK, OK.. Dem Bruce Lee will poo poo this all as he smells more noplaners (reynolds).

Hey DEM, Baby... you are holding us up. We need your CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT... you are welcome to point out inconsistencies but before you get cerried away.. You eventually have to decide how 9/11 happened. You cannot simply stick to thermite and attribute effect to it that it cannot have. I hope you have read this:

as an entree ... and went on to take 2 hours to read this: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html

Care to explain exploding cars, anyone?

We have lots of work to do. We need to catch up with the smart-cookies in our midst. We MUST NOT rest on our laurels.

9/11 happened ONE WAY.

There are many unknowns.

Intended by perps.



"I know DZ will not DARE to copy this to the front page. u2r2h not be credited with pointing this hugely important new finding out to everyone... Could it be that 'truthers' are tired of new revelations? That would be a pity!"

You put this in as your second line and then expect the site owner to bump it to the front page? Is this a successful tactic on other message boards? Insult the owner, the community in general, and expect "be credited with pointing this hugely important new finding"?

First of all, it's not news, it's speculation. Just like "mini-nukes". Just like the "no-plane" theory, oh, sorry, the "no-Boeing" theory. Just another theory.

Personally, I think energy weapons were used at WTC. Far more likely than anything nuclear. However, your marketing technique is, frankly, tragic.

So this is coming from a

So this is coming from a person who everyone initially thought was doing good work, with a relatively solid a pancake theory debunking thesis. But then this individual started to dickride Morgan Reynolds, attack Steven Jones, and claim that "no planes hit the Towers", "That mini-nukes were involved" and now its “beam weapons"? Give me a break! And to cap it all she states that Steven Jones is wrong about the Termite/Thermate reaction seen in the Towers, and that the yellow molten metal is not Iron but is aluminium from the plane. So which is it, "no planes hit the Towers" or "planes hit the Towers and deposited aluminium"?

This woman has ZERO credibility with me, she is most likely a shill who flew under the radar.

Science is Science

Dem Bruce,

Dr. Jones is a very friendly, likable, smart man on camera. He seems like a great guy, although I have never met him. And I am certainly in awe of the great work he has done.

But I am one person who is going to study this carefully, examine Dr. Wood's science, and see if her theory pans out. I have no vested interest in whether he is correct or she is - I just want the truth to come out - and nothing more.

I could care less who is the messenger - the scientist - who discovers what brought the towers down. Truth cares not for personality, allegiances, alliances, nor favoritism.

If both of them are earnest scientists who care about their country, they will both want other scientists to bring forth the best theories, right? It seems to me that all scientists should be helping one another find the evidence that will put the perps behind bars.

Isn't that what you want, too? The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but? Now, mind you, I am an AM of Scholars and believe that every theory should be based and judged on its scientific merits - not who is or is not in my group, not which theories they had entertained previously.

Any good scientist worth her/his weight explores all of the various theories and then explores them thoroughly and puts them through some tests and scrutiny, as much as is possible. If Dr. Wood is trying out a new theory? Well that is more than others have done, so I give her credit for her flexibility at looking at the facts a second time, re-examining them, - and trying to make sense out of them.

Let's open our minds, think outside the box, and at least allow ourselves to think about science , shall we? If we disagree with Dr. Wood's theories, yes yes yes, let's challenge her, absolutely! But I do not think we should be calling someone names because they attack our own personal hero. Yes, admittedly, Dr. Jones has been my hero, too, for quite some time!

But this is not about hero worship, is it? Isn't this about pure science alone - on its own methods? Isn't this about testing one theory and see if it holds any weight?

I can not at this point tell you whether or not thermite alone brought the towers down. But I can tell you that I will keep an open mind and study Dr. Wood's research, too... and weigh the facts for themselves - regardless of who has been my hero.

If we are afraid to look at the science in a thoughtful way, then we have to ask ourselves, what are we afraid of discovering?

Tell me if you think no

Tell me if you think no planes hit the Towers, because that's what the poster of this blog, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds advocate. Personally I'm concerned with the Truth Movement’s credibility, these "theories" are discrediting us in the eyes of anyone with a brain!

No planes? A misnomer

Dear Dem Bruce,

Have you found any physical evidence in your research that shows that either commercial passenger jet plane flight 175 or 11 were discovered in the vicinity of GZ on 9/11? I have a friend who worked in the aviation industry who explained that a jet plane's parts can be identified uniquely with a certain identifying number, tying that number to a particular plane.

I have been searching for this information for years and have yet to find the identifying numbers that would put each of those flights 175 and 11 at the WTC. Have you found such information?

I have also not found evidence, either, about the commercial flights 77 or 93 identifying numbered parts being found at the PA or Pentagon crash sites.

Many eye witnesses saw flying objects at GZ, PA, and the Pentagon. But have you found something to sink your teeth into about the actual jet parts with their identifying numbers of flights 175, 11, 77, or 93? These numbered, identifying jet parts are discovered after a plane crash, except sometimes when they are sunk into an ocean.

I have not yet been convinced that any of those four supposed passenger jet planes were at any of those four sites. If you can lead me to the research to show me otherwise, I would certainly consider it.

We are not totally at odds on this point, I think. Something terrible happened when someone coined the phrase "no planes". I think we are in agreement that the motive was suspect. Too many eye witnesses said they say SOMETHING flying near the towers to say that there were absolutely "no planes'" of any type in the vicinity of GZ that morning.

But do you KNOW for a fact that the flying aircrafts were indeed flights 175 and 11? Or do you believe this because this is the official story?

I believe strongly that flying objects *were indeed* in the vicinity of all four crash sites. I once saw Dr. Morgan Reynolds speak and he clarified for the audience that he has never meant to imply that no aircraft was in the vicinity at all. He said something to the effect that he had simply not seen evidence regarding any of the particular four commercial jet passenger flights that we were told about in the official government story.

good points

And if this is what people believe, they should be clear on it. There are those who say "video fakery" and what not and if what they mean is that these planes could have been military drones or whatever, then say so! But there is a big difference between not believing the four flights authentic (I don't) and claiming that video fakery was used to fool people into thinking planes hit the towers...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

He said something to the

He said something to the effect that he had simply not seen evidence regarding any of the particular four commercial jet passenger flights that we were told about in the official government story.

that's what they say when they start backpedelling. they think no planes hit the towers, they state it frequently. there is a big difference between trying to prove exactly what flights hit the buildings and saying that no planes hit them at all.

a lack of evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen, either way you have to prove your arguement.

Use your commonsense,

Use your commonsense, you’re saying "some flying object hit the Towers". Well if it was a "flying object" why not a Boeing travelling at 500mph? You see what your alluding to is that the "flying objects" that hit the Towers, to your mind at least, are "unidentified". Now I don't think you mean aliens but essentially you’re saying UFO's hit the Towers. I don't know what actually happened on 9/11, I don't know if the flights are as “officially stated”. But neither do I need to know at this point, there is a TON of other actually credible evidence to point to. A new investigation is what's needed, then we can find out what "actually happened". Until then this "no planes/tv fakery" "pods" "mini nukes" "beam weapons" all have a negative affect on that effort.


Dear Bruce,

You are apparently comfortable with the official story and I am sorry that I have led you into an uncomfortable place. You will hear no more out of me.

I ask only that you keep exploring for yourself and think critically about all you have been told for the past five years.



No I'm not comfortable with

No I'm not comfortable with the "official story", and how patronizing is that lol. I'm comfortable with thousands of New Yorkers seeing, hearing and feeling planes strike the Towers. And so I don't need to challenge that, what I need to do are that help the Truth Movement succeed and get a new investigation secured. And I have to acknowledge that I'm not doing that right now by wasting my time attacking what I see here as blatant disinfo. Adios!

Defamation? Or Just Impeding Legitimate 9/11 Research?

Mr. Styles:

There appear to be so many false and misleading statements in your comment that I would hope that Dr. Judy Wood would NOT respond.

In addition, you know Dr. Wood's writings & work well enough for others & I to suspect that you may know damned well that many of your statements are false, misleading, and possibly deliberately designed to damage her professional reputation (to say nothing of wasting her time and the time of others).

The statement about the relationship between Dr. Wood & Dr. Morgan Reynolds contained in the second line of your comment may constitute a new low point for both 911Blogger.com and for you.

Unfortunately, 911Blogger.com has begun to become so full of such statements about certain 9/11 researchers that it might be a full-time job just to complain about them.

Although I often disagree with both Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds (and other 9/11 researchers), I prefer to keep my comments & suggestions on a level that will further our supposedly-shared goals of finding and acting on the truth about 9/11.

I would request & suggest that you do the same; however, I suspect that my requests & suggestions to you would fall on deaf ears -- assuming, for the moment that you still believe in our supposedly-shared goals.

Thank you for whatever support that you may be willing to give to our supposedly-shared goals in the future.

Thomas J Mattingly

Oh I'm sorry, they only

Oh I'm sorry, they only wrote a disinfo hit piece “paper” attacking Dr Jones together;

The Trouble with Steven E. Jones'
9/11 Research
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood* — August 23, 2006

DING - you got it, Dem

DING - you got it, Dem

odd how you slight users of

odd how you slight users of this site as not being scientists but yet avoid any discussion of science yourself. all i have seen you do so far is criticize the users of this site for refusing to have any scientific debate, but yet you avoid any real discussion of the subject matter yourself. odd.

"dickride" wasn't really necessary was it?

I recommend cleaner language to drive home your points.

I'm going to be saying this to anyone I see using language like this, Dem, so don't take it personally.

I'm sure it wasn't.

But the word and the image it evoked made me laugh really effing hard.

No dude it's not meant as

No dude it's not meant as crude as I think your thinking, it's like "this person is sucking up to this person in such a dumb way, what a dickrider" e.g. Judy Wood is following Morgan Reynolds who is a curse on the 9/11 truth movement, what a dickrider she is.

I’m down for you Reprehensor and this isn’t about beef but I'll tell you what's "unnecessary", this "star wars energy beams brought down the Towers", this "no planes hit the Towers" , this "mini nukes brought down the Towers" and this lame attack "paper" by Judy Wood and Reynolds. That's what's more unnecessary then a few stupid words, words that in fact wouldn’t have even been said if the real unnecessary things weren’t posted so much here.

Still, I appreciate the mental image...

And I bet Judy would too...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

I'm sorry if I offended

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that, I did'nt think about people not getting it. Reprehensor is right in that sense, I should have said what RT did.....

"I'll tell you what is happening in that little animated gif. The spire is collapsing, and as it does, dust is being kicked up that obscures the solid parts that are going down."

^End of argument, if there was even one in the first place.



no seriously, star wars beam

no seriously, star wars beam weapons.

So sloppy and so wrong

The video of the "vaporizing" spire is yet more of the "let's find something that looks weird on grainy video and build a prepostorous theory around it" nonsense. Except that it's not nonsense it is specifically designed to give a false impression to outsiders of what 9/11 Truth is about.

I'll tell you what is happening in that little animated gif. The spire is collapsing, and as it does, dust is being kicked up that obscures the solid parts that are going down. The crappy video makes it look like the thing is evaporating. Just like when these people pause a grainy video and say--hey look! The plane is melting into the building! The color of the plane and building in that frame are close enough that video compression seems to blend the colors into a blur.

I seriously question the integrity of anyone who insists on giving these "theories" any more credibility than they clearly do not deserve. "Playing dumb" is a hallmark of the conspirators. Like, "Duh, I don't know how building 7 could have fallen if I don't hear a structural engineer explain it to me."

What's next? Duh, I don't know if space based beam weapons were used or not unless an expert on space-based beams explains it.

Real truthers know to avoid these absurd angles, as they are injected into the movement for one reason and one reason alone. To DISCREDIT it in the eyes of rational people. Real truthers focus on the obvious and glaring problems, not on some concocted rivalry between a bunch of pseudo-scientists. How much more obvious can you get?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

all you have to do is watch

all you have to do is watch 'improbable collapse' for a great shot of the spire. you can clearly see that it is just falling and that concrete dust is left behind in a trail.. but i guess if you take 5 frames from it you can make it look however you want, either way it is desceptive.

Since we are allowed to express opinions here

I will express my opinion that this particular nexus of "researchers" are clearly damaging to the movement.

Further, it is my opinion that they are intentionally discrediting the movement.

This latest blog is a perfect example in that it is not based on any real empirical evidence. Any scientist worth his salt knows that simple observation of a video - and speculation - such as this - is irresponsible. Its just not science. That much is certain.

I do not take accusing people of being infiltrators lightly. I myself have been called an infiltrator. But, I base my conclusions on the following:

1 - These "researchers" seem to move from one absurdist theory - to the next - without providing any real WORK to substantiate their claims. While i could certainly believe and understand someone being misled - once - i cannot believe that these SAME people with their advanced educations can simply move from no-planes to mini-nukes - to star wars beams - to little green men - with such a cavelier approach, and disregard for empirically based research. It is a clear pattern.

2 - These "researchers" are also responsible for launching personal attacks against other legitimate members of this movement. While I COULD believe that Reynolds and Wood and Haupt are simply ill-informed or ignorant - i cannot reconcile this with the fact that they seem to repeatedly launch broadside attacks against other researchers. If they TRULY believed that 9/11 was an inside job - why would they set out to fracture the movement in this way?

3 - The sheer VOLUME of material & repetitive nature of their posts APPEARS (IMHO)to take on the APPEARANCE of an organized disruption campaign. This is my opinion.

4 - The "research" itself appears to have no substance. When you look closely at the claims being made - and the evidence it is based upon - you very quickly discover that there is really nothing there. You will find layer upon layer of content that appears to be all hat - and no cattle. Compare this to the research of Hoffman or Jones - who provide real attempts (whether you agree with them or not)at demonstrable research which includes math, physics, FACTS and EVIDENCE - that LEADS to conclusions. We see none of this demonstrated by the "researchers" in question.


1 - Ignoring them does not work. As long as the MSM represents these individuals as leaders of this movement, our efforts are diminished.
2 - Engaging them in debate does not work. This is the trap. They are baiting us - and we would be fools to take the bait.
3 - IMHO the only tact which will be effective is to publicly denounce these researchers in the most vocal and definitive way possible.

Towards this end I have been in discussions with several of the most prominent members of this movement. Most agree that action must be taken to bring this movement the type of public relations it deserves. We can no longer afford to be misrepresented. A consolidated platform with very simple precepts must be adopted -with clear leaders and a clear agenda.

It is time to cast off the "conspiracy theory" label - and become what we really are - a solid constituency - 1/3rd of the population that is demanding accountability and transparency on the issue of 9/11.

Judy Wood has stated that

Judy Wood has stated that she thinks this website is a CIA front for 'covering up' her research.

For crying out loud it just

For crying out loud it just gets better, "911blogger is CIA for not promoting disinfo most likely originating from the CIA" LOL! Seriously Dz, clean house man or figure out the most productive thing to do, this is a disinfo campaign. And if it's not, the affect is essentially the same e.g. these blogs/subjects;

* Aggravate people, creating divisions and distractions
* make us look stupid in the eyes of the public
* and there’s Zero substance to any of it, whether it be this new “Starwars Beam Weapons”, “no planes/tv fakery” or “mini nukes” etc etc.

Disinfo campaign?

Who started this rumor? Now, why would dz want to start such a rumor without any proof? It appears this is what dz has done. He doesn't state how he would know this information.

DBLS, as you pointed out, it sure looks like dz is a disinfo agent.

If what dz said were true, how could he possibly know this with such confidence? Perhaps he was monitoring all of her phone calls and emails? Otherwise, he's just irresponsibly spreading rumors.

Either way you look at it, by making such a statement, dz has revealed a lot about himself.

So, dz is a disinfo agent, a CIA agent (or working with one), or both.

DZ - What's good for the goose is good for the gander?


You say: "Judy Wood has stated that she thinks this website is a CIA front for 'covering up' her research."

Really? When & where did she say that? And why would she and/or why did she say that?

As the primary site Administrator & Moderator, when you have a site policy of "No Personal Attacks," etc., and when Dem Bruce Lee Styles says something like "then this individual [Dr. Judy Wood] started to dickride Morgan Reynolds...," (as he did above at 6:37am), and when you & other site Admins find that such a comment is acceptable and does NOT constitute a personal attack on Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds, then maybe I too might begin to wonder about 911Blogger.com.

When I publicly posted questions and requests to you at this site (which I also submitted to you in an email), you deleted my questions and requests -- although I never attacked you personally or otherwise. I can see that you are very sensitive to being questioned in public. So, I'll go easy on you.

Given that Dr. Judy Wood is the only academic to lose her job as a professor (arguably) due to 9/11-related considerations, and given that Dr. Wood is also the only professor to have one of her students murdered (arguably) due to 9/11-related considerations, is there a possibility that she too might be understandably sensitve to the constant personal attacks and ridicule to which she is regularly subjected at your site?

If Judy Wood did in fact say what you said that she said, then don't you think that it might be somewhat "fair & balanced" for you to ALSO say WHY she said what she said? I don't know.

Your site is also in part dedicated to 9/11 activism. Yet you have no way for anyone to exchange personal messages and private contact information (e.g., Private Messaging or PMs). Could someone also draw a negative inference from this fact?

DZ, I appreciate & repect what you do (and the burden AND joy that it is for you to do it). However, I am beginning to think that you may share the opinion of some here who would prefer that anyone with whom they disagree should leave your site.

In addition, I am not sure that you completely realize how subtle changes in the policies & rules of your site (and in the enforcement thereof) might affect the flow of 9/11 information & activism in major ways to favor of the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps & 9/11 PsyOp Perps -- without your even knowing it.

If the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps & 9/11 PsyOp Perps didn't attempt to subtly influence your site (and they have plenty of skill & plenty of money to do so), then they wouldn't be doing their job!

Please find a way to make your site more hospitable to newsworthy & controversial 9/11 researchers so that they & others don't have to waste their time responding to, becoming upset over, and/or acting as if they are ignoring the personal attacks & ridicule, etc. that are sometimes only nominally banned at your site.

Let me know. Let us all know. Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

P.S. If you are sensitive to the possibility that the above might be a personal attack, then you might be interested in the strongly but constructively critical language that I use with Wood, Reynolds & others -- both in my private emails and in public venues in Washington. Seriously, DZ, I am only attempting to help you to make 911Blogger.com a better site. If one of us doesn't give up first, then -- together -- we can all do this.

I think you should give serious consideration

to starting your own 9/11 site and leaving this one..

Questioning Authority Now a Crime?


Since when did questioning authority at 911Blogger.com become a crime punishable by banishment (voluntary or otherwise)?

Is this official policy? Or just your policy?

Let me know. Thanx. --TM.

Hyperbolic much?

On numerous occasions, dz has made several things clear. One, he funds this site himself and in addition to a full time job, does much of the work of running it. Two, he does not want it to be a "forum" site, i.e., no PM'ing function, because there are many other 9/11 sites that offer such amenities. Three, he has no interest in limiting or prohibiting the expression of any 9/11 related opinion.

"Questioning authority" is not the issue here. The issue is, will you accept the generosity of the site's owner on his own terms, or will you bitch and moan about not being able to PM? That is my criticism, and that is why I suggested you might want to find another board.

please verify

DZ, I'd not seen that piece that states JW said that. Do you have that in writing from an email she sent you or is from an article that she published somewhere? I can not imagine that she would publish such a thing... ?

Trying to figure this all out and such a written statement would be helpful - send offlist if you would like,



"It is time to cast off the

"It is time to cast off the "conspiracy theory" label - and become what we really are - a solid constituency - 1/3rd of the population that is demanding accountability and transparency on the issue of 9/11."


John, tehre is a big difference between bogus physical research

and legitimate physical research. Controlled demolition is beyond dispute, and the research supporting it is solid. Destruction of evidence notwithstanding, there is plenty there to prove this, which is why 9/11 Mysteries-Demolitions, has taken off like a bat out of hell....


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

I agree 100%



As I pointed out in my earlier post, and everybody needs to really GET this. 911 Mysteries: Demolition is easy to understand and goes down sweetly. IT NEEDS TO BE WIDELY DISSEMINATED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. These round-and-round no-planes arguments are a distraction.

Can we focus on something this simple and easy to do? Because we ALL agree the towers did not go down just because of the planes. I think we are all on the same page with that. This is powerful, powerful stuff and it needs to been seen on national TV, really.

I mean, I'm not saying it will be, but if it were, the watercoolers would be jammed and people would start THINKING again.

well . . . mebbe . . .

god, I am tired . . .


John, not all of us wish to be in solidarity with *everyone* in the movement because some of them are known agents of the Empire... Have been studying them for 3 years and it is a masterful operation, with the goal of getting everyone on the same page, doing the same controlled actions. It's just exactly like the anti-war groups.

I wish only for the truth, no matter who tells it. I have no allegiances to any one researcher nor to any one group - My only commitment is a continued search for truth, based in solid science, research, and proven facts.

Case in point. I know a wonderful, good-hearted 9/11 truth activist who embraces some of the researchers and lead activists (self-appointed leaders of the "movement") who I do not agree with whatsoever. But I know the heart of this man - and he is quite well-meaning.

So what I am saying is that I chose not to join with my pal to promote those with theories that I believe are not the best ones. I am in solidarity with the heart and motives of this man and many other well-meaning 9/11 activists with truly good intent... but that does not mean I wish to work with them "in solidarity" and choose to embrace the same activities and events.

The truth is the truth is the truth. It is based on facts and science. I refuse to be part of actions that press for truth and say maybe we could have "prevented" the "terrorist" attacks. Nuh unh. Won't go there. Won't follow any movement that is trying to get people arrested, either. Won't go anywhere, either, where anyone names the perpetrators as if proven fact. Does anyone yet know who did the attacks, by name? I don't think so.

What you are calling a "consolidated" effort is sometimes a purposeful corralling of the truth in order to lead the followers in a mass group... to a particular place. One such example is if I were to say, Dr. X is right and Dr. Y is wrong. At this point, we do not have all the evidence yet.... We need more scientists to come forth and challenge these theories. To follow one blindly over the other at this point is just being led into mass group horde psychology... as if we do not possess critical thinking skills of our own.

well said cathy

But the lesson I take is that Wood and Reynolds are precisely the types that the empire wants us to follow. Maybe even Jones, who knows. The point is it's not the personalities it's the preponderance of the evidence, and many of us think the preponderance of the evidence does point pretty clearly in certain directions. your attitude though, is right on. The more people who think independently the easier it is for the truth to rise above the disinfo.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Very good post

But, i am not advocating consolidating the movement into the hands of a select few researchers with particular opinions.

I am suggesting that the movement (like EVERY movement) be based on some rudimentary principals. I do not believe the "big tent" approach is working.

Take a deep breathe

I hestiate to start calling out people as frauds. Dissent is to be expected. The sing like a choir is unrealistic.

As soon as we start calling certain people frauds without considerable debate is a mistake. For as soon as we do. We will find they were right. And we lose all credibility.

It is a time to gather opinions. After which, we scrutinize. Then eliminate the invalid ones. It is to early to starting calling people out.

IMHO, lets hold back on the criticism for the time being. Let the evidence be compiled. Then we can start eliminating the bad data.

To stoop to calling each other frauds. Just hurts everyone at this point.

It seems obvious to me that some type of high explosives were used along with thermite.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

i would agree

i would agree if this particular nexus of researchers were not themselves attacking and smearing and accusing others.

I could give you a laundry list of accusations and smears launched by this group. Some of it is mind boggling.

I think the time for debating this "research" is over. It is a moving target anyway. Yesterday Wood is preaching mini-nukes, and today its particle beams. What will it be tomorrow?

Jury still out

We don't know enough to make judgements IMHO.

Personally, I think wise we let the duke it out. Let's watch and see the fall out then decide.

They got the credentials. Science is not be being agreeable.

I agree that the name calling is unfortunate. But more of it. Does not help the game. As time goes by. The frauds will become apparent.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

The jury is still out?

i saw the planes with my own eyes.


Which planes did you see do what?

How long did you see the livery of the plane which you believe to have struck the North Tower? Please describe the livery. Did you actually see it impact?

What was the approach path of the plane you saw which you believe to have struck the South Tower?


i'm not answering anymore questions regarding what i saw that day.

the planes were real

your questions are fake

Real questions

When the revolution comes and the 9/11 perps are put on trial, you will be duly noted as a hostile material witness... you may have to share a cell with Cheney until this is all sorted out.

Refusal to answer questions?!

You refuse to answer questions about an event that you say you witnessed, but that physics says could't have?
And you think that you can keeps your integrity as a witness to the people who doubt the planes?
"Fool me over one plane, and one symmetrical top-down explosive freefall collapse, shame on you.
Fool me over two consecutive planes, and two consecutive top-down explosive freefall collapses, shame on me.
Add in a perfect 47-story implosion and still keep me fooled.....
Then I must be brainwashed"


He has answered the same questions patiently and repeatedly here. For his trouble, he has the privilege of being called either deceitful or unreliable by the NPT set. If I were him, I wouldn't answer any more questions either.

"not answering questions any more"

From your use of "any more" I conclude (and nurture my hope) that you have done so already extensively during the past 5 years. Or that you have done a writeup of everything you saw (and which impressions this created for your thinking) and posted it somewhere on the 'net. Have you? (Sorry to ask...)

Could you please provide a specific link for me to read up?

I can understand, that you now may be tired to write up the same things over and over. But please understand my own situation: I'm relatively new to this. I've not (yet) seen and discovered all, less even read all of the writings that may be out there.

And I'd like to use my own brain to evaluate the evidence, the eyewitness accounts and all the theories that are out there.....

If you don't have time to look up the links to your own eyewitness accounts for me, I'll use Google to locate them (as soon as I have more time).

Until that date, I'll respect you for the guy you appear to me here: "The one who has seen the/a plane(s) that hit WTC Twin Towers with his own eyes, but who now dismisses as 'fake' all questions asking for details about his personal observations on 9/11, for whatever reasons [tiredness?, fading memory about the details?, ...???]"


Of putting words in my mouth. I am not siding with anyone.
I stress patience. Let me reiterate. The frauds will eventually become apparent.

The no planer theory could be put in by paid agents. What good does it do to argue the point with so little to go on.

I was not an eyewitness to the planes. I am suppose to take your word on it? And I am to base my decisions on what you think?

Name calling serves to destroy the name of the debate.
If we stick to the physical arguments. I think we all win.

The no planers should have their day in the science court, ridiculeous or not. That is the only way we know a fraud is a fraud. Not by conjecture.

It appears to me that emotions are running high. People are getting unnecessarily anixous.

We can not stop the no planers. Let them expose their weaknesses will be the only way to rest the point.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Crash science.

You accuse people of mentioning little green men when they are not.
You are trying to discredit them by applying absurdities that were never mentioned, as if it is a part of someones theory.
By consolidated platform I assume you mean one made up of members that agree entirely on all contentious points.
Is that your way of moving the debate forward, to remove those who disagree, or the banish them to the conference floor?
There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?
Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing decelleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tailplane.
The decelleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, seperate reason for the plane to tumble.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back.
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers.
And all the ufos people keep finding in their own tower videos?
Easy- they are B2s.
They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover.
Jane's defence weekly openly talks about it.
But it's not new.
The Nazis had that technology in WW2.
Guess who was a main financer of Hitler?
Prescot Bush.
So this stuff has "stayed in the family".
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidencial facts I seriously doubt their intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?

Please Provide....

Please provide the link or issue where Jane's talks openly about a B2 being able to
"They can cloak in ionised gas and they can hover." :-)

Jane's defence

Hovering I can't find, they want money to let you have wider access to their articles.
But the cloaking with ionised gas is not a secret.
And plenty people have seen them hover.
In fact they do more than hover:
There are more videos than that, many by Italian airforce etc.
If these aren't B2s, then they are something even more advanced and secret aren't they.
Do you think the whole world knows all about the US's most advanced aircraft?!
It is not for me to do this research for you.
This technology existed in the 1940s.
Foo fighters from Germany.
All their developmental people came to US in project paperclip and it all just carried on.
One of Jane's journalists actually wrote a book about the aparent history of antigravity research, I think it was called the hunt for zero point.
Don't tell me that you think the US black ops doesn't have what Hitler had.
Or were the bomber pilots making the foo fighters up?
Or is the similarity between foo fighters and cloaked B2s (orbs) just a wierd coincidence.
People are finding these things all over their WTC videos.
Look for them!
They are easy once you recognise one!
But my post was actually about the crash physics.


1) The cloaking described in the article is for radar cloaking
2) as far as the video, it shows a blob of light - not a B2.
3) the reset of your article is pointless when you introduce points such as 1 & 2.
I suggest in the future if you want to be taken seriously then you stick to the science and not speculation.

You have a point

I realised immediately that the issues should not be put together.
That is why I gave "crash science" it's own blog, and left the "other devices" out.


Your response is right on target.


meaning the response that Real Truther gave on the previous page....

if they're not interesting

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

if they're not interesting to you then don't read them

If you'd stop spamming the shit out of this website

with your non-interesting bullshit, maybe I could.

CB, it's quite possible the Wood is suffering from brain damage. Wasn't she in a comma for like five years? She ain't playing with a full deck if you ask me.

you woke me up to the peak

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

you woke me up to the peak oil fraud, now I'll return the favor by waking you up to tv-fakery.

Here's a question for you... why do you call all theories that you don't understand "bullshit"?


I've looked at your evidence and I've concluded that the best term to describe it is "bullshit".

the word "bullshit" doesn't

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

the word "bullshit" doesn't debunk anything.

and 'round and 'round the mulberry bush we go

What you and couple of other spammers here are doing is wrong and you know it. This website wasn't designed for you to spread your no plane, tv fakery, star wars beams BS.

also, you call it "my"

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

also, you call it "my" evidence. It is not "my" evidence. It's "the" evidence. The way you phrased it shows a predetermination towards a specific conclusion

No. It is your evidence -- and a few others

And whenever you put it up it gets smacked down every time. Let it go already. Sheesh.

with these past comments of

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

with these past comments of yours, you're just demonstrating your inability to want to understand

Dr Wood's new paper also explains the half-toasted cars

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

"Stray" beams could explain these.

imaginary 'beams' could

imaginary 'beams' could explain it. so could imaginary 'fire trolls'. i guess it depends on whatever you want to make up to explain it.

it accounts for all of the

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

it accounts for all of the evidence.

Thermite Toasted the Cars?

Mr. Brooklyn, you say that Judy Wood's WTC beam weapons hypothesis "accounts for all the evidence."

No, it doesn't. Thermite MUST have slectively toasted these cars a half a mile from the WTC towers. Otherwise, the 911Blogger-driven, EVOLVING Official Government Conspiracy Theory might be wrong.

"How?", you might ask. Well, Mr. Brooklyn, the answer is quite simple. Illegal alien Muslim pigeons, hijacked by the Mossad using CIA-supplied remote control devices, swooped into the pre-collapse WTC towers, stole some thermite, flew to the West Side Highway, and dropped the thermite on only selective portions of the cars (thus accounting for the melted, uneven damage to the cars).

Bush, Cheney & the Neo-Cons knew in advance, ordered an air defense stand-down & covered it up.

Since terrorist pigeon droppings are such a common problem in New York, no one else noticed.

If you don't believe usually reliable "Anonymous" sources, then just ask STALLION4 (or Professor Jones) about the many wonders of thermite -- especially for toasting cars.

Illegal Alien Muslim Pigeons: This accounts for ALL the evidence

Illegal Alien Muslim Pigeons
This explains all the evidence! Those darn pigeons.... first they drop thermite on the cars, then plane wreckage, then they fly off with the concrete and structural steel. No wonder the one million tons of tower material didn't break the slurry wall bathtub!
Those darn pigeons. Perhaps Jones will use them for demonstration purposes :)
/comedy off

go to google video and type

go to google video and type in " STAR WARS IRAQ" ! might be a bit unrelated but still it shows some exotic new weapons these bastards are using over there to kill innocent women and children.

911blogger -- in impediment to more research?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]


you can forget about serious discussions here.
In my post I gave at least 5 serious topics, but
people just don't care.

> her heating up aluminum in a darkened room,
As you can see from this example, they don't even read the articles properly.

I think if people would be writing more words here.. we could better find out what their background is and how to talk to them. In that way we can be grateful about pillock-comments... at least we find out that their capacity for uptaking concepts is limited.

Most people who read this are not inclined to comment at all. I deplore this. Here is a free-for-all forum and everyone should try to better her/himself by communicating one's beliefs.. and rub them against reality..

I am happy for the pillock-vs-NOPLANERS debate here or what little there is.

without debate, you can forget democracy right there.

Since I was not in New York on that day (I forgot, was it the 9th?, October?, 2002 or was it... damn, I forgot the date!! just kidding) I cannot say with certainty what was happening in the skies.

But so far it is clear that no large aluminium jets whacked into the steel towers (coffinman said it well!).
I also believe that there were other planes.. fireballs... airplanes vanishing... wow.. we have some work to do. Nico and TEAM 8, we depend on yous!

Now I shall read the Judy Wood article again.
One HAS TO read.

Judy, if you read this... please make a long mp3 audio talk. Don't explain commonly known things, just try to get ALL and every point accross.

I recommend a long mp3 32kbit,22kHz,16bit,mono that we can vroadcast, standalone!

and a SMIL


for the images.

OK, I am back from reading it once more..

And I remember now the Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing


I get the feeling that 911blogger is not where it's at.

"I get the feeling that 911blogger is not where it's at."

Then maybe you'd better leave and take the rest of your disinfo gang with you.

What is glaringly lacking in

What is glaringly lacking in Woods+Reynolds' site is any description of the type of beam weapon used or any calcs on its power or frequency.

Not suprising I suppose since neither of them has any relevent experience or education of such things.

woods is a mechanical engineer specialising in dental fixtures and Reynolds is an economist. While both should be good at math that is where their expertise in the subject at hand begins and ends.

They show cars that have been towed to a temp storage and wonder at how they got twisted. Tires on a vehicle burn and they marvel at the steel belts still on those rims, they show cars that apparently had their fire put out before the whole vehicle was consumed and wonder how that occurs, they show closely parked cars and wonder how they all caught fire. A 13 year old with a bit of thinking could answer all of these questions. But here's one for W+R. If the supposed beam weapon vaporised the steel of the towers as is supposedly evidenced by the vaporising 'spire' AND it also hit those nearby cars then why did not any steel on those cars vaporise? It is much thinner than anything comprising the structural steel members of the buildings but all that has happened is that the paint and some or all of the flammable materials in those cars burned.

All the site is good for is a repository of some pictures that are not in wide circulation.

,,, and it takes a lot of will power not to launch into an ad hominem attack on W+R

Wood's/Reynold's paper is still under contruction, first of all

and second, Wood's expertise is not teeth. She has worked at both Nasa and Boeing.

"Wood's expertise is not

"Wood's expertise is not teeth. She has worked at both Nasa and Boeing."

No mention of either NASA or Boeing here

Do you have a link to bio of Woods that includes a mention of what she did for NASA or Boeing?

nothing that I can share

nothing that I can share publically, sorry. However it really does not matter who's speaking up. Physics is physics. Go to your local university, find a physics instructor, and him to explain it.

So in other words more

So in other words more suggestion and not fact? Sounds like wescam.

"nothing that I can share

"nothing that I can share publically, sorry"

WTF does that mean? Is Woods' work for NASA or boeing somehow classified?

As for physics , no need for instruction as I have education that includes physics.

There is very little physics in the 'beam weapon' website. There is certainly no discussion at all about the type of beam, used, it power output, its power source, any historical reference to such a massive weapon,,, nothing. All it contains are pictures, their captions and a few bits of text.

Sure its "under construction". If compared to building a house this is akin to having had the building supply store deliver the lumber to the site.

The dropping ball site she produced before is laughable in its requirement that each collapse of a level come to a complete halt before the next level fails. Can we assume an equally laughable 'beam weapon' treatise, should it ever materialise?

sorry, I thought we were

sorry, I thought we were talking about the tv-fakery.

Yeah, the Beam Weapon is a bit wild ain't it!!!

Not that's it's not real. And it does account for all the evidence

EH? It accounts for nothing

It accounts for nothing because it says nothing.

What type of 'beam' was used? Laser, maser,particle(what type of particle)
what power o/p, any evidence that it exists? None of these basic requirements for a 'beam weapon' hypothysis are even attempted.

Closely parked cars on fire--one caught fire and the heat ignited a nearby one then others. With little or no firefighting operations possible in the vicinity this will be the result.

Steel belts on the rims after the rubber burned away-- yep that ALWAYS occurs when one burns a steel belted tire,,always!

Bent roof of a car-- in close proximity to two 1300+ft tall buildings that just collapsed this is hardly surprising or mysterious

Twisted cars stacked up--towed and stacked there as part of the clean up. The burnt and wrecked cars on the street would be the very first debris moved in order to make access to clear the roads.

Of Toasted Cars and Half-Baked Personal Attacks:

Beebop, your statements about the "toasted cars" that got selectively "toasted" ONE-HALF MILE from Ground Zero on 9/11/01 are an indication that you may have only skimmed "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" article or that you are DELIBERATELY misstating what is contained in the article in a vain attempt to get other 911 Blogger readers not to read the article. Which is it? The relevant portion of the article on the "toasted cars" is at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html.

As you know (or should know), Thermite probably did not travel ONE-HALF MILE from the WTC buildings to toast those cars -- unless Professor Steven Jones and others are right about the wonders of Thermite and this possible fact. See www.911blogger.com/node/3834#comment-81715.

One other possibility is that energy from some type of a directed energy beam weapon reflected off the WTC buildings and DID travel that distance to SELECTIVELY toast those cars. Of course, as you know (or should know), the cars are burnt and toasted in ways that no regular fire could or would burn.

Both Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds are scientists with much scientific education, training, and experience. They also know how to read and write scientific articles. You know (or should know) that Dr. Judy Wood does NOT specialize in dental fixtures. Since the "dental fixtures" personal attack or ad hominem is a common but false attack used by some others in an attempt to discredit Dr. Wood's research and writing, would you please post your common "Talking Points Memo" about your efforts to discredit her? And please: Take me to your leader...

You say: "What is glaringly lacking in Woods+Reynolds' site is any description of the type of beam weapon used or any calcs on its power or frequency." Does this mean that you acknowledge from the evidence presented in the article that a directed energy beam weapon probably was responsible for much of the damage at and near Ground Zero on 9/11 -- but you just want to know the specific type of beam weapon (along with its power and frequency)? If so, then you MAY be "glaringly" on the right track.

For a POSSIBLE directed energy beam weapon type that MAY have been used on 9/11, see the extensive Federation of American Scientists write-up on a "Space-Based Laser" weapon contained in Appendix 2 of the W+R article at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix2.html. One of Professor Judy Wood's Mechanical Engineering specializations is in Optics, and the focused energy beam that MAY have been used on 9/11 may have been energy from the Sun (which I understand has alot of energy). Imagine that!

Are you holding ALL other 9/11 scientists to similar standards? How much Thermite was used on 9/11? Since Thermite is NOT an explosive, and since these exotic explosives then MUST have been used to disintegrate and pulverize almost ALL of the steel and concret in the WTC towers, tell me this (or ask any 9/11 scientist that you know): 1) What type of exotic explosive was used and what evidence do you have for this exotic explosive? 2) How much of this exotic explosive was used? 3) What is the calculation of the energy release from such exotic explosives that would be required to pulverize and disintegrate almost ALL of the steel and concrete in the WTC towers into talcum-powder-sized dust? Please post your answers in your reply to my comment.

As you probably know, "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" article contains more than 150 high quality pictures, videos, evidence, scientific derivations, and data that MAY be explanable in no other way other than a beam weapon fired from ABOVE. As Dr. Jim Fetzer AND Dr. Steve Jones have said, the Wood and Reynolds' article contains a listing of 9/11 anomalous phenomena that other 9/11 hypotheses NOW need to explain -- unless Wood and Reynolds are actually correct in what they say.

Since you may not have read "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" article (or may not have grasped all of its finer points when you first skimmed it), you can read it from the beginning at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html. Scholars for 9/11 Truth Co-Chair Jim Fetzer also interviewed Dr. Judy Wood for two (2) hours on Dr. Fetzer's RBN Live radio show on Saturday 11/11/06 (available in MP3 archives at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html).


I have been reading this heretic article again... and I cannot understand your objections..

Albanese and DemKarateKid will have problems explaining the mechanism by which the building was brought down, unless they accept a good deal of Wood/Reynolds reasoning.

But that's just me.. and I am a heretic, too.

Dr Wood issues update on paper.

Update on Dr Wood's paper

Update on page 6

Note that this is still in preliminary form and the wording and data are not complete!

Interesting last paragraph:

All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. As Sherlock Holmes declared, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Beam me up Scotty

Did a phasor-like weapon "set to kill" cause people to "disappear"?

from Dr Wood's paper, page 6:


    We went across the lobby of the hotel, going north, and we exited and made a right going towards the second tower, the south tower. We must have walked about 100-200 feet to revolving doors, which led into a hallway to where the mall was. I could see maybe 20, civilians and I believe Ladder 25, which was about another 100 to 150 feet ahead of us. As we came in through the revolving doors, the lights went out. A second or two later everything started to shake. You could hear explosions. We didn't know what it was. We thought it was just a small collapse.

    As I looked straight ahead of me, I saw total darkness. Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared. We turned around. We were all pretty much within ten feet of each other: lieutenant, chauffeur, roof, OV, can. As we turned around, I ran probably maybe ten feet and that's when the body of the building or body of the collapse hit, and we were flying through the air basically. I must have flown 30, 40 feet through the air. Then total quiet. You couldn't breathe. You couldn't see anything.


    Here are the principal data that must be explained:

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

    Ful list here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html#conclusions

Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Wed, 10/25/2006 - 6:36pm

Was Flight 175 Shot Down Over New Jersey?

(NOTE: The Flight 175 idea is mine, not Dr Wood's. I take responsibility for it.)

excerpt from Dr Wood's paper:



Interview Date: October 1, 200 1

As I was running north in this park, and then I could start seeing again a little bit, and I just kept looking in the sky. Cause the captain was saying there's another plane heading in our direction, I was looking for another plane. I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north. About fifteen blocks later, I had no idea that that was just the first tower that had come down.

"Gold Standard" for 9/11 WTC Tower Disintegration Hypotheses???

Dr. Judy Wood & Dr. Morgan Reynolds have now posted a "Conclusions" section at internet page 6 of their new 80+ page article, "The WTC Bathtub and the Star Wars Beam Weapon," at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html. (To read the entire article, go to page 1 at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html.)

Dr. Wood & Dr. Reynolds say that only a "Star-Wars"-type "beam weapon" can account for all of the data and phenomena that we saw on & after 9/11/01. I am still NOT sure that they are correct in this semi-scientifically-testable assertion.

Nevertheless, the data and phenomena that need to be explained by the existing theories and any other new 9/11 WTC Disintegration Hypotheses are appropriate to state or re-state. Should a reasonably-scientific explanation for ALL of these data & phenomena be the "Gold Standard" for 9/11 WTC Tower Disintegration Hypotheses???

Were multiple methods used to destroy the WTC towers (Multi-Factorial Controlled Demolition, as Jim Marrs, others & I have discussed)? This would mean that Thermite, Thermate, conventional & exotic exposive, gravity collapse, and "beam weapons" (etc.) might ALL have been involved in bringing down & disintegrating the WTC towers.

Do any of the current hypotheses scientifically explain ALL of these data & phenomena? If it was NOT a "Star-Wars"-type "beam weapon" that brought down & disintegrated the WTC towers, then what was it? Could Thermite, Thermate and/or other explosive account for all of these data & phenomena? If so, then I would be very interested in a reasonably-scholarly explanation of how this is scientifically possible.

Following is the Conclusions section of the new Wood-Reynolds article (updated within the last day or two):

XIV. Conclusions

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

  1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
  2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
  3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
  4. The WTC mall survived well, witness Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
  5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
  6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up
  7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
  8. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
  9. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
  10. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
  11. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and neighboring buildings
  12. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
  13. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction
  14. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely

What theories are available to explain these phenomena?
We can identify six theories:
  1. Natural causes such as earthquakes and hurricanes
  2. The official theory of airplane impact, fires and weakened steel collapsing
  3. Conventional demolition with explosives such as RDX, dynamite, etc.
  4. Demolition via thermite or its variants
  5. Fission or fusion nukes (and clean bombs)
  6. Beam weapons

No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.

In fact, the data refute theories a to d–natural, official, conventional and thermite demolition–in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors.

The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. As Sherlock Holmes declared, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I have suggested that Dr. Wood & Dr. Reynolds put this information into a table (with the serious WTC hypotheses on the top of the table and the data & phenomena [for which an explanation is needed] on the left, and yes/no/maybe in the cells of the table.

If you have any serious suggestions to make for better organizing the article or for additional questions & issues to be addressed, then you should probably write to Dr. Judy Wood at the email address on her site: www.JaneDoe0911.tripod.com.

I am reserving final judgment on this interesting, new Wood-Reynolds hypothesis until they complete their article and until I hear from qualified peer scientists. Although scientific discoveries are often made by those who are NOT experts in a field of study, we should also get input & feedback from scientists & others who are more knowledgeable about these matters than Woods & Reynolds.

Oct 30 Update on Drs Wood/Reynolds' WTC "Beam Weapon" Paper

The WTC Bathtub and the Star Wars Beam Weapon


Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds

Updated Page 5:


Nov 11: Dr Judy Wood will be the guest on "Non-Random Thoughts"

11 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on
"Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
6-8 PM/CT (7-9 PM/ET and 4-6 PM/PT)
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 2:04 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home