disinfo accusations

[riddles]

i have long been of the opinion that the truth lies in a sea of bs. in particular relation to 9/11 the truth is in the media, its just not highlighted and sits quietly amongst all the other distractions.

its only recently that i have been confronted with the notion that all 9/11 truth sites and the main players and activists are only there to serve the objectives of the coverup by being the rallying flag to ally ourselves.

my question to anyone with a view is......is it possible that the truth movement itself, from before 9/11, was instigated by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, specifically so that they would be able to both control and discredit at will, to keep the coverup effective?

in the early days of my interest, 2005, i looked at some of dr judy woods research and presentations. i thought that it was a bit of a leap of imagination to consider exotic beam weapons....so i dismissed dr judy wood as right minded but a bit too many drugs in the 60's.

and for a year or so i have been seeing things on check the evidence dot com, a site who's favourite scientist seems to be dr judy wood. and when both dr judy wood and check the evidence dot com criticised and even ridiculed dr steven jones and thermite theory, i had to act. i am extremely partial to a bit of thermite theory.

so i wrote to her. and she responded at length, which is extremely supprising bearing in mind how many other nut job looney truthers have written to her over the years. she makes some very bold assertions. that the truth movement was created before 9/11. that its major players are acting in ways that support the coverups continuation. that even david ray 'the guru' griffin is not genuine. she claims she is the only real truther and forwarded copies of legal proceedings she is forwarding in the courts. and asserts that others only make a good show of trying to get accountability but deliberately fail to achieve it.

please someone help me guage what the hell is going on. is thermite all faked? is the truth movement part of the coverup? is dr judy wood letting me into the dark secret or spinning me away from it?

[scienceplease 2]

[PookztA]

To answer the thread-creator's question, I do indeed believe that Dr. Judy Wood has hit a bullseye, and also that the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is corrupt. I believe Dr. Judy Wood has hit a bullseye, because she is the only researcher to explain all the easily verifiable physical evidence from 9/11, and she is the only researcher to file the evidence she has gathered in a federal court. As for my opinions about the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, the following detailed article explains many of the reasons why I believe it has been corrupt from the start:

Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust
September 14th, 2010
By Cathy Garger
article: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61147.shtml

This is a must-read article describing the true nature of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, and how it is becoming more and more obvious that it is organized by the same people who planned 9/11, to mislead angry Americans and make sure they are asking the wrong questions and looking in the wrong direction.


In response to the poster above, who failed to answer the thread-creator's question and instead just posted a link, here is my opinion of Dr. Greg Jenkins and the unscientific interview he conducted:

I am very grateful to Dr. Greg Jenkins for conducting his ambush interview of Dr. Judy Wood, because his agenda actually highlighted the importance of Dr. Wood's work. The amount of effort being put forth to attempt to discredit Dr. Wood and convince people to not look at the overwhelming sum of evidence she has gathered is truly remarkable. I find it very interesting that Dr. Jenkins, who works/worked for NSA, showed up with full lighting and camera crews after a talk given by Dr. Fetzer, who had insisted Dr. Wood attend his talk. No one else knew Dr. Wood would be there. Just as she was leaving, around 12am, Jenkins spontaneously confronted Dr. Wood and asked her to do an interview on the spot. Why didn't Dr. Jenkins contact Dr. Wood ahead of time to get advanced permission for the interview? Why didn't Dr. Jenkins attend the conference, but only showed up at the very end of it for the specific purpose of asking Dr. Wood to do this spontaneous interview? Why did Dr. Jenkins show up with full lighting and camera crews, yet he only brought one black and white photo of the thousands of full color photos, videos, documents, and graphs Dr. Wood has gathered, only to later insert the full-color copy of the image into the edited video recording of the interview?

I find it admirable that Dr. Wood was right all along about the fact that the majority of the WTC buildings were transformed to fine dust, especially considering that she has been trying to wake the public up to that fact for over 4 years now. Others are still catching up, as today it is a commonly known fact that the WTC buildings were primarily turned to dust on 9/11. I wonder if Dr. Jenkins has corrected his false claims that the buildings were not turned to dust, or if he still believes the nonsense he was trying to promote throughout the interview... As Dr. Wood often says, you first need to determine WHAT happened, before you determine HOW it happened. If you skip the first part and assume you know what happened, further discussion tends to be rather meaningless and unscientific. Dr. Wood identified that the buildings were transformed to dust, and for some strange reason, Dr. Jenkins really wanted to avoid discussing that topic.

Dr. Judy Wood held strong in her scientific position all these years, and thank goodness she has. Her observations were correct, right from the start. It was this fortitude of hers which has forced Richard Gage (and others) into finally acknowledging the fact that the majority of the WTC buildings turned to dust in mid air. However, that puts Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones in a very difficult position, because thermite does not turn buildings into powder in mid air, nor do explosives of any kind...

Here is the transcript from the interview, which allows for a more detailed analysis of the dialogue: http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html


I hope this information helps clarify my opinion, since that is what the thread-creator asked for.

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

[fish5133]

Hi riddles. in my early seeking of truth and evidence etc etc I gave Dr Wood and those who supported her, what i believe a fair assessment. Having just had my worldview changed because of the 911 lies i was prepared to consider anything.
After reviewing a lot of the photographic evidnce and stuff that Dr Wood put forward I found a lot of her conclusions too dogmatic given the picture i was looking at. A couple of examples would be a photo of a fire truck burnt out at the front and dr woods claim that it was evidence of "an energy beam" targetting the engine which was no longer there. It was pointed out to me that that type of firetruck didnt have its engine at the front where Dr wood said it used to be.
Another later photo several years after 911 when Dr wood was photographing at ground zero showed construction workers spraying water on the road and site. This she said was because the site was still affected from the energy weapons. Having worked in the construction industry the picture showed dust from drilling rigs being dampened down --which is a health and safety requirement on construction sites.
These and other items led me towards the Architects and Engineers website which for me gives a clearer factual presentation without trying to stretch the truth.
My advice if its worth anything is look at everything including No Planes stuff, ask yourself questions, put yourself in the perps shoes, follow your conscience as to what seems right. Truth does have a ring to it-- learn to look at error and falsities as it helps to tune yourself to rubbish and to be able to better discern truth. You dont need to jump on any band wagon. As scienceplease said let it be the strength of truth rather than namecalling.
There seems to be this thing in us that always wants to be correct- i think it is a pride thing concerning knowledge. for me the bottom line is that 3 towers on 911 didnt collapse because of planes and fire and that means the US govt are at least duped or most probably lying and covering up or worse that elements in the Govt were involved in the destruction. Theres an awful lot more technology and opportunity from within the US to cause the collpase of those towers than there was from a bearded man with a laptop living in a cave.

[riddles]

I have read the articles and references mentioned in response to my initial posting of this thread......and thanks to all, i think that has helped.
I read that part of the supporting evidence for exotic weapons is the lack of the twin towers rubble pile compred to the kingdome or more importantly building 7. That there is a tall rubble pile, where 'dustification' clearly did not reduce the majority of the building to dust, does not give any support at all to beam weapons having dustificated the twin towers. Building 7 still fell. If it wasnt a beam weapon to bring that down, what was it? Thermite theory explains all the collapses (if the evidence is real), whereas exotic beam weapon theory claims the absence of its use for building 7 as somehow supporting its having been used for the twin towers? that is speculation piled upon speculation.

I am afraid, as the filter of reality is applied to beam weapon theory and thermite theory, only one stands up to crutiny and passes to continue to be scrutinised.....thermite theory is robust unless the evidence for it has been created by the coverup and steven jones and richard gage and david ray ....i am just pausing for a quick bow...'the guru' griffin are complicit in covering up the crime of the century, then its thermite theory for me!!!

Dr Judy wood offers some genuinely felt instincts that scientifically, all options should be considered, and they should be when/if a real investigation begins. She offers logical reasons to suspect a degree of interference in and guidance of the truth movement by the perpetrators of 9/11. But if you wished to divide the truth movement by sewing the seed of suspicion so eveyone thinks everyone else is part of the coverup.....the best way would be to spread that veryt concept through a truth activist who has theories which are well minded but wrong. I think Dr Judy wood should be applauded for showing the concrete must have been pulverized to dust. But 'dustification' is as rediculous as 'thermal expansion' and does not stand up to scrutiny.

I think Dr wood has been used to spread the vile contagon that is the attempt to divide the truth movement.

Focus on the goals of the movement.....the official version is a lie, a new, real investigation needs to occur.....let us not be distracted from that by sectarian infighting.

[PookztA]

[PookztA]

Mr. Riddles,

It appears from your post that you are not at all familiar with the work of Dr. Wood. At a glance, it appears that nearly every one of your sentences is a misrepresentation of her research and conclusions. Instead of misrepresenting Dr. Wood's work and criticizing her for things she hasn't said, perhaps it would be more helpful and productive if you focused on your own analysis of all the physical evidence instead of conducting a political smear campaign against Dr. Wood?

For example, you said, "Thermite theory explains all the collapses (if the evidence is real), whereas exotic beam weapon theory claims the absence of its use for WTC Building 7 as somehow supporting its having been used for the twin towers? That is speculation piled upon speculation. "

Dr. Wood does not have a "beam weapon theory" and has never "claimed" an absense of a technology on building 7 supports the use of it on another. You have made a lot of false statements about Dr. Wood that appear to be your own creations. Why are you putting forth such unscientific, inacurate claims based on your misunderstanding / lack of understanding of Dr. Wood's scientific conclusions? It is quite bewildering to see how thoroughly you have misrepresented the conclusions of Dr. Wood.

Dr. Wood discusses easily verifiable physical evidence and what that evidence leads to. You have claimed that "Thermite theory explains all of the collapses." Let us review your claims. First, the buildings did not collapse. So that destroys your theory/speculataion right from the start. Next, I would like you to explain how a "Thermite theory" explains "all of" the following easily verifiable physical evidence (feel free to ignore my personal experiences towards the bottom of the list):

• How come most of the Twin Towers’ steel and concrete was transformed into a fine dust, while large quantities of aluminum exhibited strange electrical burns, yet paper was unharmed? Extreme heat from jet fuel (or explosives) does not selectively damage certain materials, so how come some materials turned to dust, while other materials were bent or burnt, and yet other materials were completely unharmed?
• Why was Hurricane Erin travelling straight for NYC from September 7th-11th 2001, yet it was not reported on by local media broadcasts in that area in the days leading up to 9/11? When local news channels displayed schematic maps of the northeast coastline, why was Hurricane Erin not shown? Hurricane Erin was slightly larger than Hurricane Katrina, and hurricanes rarely head straight for NYC, so why wasn’t it reported on and/or shown by local media outlets? Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to NYC on the morning of September 11th, just before it did a ~150° turn away from its straight-line trajectory later that day and headed back out to sea.
• Why were there statistically significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? Why were the 6 University of Alaska magnetometer stations detecting normal readings for days before 9/11, when there was suddenly a huge electromagnetic disturbance in the Earth's magnetosphere precisely as the attacks occurred?
• Why do official seismograph readings around ground zero show smaller ground vibrations in comparison to the controlled demolition of the King Dome, which is a smaller building? Shouldn’t the smaller building have generated a smaller seismographic reading than the WTC buildings? Or perhaps the smaller reading of the WTC buildings came about because they were turned to fine particles of dust, as the evidence shows?
• How come there are many reports of power outages and electrical failures in the areas surrounding ground zero just as the attacks commenced?
• Why were numerous first responders’ Scott packs (oxygen tanks) spontaneously exploding around ground zero?
• How were the Twin Towers turned to dust so fine, that the dust floated high up into our atmosphere. The satellite photos show a clear distinction between the black smoke and the whitish-grey dust, so what turned such a large portion of these buildings to dust so fine that it floated high into our atmosphere?
• How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?
• How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?
• How come several steel beams were observed to be bent and/or shriveled up in very unusual ways, ways which have only been observed during The Hutchison Effect experiments?
• Why were no toilets recovered from the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of toilets, yet not a single one was found in the rubble?
• Why was only one file cabinet found in the small WTC rubble pile? Thousands of metal file cabinets, yet only one was found? The metal from the cabinet showed severe warping and distortion, similar to that seen in The Hutchison Effect, so how did this happen? Furthermore, how were their non-burnt pieces of paper found fused to the metal remnants of the single file cabinet?
• How did countless pieces of paper money survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless intact paper bills survived?
• How did countless plastic photo IDs survive the WTC attacks? Toilets and metal file cabinets do not survive, but countless plastic ID cards survived?
• How come spontaneous rusting of materials occurred all around ground zero? In some instances, entire front-halves of cars were rusted, while the back-halves appeared to be virtually untouched?
• How come various debris at ground zero was still observed to be fuming and being hosed down well into 2008, as video evidence clearly shows? Do fires last for 7+ years? Do debris from fires need to be hosed down 7 years later?
• How come circular holes were observed in the windows of virtually all the buildings near ground zero, when holes like these are known only to be caused by longitudinal waves of energy? If building debris smashed the windows, they would have shattered in a predictable way, so how come these countless windows did not shatter, but instead, developed circular holes characteristic of the effect of longitudinal waves of energy on glass?
• How was the ‘bathtub’, the area directly beneath the Twin Towers, left virtually unharmed? How could thousands of tons of falling building debris not damage the ‘bathtub’ beneath the WTC buildings?
• How was the ‘Looney Toons’ gift shop in the basement of the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed, so dramatically that the ‘Bugs Bunny’ statue and other statues were not even scratched or dented? How could these figurines survive thousands of tons of falling building debris?
• How was the unharmed PATH Train beneath the WTC buildings left virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t falling building debris have crushed that train, or at the very least, knocked it off the tracks?
• How could thousands of tons of rapidly falling steel and concrete building debris leave the ‘Bath Tub’, the basement gift shops, and the PATH train, virtually unharmed? Shouldn’t thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete cause significant damage to at least one of these?
• How come Dr. Wood has already filed evidence-based legal cases against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies based on their conflict-of-interest relationship with N.I.S.T., yet other 9/11 “truth” researchers have not? How come Dr. Steven Jones has not officially filed his scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ nano-thermite evidence with Congress or the U.S. Courts?
• Why are groups like AE911Truth and PilotsFor911Truth just now claiming to be “pursuing a new 9/11 investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed many legal cases to pursue such an investigation, one which was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009?
• Why did Dr. Jones ban Dr. Wood from his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group long ago, just because they had different conclusions about what destroyed the towers? Shouldn’t Dr. Jones and his ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ group be supporting the 9/11 investigation that Dr. Judy Wood has already demanded with her legal cases, even if he does not agree with her conclusions?
• Why was I silently removed from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) petition simply for asking Richard Gage if he would examine the research of Dr. Judy Wood? Why didn’t AE911Truth just reply to my well-intended email question, but instead, silently removed me from their petition? I have donated over $100 to AE911Truth, so why was I silently removed from the petition simply for asking Richard Gage a question? Why was I later contacted by Mark Graham of AE911Truth once they discovered I was telling people about what had happened? They could contact me and offer me a refund to try and stop me from telling people about how I was silently removed from their petition, but they couldn’t respond to my email which simply asked Richard Gage if he had looked into Dr. Judy Wood’s research?
• Why was I severely censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less-qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I was not even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result.
• Why did United States Army Major Doug Rokke (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that explosives were the only things used on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did Soviet Nuclear Intelligent Officer Dimitri Khalezov (retired) spontaneously contact me to try and convince me that underground nuclear explosives were what turned the buildings to fine particles of dust on 9/11, and to convince me to stop talking about Dr. Judy Wood, yet he never provided any significant proof to back up his negative accusations against her?
• Why did these high-ranking retired military officials randomly contact me, an insignificant medical student, when they should be contacting members of the U.S. Congress, and other high-ranking members of our government, with their concerns and the “evidence” they claim to have?


Lastly, you wrote, "Focus on the goals of the movement.....the official version is a lie, a new, real investigation needs to occur.....let us not be distracted from that by sectarian infighting." Certainly you genuinely mean what you wrote, so your many dishonest statements in your post must not have been for the sake of "divide and conquer," but were the focus of "the movement." That is, you have essentially told us that misrepresenting Dr. Wood is the focus for the goals of the movement. Did I understand you correctly? If not, perhaps you can explain.

Thanks Mr. Riddles,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

[Micpsi]

[PookztA]

Micpsi,

The truly unscientific, inaccurate nature of your replies, does not warrant much need for me to respond to you, but I did want to make sure that I corrected you on at least one of the rumorous inaccuracies you are attempting to spread in your post.

Even your Wikipedia link acknowledges that Hurricane Erin was indeed a Hurricane. This is a simple, easily verifiable fact. Did you even read the link you posted? I assume not, because at the link, you would have read this:

"Erin strengthened into a hurricane on September 9 while moving northwestward. This was the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since Hurricane Diana on September 10, 1984.[1] Erin quickly intensified and reached peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) later on September 9

...after passing just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland it became extratropical on September 15. The extratropical remnant continued northeastward and lost its identity near Greenland on September 17."


I'm sorry I don't have time to point out every single inaccuracy in your reply to me, but I am sure that it doesn't matter, because people are looking into this issue for themselves, viewing all the evidence with their own eyes, and making up their OWN mind about it.

The truth will prevail, regardless of our opinions.


In Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology