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 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!

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.

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 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, 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.

Best,

Cathy

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!

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
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

DING - you got it, Dem

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.

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.

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

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.

And I bet Judy would too...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

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.

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.

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.

Conclusions:

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 she thinks this website is a CIA front for 'covering up' her research.

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.

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.