Dr. Jim Fetzer Interviews Dr. Judy Wood about "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" on RBN Live

Dr. Judy Wood is Dr. Jim Fetzer's special guest on Jim's internationally-syndicated RBN radio show tonight, Saturday night (November 11th).

Dr. Wood will discuss her new scientific article, "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon," available in preliminary form at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html (containing 150+ high-quality pictures). Her co-author for the article is Dr. Morgan Reynolds.

You can listen live to the show by clicking on one of the links at www.rbnlive.com/listen.html. Dr. Wood and Dr. Fetzer will be taking your questions -- live -- during the broadcast.

After you read the article and after listen to Jim Fetzer's show with Judy Wood, let's discuss it below.

Following is Dr. Steven E. Jones' request that the Scholars for 9/11 Truth "take a close look at these ideas." Steve Jones goes by the name of "Hard Evidence" below.

> "Star Wars Beam" weapons at WTC? (Morgan R+Judy W
Registered User
Posts: 1810
(11/6/06 1:43 pm)
Reply "Star Wars Beam" weapons at WTC? (Morgan R+Judy W

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have begun construction of web pages describing the use of laser/microwave beams at the web site below, and we ought to take a look at these ideas. Nice photos.

Links and her conclusions follow:

XIV. Conclusions

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse"
The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers

The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage

The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends

The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned
into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
File cabinet with folder dividers surviving
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
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

Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted

in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
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, the sound of explosions
The possibility that a technology exists. 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

More, and notice the emphasis on burned-out cars (which Jim Fetzer often mentions to me, also -- note he will have Judy Wood on his radio show this coming Saturday)...

Following is a picture of what remains of WTC6 (the U.S. Customs Building), next to the minimal debris pile at Ground Zero. In their article, Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds ask us to notice the puliverized and disintegrated hollowed-out core of the once-solid office building -- especially the circular-shaped holes on the pheriphery of this hole.
In addition to other data, pictures, and evidence in their article, Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds assert that these round holes are evidence not only for a Star-Wars-type "Beam Weapon" but also for the width of the beams from the weapon(s). If a directed energy "beam weapon" did not pulverize and disintegrate portions of WTC6 and all or portions of other WTC buildings, then what else could have made these holes in WTC6 and produced almost all of the other anomalous phenomena that we saw on and after 9/11/01 (such as the selectively "toasted cars" 1/2 mile from Ground Zero)?
WTC6 (US Customs Building) with Disintegrated & Hollowed-Out Core - Notice the Circular-Shaped Holes on the Perephery of the Hollowed-Out Core

I'm sorry but this theory

I'm sorry but this theory sounds like sheer lunacy. I suspect that Judy Wood is an agent of influence.

"sounds like...I suspect..."

ANY evidence for those assertions? Did you examine the evidence presented? Do you have an alternative theory which accounts for all of the observed phenomena?

 “The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain”

 “The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth”

"The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7"

The buildings were PULVERIZED (reduced to dust or powder).

 “Curiouser and curiouser”, cried Alice.

 And for anyone NOT familiar with the brutal execution/murder of her assistant please see Justice for Michael Zebuhr

Where are these quotes

Where are these quotes (“The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain” “The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth” "The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7") from?

I'm operating under the assumption that the pulverization could have been caused by lots of explosives, but thoroughly not by gravity, AND THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO SHOW TO GET THIS OPENED UP FOR AN INVESTIGATION where it can be examined properly, with subpoena power.

That's right, John-- we're

That's right, John-- we're getting to that stage, of examining the allegations scientifically. But you know, on 9/11 itself, a lot of people were looking at what was going on and saying, "this doesn't add up." Same thing here. But again, until the use of explosives inside the buildings has been ruled out, WHICH IT HASN'T, I suggest this matter be given EXTREMELY low priority.

Justice for Michael Zebuhr

I can't shake the feeling that the no planes/space beam disinfo team had something to do with Michael's death.

Show "Those OPPOSED to Wood's Research May Have Murdered Her Student" by Thomas J Mattingly

I don't read your trash and I'm not gonna start now

First of all, you are a no-planes/space beam disinfo spammer and if you think you're fooling anyone, forget about it. No truth activist has the kind of time you obviously do to spam these boards with such highly formatted crap. 

I didn't accuse Wood of murder.

I DO think that the murder is connected to the disinfo team that is responsible for spreading the noplanes/spacebeam bullshit.

Got a problem with that? Too bad.


Show "A Disincentive to Legitimate 9/11 Science & Research?" by Thomas J Mattingly

911 Blogger Moderators Selectively Enforce the Policies & Rules

Andrew, I agree with you 100% about the outrage to common decency (to say nothing about the violation of 911 Blogger rules & policies) that such vicious personal attacks represent.

However, the moderators of 911 Blogger appear to only selectively enforce their own policies & rules.  My complaints about such personal attacks directly to dz have yielded NO real results.  His only response (coincidental, of course) was to begin to pre-censor the blogs of those who were being personally attacked -- along with ALL other 911 Blogger bloggers, of course. 

Censoring & delaying the blogs (even for established 911 Blogger bloggers) only increased the anger & personal attacks against those who supposedly caused the new 911 Blogger delay & censor policies,  Truth delayed is truth denied.

In addition, complaining about such personal attacks and other rule & policy violations would be a full time job (and I already have a couple of those)..

Although I OFTEN disagree with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (and almost everyone else, including myself), I know how sensitive that Wood is about Michael Zebuhr's murder (which IS arguably 9/11-related -- see www.MichaelZebuhr.blogspot.com).  Therefore, I replied to YT -- and also addressed the larger fear-and-confusion questions about "What, Me Worry?".

If the 911 Blogger moderators don't begin to truly moderate such unfortunate, counterproductive, unfounded, insidious & vicious personal attacks, then we ALL may soon be eyewitnesses to an impending irrelevancy & marginalization of 911 Blogger.

Now, we can probably expect that the negative ratings will pile up on our respective comments -- by the same people who engage in these vicioius, unfounded personal attacks (or by the moderators themselves). 

All that it takes to auto-hide the text of our coments is for three (3) witting or witless auto-hide cover-uppers to negatively rate our comments. 

9/11 Blogger gets thousdands and thousands of visitors per day.  This makes it easy for the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps to retard possible 9/11 truths, to subtly get all 911 Blogger readers seeing only what they want, and to sew a Divide & Conquer mentality here at 911 Blogger. 

One would expect for the 911 Blogger moderators to know better.  Go figure!

Show "I challenge DZ & Co to let this comment stand." by Veronica (not verified)

Are you the freak who wrote this article?

South Tower video seems faked

The reason I think the no-planers are on to something is that the video showing the plane slipping into the South Tower depicts something that is physically impossible. There should have been much more deceleration and debris, and the fuel in the wings most likely would have exploded outside the building.

Challenge accepted!

In e-mails, DZ & Co. have been made very aware that a number of their ‘major bloggers’ are nothing more than Trolls - who splatter unsupported assertions around, with liberal doses of pure ad hominems.

there are a lot of people that do these things.. on all sorts of sides..

They have been requested to ‘do something about it’. Yet they have failed to take any seriously active steps.

what would you like me to do? i thought i was already too 'draconian'? would you like me to remove those that you don't like, or would these rules apply across all users? your statement of 'trolls - who splatter unsupported assertions around with liberal doses of pure ad hominems' could be said about a number of users, not just the ones whom you dislike. take a look at the community blog entry rankings, would some of those at the bottom be trolls too, or only those which you think are?

So whatchagonnado DZ?

1) Delete this comment?
nope, comment moderation is now off my plate and into the hands of the community.

2) Ban me?
nope. (to clarify Nico isn't banned and hasn't been for some time)

3) Clean up your 911Blogger.com of Trolls who do nothing than post unsupported assertions & ad hominems?
so now you would advocate banning users? i thought i was wrong for doing this in the past? should i go back and do this retro-actively too? your definition of 'troll' and 'unsupported assertions' is open to personal perspective wouldn't you say? should i moderate from my perspective only and be the 'draconian' fox news pundit you want to paint me as, or should i not moderate so that you can then complain that i'm not?

Is that what you wanted DZ? By ignoring the e-mails, it’s what you asked for.
i'm not sorry for not responding to the emails copied to ~12 other people making invalid assertions and assumptions about me and/or this site. i respond to people who really want a response, not to witch hunts or veiled threats.

Your call, DZ & Co.
i've been open enough in my blog entries that my intention is to put any and all moderation into the hands of the community as a whole, and that is my 'call'. in fact that is what i have been working on from 6PM until 2AM (just to get up at 7AM for my REAL job).. i'm sure once that is in place you'll take issue with it as well.

the reality is that there is no form of moderation that would make everyone here happy. at least most can deal with what the site is, and realize that there are other sites out there, and that they are free to start their own even. also most can understand that things don't happen overnight, and that when i say i'm working on something then it's going to come 2nd to my real job, and its going to fit in with other priorities i have aside from trying to be put into the position of a babysitter for some here.

so.. to summarize..

1) we should have real time posting of comments/blogs ('Truth delayed is truth denied')
2) a team member should be around to moderate everything perfectly according to each person's perspective of 'troll' and 'unsupported assertions' 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
3) don't moderate against stuff that you might agree with because that would be 'draconian'
4) moderate against anything you might disagree with otherwise we are facilitating shouting matches
5) ban users who are 'trolls' and post 'unsupported assertions', but not the ones i like who might be accused of the same thing

have you ever considered what it takes for 24/7 real time moderation? do you want to fund 3 people to work 8 hour shifts?

i've said i'm working on a new system, to get myself out of this desired role of perfect 24/7 moderator. i can't wait to roll it out. i'm sure it won't stop the complaints from some, but then again those same people usually have no constructive suggestions, just a predilection for complaining, and playing the victim while attacking others - all while failing to do anything constructive for which they could be open for criticism themselves.

there ya go, you got a response, hope it makes you feel all warm and mushy inside!

if you want to reply, why not explain the most feasible end all solution to proper community moderation? i've come up with my solution which i am working on, lets hear yours.

re: Andrew

I am angry because that disgusting assertion about Zebuhr's murder is still fouling this page.

And you're somehow not angry about the disgusting assertion by Wood and her cohorts that "Space Beams" killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11?


bad analogy

How is it less disgusting to assert that thousands of innocent people were killed by explosives?

Why is my comment there?

Because I fucking posted it there! Cool how that works, huh?

It's my statement of my personal feeling on the matter and like I told the other guy - if you don't like it, TOO FUCKING BAD.


Hey YT

Have you read this? Pretty interesting :

The bizarre case of Michael Zebuhr

6 year coma?! 

6 year coma?!  Interesting...

My guess would be..

That Judy Jetson was not in a coma for those six years. More likely a good excuse for disappearing for a while to do some whacked out covert work. What hospital did she spend the coma in? Anyone know?

As for Zebuhr he may have been killed because he knew something, or he may be another case of "deathus fakedensis", currently reaching epidemic proportions in some circles...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Waking up from a 6 year coma

Waking up from a 6 year coma and then pursue a career as an engineering professor is rare indeed.  Even rarer not to become a vegetable or other serious neurological problems.

Do I doubt it? That lends to belief and on serious issues like this, belief is not enough.  But the occurance of waking up from such a long coma is certainly news worthy on a local level at least.  I can't find any mention of this at all. (blogs don't count).

When did she wake up?   

No, I haven't seen that

I'll check it out, thanks stallion.

Show "Investigate Wood, Reynolds, Mattingly, Fetzer, Jones, AND ST911!" by DBS (not verified)

The best disinfo has a lot of truth in it, huh?

Let's just say I have a totally different take on it than you do (are you really DBS btw?) I see you posting the highly suspicious details of the events leading up to and following Michael's murder but then you start mixing in all kinds of completely unfounded stuff. I am certainly not going to sit here and pick it apart but I see that you equate Alex Jones with white supremacist groups and out of the blue accuse Steven Jones of luring in students to murder (lol - so bad)... this just isn't gonna work for me, DBS.

On the other hand I would support an investigation into Reynolds, Wood and Mattingly. 

had to register to get all

had to register to get all of the comments on Judy Wood...

 Hard to understand at times, and is kinda boring. Definetely get the hw solutions to follow so you can become professient and make sure your doing it right. Hw assignments are a pain in the ass. Due every class, and graded on correctness (get the solutions!). Tests aren't too bad though and grading is reasonable.

Does not need to be teaching.

She is an odd lady, to say the least. She is very good at what she does, but she can't always explain it well enough for students to understand. SHE TAKES FOR EVER TO GIVE EXAMS BACK!!!!! It took here 3 weeks to give an exam back once.

Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

She woke up from a coma and decided her calling was to become a professor. She did not really seem to know the material, and she was hopeless at trying to convey it to the student. She fails to be able to complete a thought if not a sentance. If it is possible at all, aviod her.

uh she was real easy on some tests, and horrible on others, i took one test before i even got the previous one back

Dr. Wood has good intentions, but she is not wound too tight. Not a good teacher if you are looking for orgainization and structure. She gives lots of real world examples and tries to illustrate topics more than most teachers. However, this will not help you are her tests. They are difficult.

ok um... what's a good word that will describe her... She um.... SUCKS!!!! SHE IS SO HORRIBLE! WOW! I MEAN I WAS LIKE WOW, WHY ARE YOU STILL TEACHING?

VERY VERY VERY unorganized and unprofessional. Avoid her at all cost. I did not belive a professor could be this bad until I had her. She gave my first exam back three and a half weeks afte I took it. She expected homework to be turned in at the beginning of class yet she was always late. Always!!

Very bad teacher, never organized, can't understand a question and if she can, refuses to answer it. Need a microscope to read the board. Looks to take off points rather than to give you points. Refuses to answer her door when you knock on it. I want my money back for the lack of teaching.

what they said... dont take her and if you must, go to SI

She is unwilling to help you understand the material in class. She is not an effective teacher. I depended on my book to pass the class. I do not suggest her for anyone! She ridicules students in class when they ask questions.

oh wow...she is a terrible teacher. she writes SO small on the board and talks straight into so the class has no idea what is going on. Don't dare ask a question in class because she will laugh in your face. The only way i passed her class was for my SI leader. I do not recommend her at all.


That shit is out of control.

Tell Wood & Reynolds to stop obfuscating the perpetrators'

simple, practical methods with laser beams & holograms! They are doing more harm than good to the truth movement.

enough is enough

I just took the links to Fetzer related material off of my website.

i will likely do the same tonight...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Good for you

I hope everyone with a 9/11 website will do the same.

Myself and a few others tried warning people about Fetzer following his appearances on Alan Colmes' and Laura Ingraham's radio shows a while back:

Jim Fetzer on the Alan Colmes Radio Show - June 27, 2006:
Jim Fetzer on Laura Ingraham Radio show - 07/20/06

However, he was able to give a couple of strong performances on Hannity & Colmes to deflect much of this criticism.

I also tried warning people about Judy Wood who I believe conducted a deceptive experiment by heating up aluminum in a darkened room to make it glow red/orange (where pretty much anything will glow red/orange when heated up in a darkened room). She and others have used this experiment to discredit Steven Jones' aluminum experiment, where he heated up aluminum in daylight conditions, which produced a "silvery" glow because of the high reflectivity of aluminum.

She also created (what I believe to be) a deceptive billiard ball experiment concerning the speeds in which the towers fell -- saying that each floor fell onto the next floor below it at the same speed all the way down.

If anyone still has doubts about what their true intentions are after listening to their latest "Space Beams" stunt on Fetzer's last show, you should change the batteries in your BS detector, or upgrade to a new one.

Our only recourse now is to denounce both of them and make it clear that they DO NOT represent the 9/11 truth movement -- and anyone promoting them should not be trusted, including 911Blogger.com who has routinely promoted their work over the last year.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Amen, stallion.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



I don't understand the hologram stuff at all... I mean holograms dont cause people to look up before the plane even comes into view. Only sound can do that! Let's face it, if anyone has the technology to create those kinds of holograms, complete with sound effects, then we may as well just throw our hands up and submit!

But the idea of a tesla style beam weapon, while it may sound outlandish and impractical, it is really not. However, it IS outlandish to push a theory involving such a weapon without a great deal of evidence. Outrageous claims require outrageous amounts of evidence... I feel I've done my part by keeping my eyes open for any such evidence. It's been over a year since I first heard of the "scalar weapon theory", and in all that time I just haven't seen any new evidence come to light.

That's OK, but could you please explain

You say it sounds like sheer lunacy. Do you mean that you think it is lunacy, or that it will be perceived as lunacy. If the former, please explain why it is lunacy. If the latter, why does that matter if it might be true?

Why do you think Judy Woods is an agent of influence?

I find all this meta-talk really weird. Is it not possible for people to assess ideas on their merits, or not at all?

In this case, both.

It's lunacy and it sounds like lunacy, too. That actually simplifies matters, I think, because the two don't always go together.

It is possible for people to evaluate ideas on their own merits, and I think most people who are criticizing Wood here have actually looked at her site, and paid special attention when Steven Jones remarked on her work when questioned about it by Nico Haupt after Jones' recent presentation. (He IS the only crazy-looking dude with a German accent who goes to these things, right?) But you do have to be a little "meta" and contextualize the ideas. It's basically one group of people (some exceptions) who have championed first the "No Plane" theory, then the "TV Fakery" theory, and now the beam weapons theory. Why would you suppose that it? Are they just visionaries?

Show "casseia, when YOU lie, is it Miss Dis-Info or just Miss Info ?" by Catch Her in the Lie (not verified)

That's why I asked.

Is there more than one crazy-looking dude with a German accent who wants to argue with Professor Jones about beam weapons? It was that guy, whoever it was.

There IS more than one

"crazy-looking dude with a German accent who wants to argue with Professor Jones about beam weapons". Strangely enough..


Well, who'da thunk it.

My bad for assuming.

Show "casseia - You're Llying Again (Unmasking Miss Dis-Info Witch)" by Catch Her in the Lie (not verified)

You spamming creeps

sure are a wordy bunch, aren't ya? How's the pay? Sleep well?


Show "Thank you, YT, for admitting that cassiea LIES" by Catch Her in the Lie (not verified)


funny stuff

I like casseia, she's one of my favorite contributors to this site.


Show "Yes, casseia Is a Lickable Liar" by Catcher Her in the Lie (not verified)

As far as being "lickable"

Not by you, that's for damn sure.

Well said

I feel like I'm watching a train wreck.

All this "hurts the movement" is so ridiculous.

Contact GCN NOW!!

Uncle Fetzer is planning on taking his disinfo show over to GCN, since he burned his bridge over at RBN with a "space beam".

Call Ted Anderson and demand that he not allow this disinfo creep on his network:

3105 Sibley Memorial Highway, Eagan MN 55121
1- 877-996-4327
Ted Anderson Ext.101

GCN Live call-in number: 1 800 259 9231

Also explain that if he allows Fetzer to have a show on GCN, you will contact all of his advertisers and tell them about Fetzer's recent Space Beam crapola. Also explain to Anderson that you intend on contacting 9/11 family members to tell them that GCN endorses Fetzer's promotion of Space Beams killing their loved ones.

Also contact Alex Jones and tell him the same thing:


And don't forget to send Alex Jones links to Fetzer's Space Beam show with that other creep Judy Wood:

Non-Random Thoughts
Host: James Fetzer
Sat., November 11, 2006
w/ guest Judy Wood

Hour 1
Hour 2

Show "Tremendous presentation" by Master Logician (not verified)

11/06/06 post

Jones commented directly on the beam weapon theory during his presentation yesterday (11/11) and more or less dismissed it at least until Wood can produce a lot more supporting evidence. That suggests that he looked at her site (which I have as well, incidentally) and did not find it persuasive.

Show "The orwellian 9/11 truthling" by Snappler (not verified)

Ah, "orwellian truthling"

Haven't heard that in a while. And y'all are still refusing to capitalize "Orwellian." Almost makes me nostalgic. Next, can you tell me to "slush my drivel"?

Show "Slush it! :) " by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "That suggests you've proven Jones to be incompetent." by Anonymous (not verified)

Why do you suppose

she doesn't include the possibility of thermite/thermate and conventional explosives combined?

At this point, don't most of us agree that the Towers were, in fact, blown to Kingdom Come, and not brought down by gravity? I think she's making a pretty big leap from that to beam weapons -- a leap facilitated by using some anomalies as stepping-stones, but still a leap. People accept that the buildings were pulverized and dispersed and that's why the debris piles were small, the seismic evidence suggests that not much crap hit the ground, and possibly explains in itself why the slurry wall was not damaged. It's the mechanism of pulverization that people disagree about, and I don't think she makes a compelling case for beam weapons being the best explanation.

Regarding the idea that planes were grounded because beam weapons were going to be used -- where is she getting that information? I don't think we have any idea what was really happening with military planes during that period.

One argument Jones made against the beam weapon hypothesis is that it would require gargantuan quantites of energy, and she has not given us any idea of where the energy would come from. A valid argument, undoubtedly, but one that does sound a little like "Well, how could they ever get six zillion tons of dynamite into the towers, secretly?" But what about this: whereas Jones gives us evidence that thermite cutting tools designed for steel beams do in fact exist, Wood doesn't give us any evidence that a beam weapon does. The fact that microwave ovens have been around for a few decades is not proof.

I'm curious about "people disappearing instantly." Is that on her site?

Show "This is getting weird. See" by Anonymous (not verified)

Microwave gun.

If you check out that page, it's not very impressive. Even assuming the military is decades ahead in R & D, the case for the use of beam weapons at the WTC seems hollow to me.


The towers look like they were blown to kingdom come, but it does not necessarily mean they were. Most people are seeing 2 possible alternative theories, but I am seeing three.

1. The most popular CD theory, where explosives were placed throughout the building and detonated by a series of precisely sequenced radio signals OR possibly pressure sensitive triggers or possibly some combination of both (RF arming mechanisms with motion/vibration-sensing triggers, etc).

2. Some type of sci-fi beam weapon was placed in the sub-basement of each tower. When activated, it scrambled the molecular structure of the steel and the concrete (and superheating all the water in the building), which slowly weakened the entire structure to the point where it crumbled. The collapse would have naturally began at the building's lateral weak point--the impact site, AND the collapse would have appeared somewhat explosive due to the superheated water and it's reaction with the concrete.

3. Some type of thermite-based explosive was detonated deep in the basements of the towers, causing all vertical support for the buildings to fail, which in turn caused the building to begin collapsing at its lateral weak point--the impact site.I believe this theory has the most supporting evidence, and the least amount of contradictory evidence. (both theories 1 and 2 have a great deal of contradictory evidence.) I think it is possible that the buildings could have totally crumbled from the top down, WITHOUT the use of any explosives above ground level, IF the support columns were ONLY cut near the bedrock.

I lean towards the 3rd theory simply because it is not only the simplest and the easiest to pull off, it is also the least contradicted all the available evidence. Curiously, #3 is the least discussed theory, at least as a standalone theory apart from #1.

They exist

These weapons exist and have for some time. But at a scale to do what we saw? I have no idea. And Jones is right -- where do you get the energy? But I'm not sure that is harder to believe than getting all those explosives set.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a theory. People need to get over there worry about the "movement" being discredited.

And I don't see how telling the 9/11 families their loved ones were murdered by the government with high explosives would be easier for them to accept than murdered by a directed energy weapon.

Why should she?

"Why do you suppose she doesn't include the possibility of thermite/thermate and conventional explosives combined?"

If she doesn't think that is a viable theory, why should she.

I think Steven Jones went as far out on a limb as Judy Woods. Sure, we know thermate exists, but all the
controlled demolition people are saying that they would not use it. I'm thinking of the Brent Blanchard paper.
The logistics of thermate and explosives is quite daunting. This is one part of that Blanchard paper that made sense to me.

The fact remains that the buildings were somehow demolished. Wood has a different theory than Jones. What's the big deal? If she's wrong, she's wrong.

Does no one here recognize

Does no one here recognize that, regardless of truth, openly discussing the possibility that a space beam weapon was used to destroy the twin towers does far more damage to the 9/11 Truth Movement than it helps? I honestly don't see how the pro-space beam posts are all getting voted up.

If you look at her web pages on this theory, there is nothing that even comes close to proof that a space beam was used. All she has are some carefully selected photographs with very little detailed, coherent, persuasive scientific analysis. It is all conjecture.

Until you can actually prove that such a weapon exists, this theory should not be taken seriously. The argument that our government has technology that we won't know about for 30 years could support any number of different hypotheses. I, for one, could use it to THEORIZE that the government has developed extremely high powered explosives, far more powerful than any explosive we know of, and placed these super-high power explosives throughout the building. These super-high power explosives are what turned the building into dust. Can I prove it? Absolutely not. But it's just as likely as space beams. All you need to overcome the bathtub damage problem is provide an energy source powerful enough to completely destroy a large part of the building. Judy says it's space beams, I say it was a super-high powered explosive. Neither of us can prove or disprove one another because neither of us can prove that the technology exists.

And we will never be able to prove what exactly happened until we have a full investigation with subpoena power. Only then will you have access to documents and witnesses that could detail exactly how the whole thing played out. In order to get a new investigation, we need to continue to wake people up to the fact that it was an inside job. That will never happen if you start going up to people and saying "Hey, did you know they used space beams to destroy the twin towers?" It's just that simple. If Jim Fetzer gets another chance on Fox and starts talking about space beams, he will do incalculable damage to the movement. People won't even bother looking at it, or googling it as one caller suggested. They will simply laugh and say, man those conspiracy nuts will come up with anything.

Save the Movement from the truth?

What is the "9/11 Truth Movement"? Who is in it? Who is not?

What is "9/11 Truth"?

Is that similar to the truth, but different?

You said that even if it were true that such a weapon was used, "openly discussing" even the "possibility" would damage the movement.

How does the truth damage the 9/11 Truth Movement?

I look forward to your answers.

9/11 Truth

9/11 Truth is a movement that looks for the *Truth* about 9/11. Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true. Wood's paper doesn't even come close to having enough evidence for anyone to accept it as the *Truth*. It is all conjecture.

I am in no way suggesting that she should discontinue her research, but she should not publish her conjecture as fact because it does not stand up to scrutiny. As I said before, the difference between Jones's work and Wood's work are day and night. Jones's work is full of thorough, thoughtful and scientifically sound analysis that has a high possibility of surviving peer review. Wood's "paper" has very little if any real substance to it. Yes, it has a few equations, but this simply gives it a thin veil of credibility that can easily be seen through.

How does it damage the 9/11 Truth movement? It is a crazy-sounding theory that is far from proven, and certainly doesn't deserve to be published yet. If and when she and other researchers come up with some hard evidence that space beams were used, research that will stand up to peer review, she is more than welcome to publish it. Space beams is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. Jones has proved that the technology he proposes actually exists, Wood has done no such thing. She has posted pictures of car dealership spotlights and asks us to accept the THEORY that they are part of a secret space beam weapon. Again, if you go around telling newbies about how space beams destroyed the twin towers without having some rock-solid, powerful, persuasive evidence that stands up to close scrutiny, you will do nothing but alienate them from the 9/11 Truth movement for life. In order to figure out what exactly happened we need a new investigation, and the only way to get that is if more people wake up to the FACT that 9/11 was an inside job. Talking about space beams without some hard evidence will not acheive that goal.

Dr. Jones work and the Truth

Seve- Could you provide a link to whichever version of Dr. Jones work you are talking about? While he may have proved that the technology he claims was used exist, he has failed to demonstrate that his theory accounts for all of the observed phenomena.

While "crazy-sounding theories" may be a hard sell to "newbies", they are, at this time, the only ones which account for all of the observed phenomena. Any theory, however palatable it may be, which fails to do the same, must be discarded.

As to the definition of Truth, you offer "Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true". No it is not.

Truth is: 1) the true or actual state of a matter; 2)conformity with fact or reality.

The truth exist independent of its acceptance by anyone. It is neither changed nor modified by what anyone believes or does not believe. Clinging to theories which fail to account for all of the observed phenomena is counterproductive to a search for the truth. I believe the American people are capable of handling the truth (see above) and are not in need of protection from it or any consequences associated with its dissemination.

Hypothesis versus theory

I don't think Professor Jones claims to have a "theory" at this point. Judging from his presentation on Saturday, he distinguishes between hypotheses, which are attempts to explain some facet of a larger process or event, and theories, which are overarching models that do seek to comprehensively explain a significant aspect of physical reality (eg, species diversity is best explained by the theory of evolution.)

Jones is rigorously testing the hypothesis that thermate was involved in the explosions of the WTC buildings. He is not even pretending to offer a comprehensive explanation. Wood, on the other hand, seems to be skipping the hypothesis-testing stage altogether, and passing off a hypothesis -- that beam weapons were used -- as a theory to explain the WTC events. A hypothesis which has not been tested at all. (For instance, she could construct a much smaller prototype and use it to blow things up, or, failing that, at least point to the existence of such a weapon.)

Jones and his testing

Casseia- Could you provide a link for whichever version of Jones work you are referring to? Thanks.

Also, given the possibility that thermite/thermate could have been used in clean-up operations at ground zero, how does its discovery prove anything?
Has professor Jones shown the chain-of-custody for his samples? Where did he get them?

What is your theory or hypothesis regarding the events of 9/11?

To throw your question right

To throw your question right back at you, although in a far more potent form: Given the possibility that space beams don't even exist, how does that prove anything?

Can you prove that thermite/thermate were used during clean up operations? Or any reputable report that the possibility even exists as such?

Jones discussed chain of custody in his latest interview with Fetzer on Non-Random Thoughts. Check out the archive.

My 9/11 Theory: inside job, top to bottom.


Let's try again.
Regarding thermite/thermate, IF these explosives were used in the clean-up, THEN their discovery (in the debris) would be: 1) expected and 2)NOT indicative of any foul play.
This scenario would make Jones' thermite crusade a set-up designed to discredit the movement. Additionally if thermite/thermate was used in the destruction of the towers or some portion of them, this does not preclude the use of weapons like those proposed by Dr. Wood. Therefore, Jones may very well be a plant, sent to round up the demolition believers and shield them from more damaging evidence. It is clear you hold Jones in high regard, however his constant change of position, dodging of certain questions and a rather interesting past suggest such faith may be unfounded.
Jones work has lead many to investigate the destruction of the towers, which is a valuable contribution to the search for the truth. Dr. Woods theory is trying to account for observed phenomena not accounted for by Jones' theory.
As to your theory, could you be more specific. Hijackers? Commercial jets at crash sites? Media complicity?

Agreed, Let's Try Again

IF these beam weapons don't exist, THEN the Wood research would be a set-up designed to discredit the movement. Are you having trouble understanding me?

I'll ask again, can you cite any reputable source that even suggests the possibility that thermite or thermate was used during clean up? If not, it's another fantasy, just like the space beam weapons.

Dodging questions? How about Wood dodging the question of how much energy it would require to pulverize 80% of the building, including the steel (which she also claims was vaporized).

I'm not going to write a treatise about my theories. Inside Job is enough. The details need to be revealed through an independent investigation.

rock on Seve!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



I got my definition of truth from the Merriam Webster online dictionary, and I think it is a good one. While truth may exist independent of its acceptance by anyone, truth is not recognized until it is accepted as true by a particular person. I don't think looking at the truth in the abstract sense you suggest is helpful. We need to focus on provable truths that are able to be recognized by the general population.

I am refering to Dr Jones's work published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the numerous interviews and presentations of Dr. Jones I have seen. Again, put Dr. Jones's paper on Journal of 9/11 Studies right next to a print out of Judy Wood's web pages and you will see the stark contrast in thoroughness, critical analysis and presentation. Wood's web pages are a far cry from a thorough scientific analysis, and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

Let me be clear: I am not dismissing Judy's space beam theory simply because it is a "crazy-sounding theory". I am dismissing it because it is a crazy-sounding theory with absolutely no basis in reality and no well-reasoned, scientific paper to back it up. The first major hurdle she has to get over is to prove that this technology actually exists. Surely one of the "observed phenomena" you talk so highly of is the existence of whatever technology destroyed the twin towers. Thus, Wood's theory doesn't account for all of the observed phenomena because she can't prove space beam technology exists.

Her only proof is that the microwave was invented in 1953. Wow. Big deal. By that same logic, gun powder was invented long before microwaves, so researchers have had much more time to develop high powered explosives. Perhaps super-high explosives is a more likely hypothesis based on Judy's logic, given how much more time researchers have had to refine explosive technology.

I think the American people, myself included, are capable of handling any truth that can be proved. Wood has offered nothing at all except speculation.

Bailey's Truth

I'm looking in Bailey's "English Dictionary, Being also an Interpreter of Hard Words" - which is from the 18th c.


There is no entry for "Truth."

The closest cognate there is "True" which means certain, sure and trusty.

So "Truth," in information, must be revised to remain true? As more data comes in and as new issues are worked out? It's trusty since it explains all the data?

Bailey says also "natural" and "unfeigned," so I'Il read that to mean "the thing which really happened, without spin or embellishment."


As far as Thermite(ate) used on-site: Some say it was used to cut apart pieces of steel in the clean-up. So more investigation is needed.

Using thermite(ate) in the clean-up doesn't preclude that it was placed there beforehand to weaken the structure and help bring down the Tower.

(I do not think the presence, or not, of Thermite(ate) is the best evidence that the Towers were brought down from something other than being struck by an airplane.

I certainly don't think the fact alone, that one finds traces of thermite(ate), by itself. proves it. I've said so from the very beginning, before the results from the sample came back.

Though I've met the woman who provided the sample and I believe she is trustworthy, there was simply no official custody on the sample. It just won't be ironclad proof to the government supporters and propaganda machine. )

From what I understand of thermite(ate) it won't work to pulverize the entire contents of the Tower in ~11 seconds or so. It could weaken the steel and precipitate a collapse.

However, it doesn't look as if the Tower actually "collapsed." It appears to have been "destroyed," in mid-air. That's Wood's point.

Using thermite doesn't preclude the use of other explosives or weapons and vis versa. Jones and Woods' ideas don't contradict each other.

I agree with Casseia that Jones doesn't have, nor do I believe he pretends to have, at this time, an air-tight case.

"Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.."
- Galileo Galilei

i've only heard shills say this...

"Some say it was used to cut apart pieces of steel in the clean-up."

any actual evidence? it was a long cleanup, lot's of pics taken, etc. any showing thermite being used to cut steel? any anecdotes?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


The set-up scenario explained

RT- the point being made is...

If anyone (Jones) presents their case and says, "See, look here, I have proof there was thermite residue found in the debris and therefore this proves it was used to destroy the towers,,," Then, the government need only produce a witness who claims (even if it's not true and no additional evidence is presented) that "yes, of course, we used thermite in the clean-up" and, suddenly, Jones' 'proof' proves nothing.

This is not to say that Jones' theory should be discarded for this reason (though there may well be other reasons), but rather to lay out a scenario which could occur which would undermine his theory. I do not believe anyone is claiming to have proof that thermite was used. In fact, the concern is that the government would fabricate, through a 'witness', the "proof" in order to discredit demolition theories which claim that the presence of thermite in the debris is proof of nefarious activities.


But we should go with space beams, the very existence of which has not been proven, let alone use at the WTC?

Not "go with" but

test the hypothesis.

Casseia, this is not new technology, nor is the theory new.
please see: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm

And she will be testing the hypothesis how?

Did I overlook that on her website?


Just to point out:

The fact Jones tested his hypothesis using a test which can be easily undermined.....

1.chain of custody questions.
2. his own laboratory procedures: remember a "test" has to be reproducible by others. Jones got in trouble once before on this, if I remember rightly, when his cold fusion results were not reproducible by others.
3. the other possible sources of thermite(ate) questions.

How is that greatly more convincing than no test?

Do we really need a test to prove the Towers blew up? Isn't that pretty evident to the naked eye?

Not that I don't think he should've tested it. I do. But just the fact it was a "test" doesn't "prove" Jones' point. It's not, to me, several factors more convincing than what Judy Wood has pointed out.

If I were Jones I would've attempted to get many more samples from a variety of sources.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

This is generally stuff I

This is generally stuff I picked up from the streamed lecture on Saturday.

1. He addressed the chain of custody issue and believes he can accurately identify each "link." Probably wouldn't work in a court of law, but a good basis for initial research. He has material from two separate sources, and the sources of material have retained samples that could be tested by an independent lab.
2. I think you may be confusing his work with that of Pons and Fleischmann. His work was reproducible and his results were published in "Nature," which is a very prestigious journal. There is no reason to impugn his laboratory techniques or procedures.
3. Other possible sources of thermate: to quote Chimpy McFlightsuit, "Bring'em on!" I'm sure he would be VERY interested in evidence that thermite or thermate was used in the clean-up. But bear in mind also that there is video evidence which is highly suggestive of thermate BEFORE the collapse of the South Tower.

Of course we don't need a test to prove that the Towers blew up. Would you like to know how they were blown up? Do you think there's a possibility that information might lead to the perps or at least make a case for 9/11 as an inside job?

Give It Up

Peggy Carter is a shill. She has more words to offer than shills of the past such as Terrence or S. King, but the result is the same. Repeating the same things over and over without addressing the specific, well-reasoned points made by you, me and others. IMHO it would be best to just let it go.

When all else fails, Seve plays

the 'shill card'.

Seve, your mangled logic and disingenous definition of truth (shall we revist your source for more on this?) have failed to make any point.

Perhaps your baseless accusations will be more effective.

Re: Give It Up

Yeah, I know. I think that in this case I just wanted to see for myself how they were going to handle this new "theory" and prove to myself that it was a matter of shillery. The fact that they're not replying to specific questions (where's any kind of evidence for the use of thermite/thermate in the clean-up, how is Judy Wood going to TEST the space beam hypothesis) has clinched it for me, along with being asked for the umpteenth time for a link to Steve Jones' work, as if it's hard to find.

Letting it go in 3... 2... 1...

To help in clarifying Jones' theory

could you post the link where we can see the latest version of his research on thermite/thermate and its use on 9/11? Thanks.

And I do actually like science fiction

but without sources, that is all that page is. "A German physicist says..."

Perhaps in your haste

you forgot to READ the article.

"In 1984, Jeff Hecht, author of Beam Weapons: The Next Arms Race, wrote, "The military 'destructor beam' definitely is in our future tactical arsenal." The advanced technology and plasma physics involved in directed-energy weapons give them unprecedented lethal power."

"We've just turned science fiction into reality," said Lt. Gen. John Costello, Commanding General, U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command. "

please see:


I'm a fast reader.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Predicting that something will exist in the future does not prove that it does in fact exist when that future time rolls around.

There is no source for the Lt. General's statement and in any event, he's talking about blowing up an object that is a miniscule fraction of the size of the Towers.

The next paragraphs are my favorites actually, because that's where the discussion of "plasmoids" begins. Is that going to be the next theory you guys promote? The Plasmoid Theory?

BTW, I would genuinely like to know where Judy Wood outlines her plans to test the beam weapons hypothesis.


A... fast... reader... What... makes... you... think... I... didn't... read... it... whew... Predicting...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Needs to be looked into

People were contending that.

What I know is that "lots of pictures were taken" is very wrong.

Pictures were tightly controlled. And from information recently brough out the police and fireman are still under a gag order.

If you're interested, I will find the link to that story.

Lots of newest stories, from all over sources, every day here. Saw the fireman/police gag order story there just a few days ago.

No one was allowed in, unless on the crew. And access was tightly controlled, from what I understand.

Yet there were 10's of thousands who worked there, according to David Miller. I think the class action case, by the rescue worker group, numbers ~50K.

And certain people on the crew were dismissed if they spoke too much on the job.


I'm not sure how you're doing your links, but this is the second time I've noticed one that didn't work and just linked back to the 911blogger front page.

Proper link now


"(I do not think the presence, or not, of Thermite(ate) is the best evidence that the Towers were brought down from something other than being struck by an airplane."

The best "evidence" that the Towers were brought down by something other than being struck by an airplane is that no one can model a collapse caused by being struck by an airplane that does not outrageously violate physical laws and lack precedent. NIST didn't even try -- they gave up at "collapse initiation."

I didn't say that Jones' "doesn't have an airtight case." What I said was that he acknowledges that he is not at the point in a legitimate scientific inquiry where he can confidently propose a theory or an over-arching explanation that accounts for all of the observed evidence. Rather, he is working to verify one hypothesis in a larger explosion theory in a scientifically valid and credible manner.

The fact that at this point thermate and space beams don't contradict each other is irrelevant. Wood has a fantasy that she imagines can explain some of the events. This is so far removed from the process Jones is involved in that it's like a bad joke.

You and the other space beam

You and the other space beam people are either shills or so far disconnected from reality it's unbelievable.

Thermite can't explain everything in your mind, so we turn to space beams? Honestly? How about little green men from outer space? I have seen hundreds of books claiming that aliens are real and living among us. Did they do it?

Seriously, though, your arguments fail on two very important points. First, you can't even provide a reference that SUGGESTS the POSSIBILITY that thermite/thermate was used during cleanup. Second, you can't prove that space beam technology exists. Two fundamental problems that should be easy to overcome if space beams are the obvious solution to the problem of accounting for all observed phenomena.

Despite my repeated requests for information regarding either of the two problems above, you have failed to provide it. Therefore, I am left to conclude that you are either shills or too stupid to be talking to. Enjoy your government paycheck or your magical journey through whatever dream world you live in.

Criticise me for repetition? But you don't read well apparently

To reiterate:

The reason "space beams" are a better solution has nothing to do with discrediting thermite. Both could've been used.

People are not looking at space based weaponry because they think thermite wasn't used in cutting the steel or because they think thermite was only used in the clean-up.


I criticized you shills for repeating things I have already responded to. You, however, have not responded to mine, so I get to repeat them. See?

Actually, space beams have everything to do with discrediting explosives in general (thermite included) because you claim explosives can't account for all of the observed phenomena.

DAMNIT! I got dragged in again. Must...not...waste...any...more...time...arguing...with...shills......

Not responded to your what?

Not sure what I haven't responded to:

If you say, "Prove such a weapon exists" many links have been provided above to show such things in the works.

There is also the point that a major program of the Military-Intelligence-Industrial complex has been to rule the world from space. It's written up in their papers, same as PNAC wrote up the need for a new Pearl Harbor.

Obviously you can't point to such a weapon if it is Black OPs and Top Secret.

Same as people who understand the building did not come down from aircraft can't enumerate exactly what kind and how much explosives needed to be used to manifest the effect created. That doesn't mean explosives were not used.

As far as finding out about the cutting up of the steel...looking into it.

And weather it was cut on the ground, or not, doesn't change the fact that Thermite(ate), anyway, would have to be used with other explosives. Can you tell me what those must have been?

"Sometimes 'Truth' Is Not Good for the 9/11 Truth Movement"?

Andrew, when someone told me a few months ago that an emerging but still (vocal) minority view within the 9/11 Truth Movement is that "Sometimes 'Truth' Is Not Good for the 9/11 Truth Movement," I was incredulous

Unfortunately, you & I are sometimes reluctant eyewitnesses to more than a glimmer of this emerging anti-truth sentiment here at 911 Blogger.  I don't know what to do about it.

"Cognitive Dissonance" is a psychological concept that partially explains how the herd mentality in small groups can convince dissonant group members that Black is White. 

Ridiculing & hiding possible 9/11 truths may be part of this 9/11 Cognitive Dissonance phenomenon and may be the last refuge of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps. Unfortunately, they may have some witting & unwitting allies here at 911 Blogger.

I don't know what to do about it.  Do you?

I didn't see anything in

I didn't see anything in those links about a directed energy weapon that is able to vaporize its target. There was one that could heat the skin of a person. And another that could disrupt an incoming warhead. I didn't see anything about vaporizing a massive building.

Again, the energy requirement to vaporize the building was massive. There was a discussion in the msnbc article about having trouble increasing the energy output of the directed energy weapons, and serious problems they are having weaponizing space.

Regardless, I don't think Judy Wood is trying to say a laser beam is what destroyed the twin towers. She thinks it is something akin to a Tesla Strike weapon, which is completely different. I know she never used those words, but she talked about tuning the weapon to the natural vibration frequency of a specific material (ie. steel) to destroy it. I have researched the theories behind Tesla Strike weapons, and this is the theory they rely on. Can you provide a link that proves Tesla Strike technology exists?

I think Wood has problems with the culprit being laser-based technology precisely because of the massive energy requirement such a weapon would need to destroy the twin towers. (She side-stepped the energy requirement question during her interview.) It is my understanding that a Tesla Strike weapon overcomes these problems (theoretically) by using a substance's natural vibrational frequency against it.

I don't have a low opinion of the average person's intelligence. I do have a low opinion of most people being able to be open-minded about things. Whether you think so or not, you will not wake anyone up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job by going up and telling them "Hey, did you know space beams were used to destroy the world trade center?" If you can explain to me how that would be an effective strategy, by all means go for it.


As if MSNBC is not a disinfo outlet?

For some reason I find MSNBC a far from credible source considering all the lies they've pandered so far RE: 9/11.

Is MSNBC supposed to give out info on top secret black ops weaponry that even Jane's list can't publish?

One thing I think many people have found out from looking into the details of the 9/11 murders is that the public intelligence *is* held in contempt, the movers and shakers are *not* as stupid or incompetent as they pretend, and you simply can't believe whatever you hear on your friendly TeeVee.

A Tesla Strike Weapon -- Yes, Maybe...

Wood & Reynolds have concentrated on laser, maser & microwave types of directed energy weapons as their possible "9/11 Beam Weapons."  Why?  Because that's where the information is...

This reminds me about the person who lost his contact lens in the middle of the street -- but was looking for it under the street light.  Why?, you might ask.  His Answer:  Because that's where the light is...

Before Wood & Reynolds began to publish their 9/11 Beam Weapons article, when I asked a knowledgeable military source about Tesla-type directed energy weapons, he told me that the really effective ones are of the Tesla type (not lasers, masers & microwave). 

These Tesla-type weapons are supposedly directed electrical energy beam weapons.  These directed electrical energy beam weapons supposedly disintegrate their targets (similar to what was left of most of the WTC towers and similar to the Buck-Rogers-type movies of the 1950s -- shortly after we began to bring the Nazi technology to America).

I have not yet followed up with this supposedly-knowledgeable military source.  Nevertheless, I'm still skeptical -- and still will be, regardless of what he says.  I'm from Missouri -- "The Show-Me State."

Good questions, Seve B.


"Beam weapons could be the missing link we've been waiting for"
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

#1: What missing link? We haven't been confronted with evidence that there were no explosives planted in the building (thus forcing us to resort to considering things like "beam weapons")!

#2: WE HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EXPLOSIVES IN THE BUILDING!!! Why is this suggestion gaining ANY traction???

Andrew (& other un-orwellianized truthseekers) - Never Give Up!

Andrew (and other un-orwellianized truth-seekers) - Never Give Up!

For people like you, me & others, quitting a popular site like 911 Blogger (where many "newbies," old bees & unbought media types visit) is exactly what the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps want us to do.  "Cognitive Dissonance" for the 1984-like herd mentality works best when there are few or no dissenting voices.

One popular 911 Blogger blogger has asked me to stop posting at this site many times (despite the obvious popularity of this thread and some of my other comments).  However, 9/11 science is not a popularity contest.

You say: "I couldn't help noticing that nobody has responded to the FACT that laser beam weapon are in use by the US military and have been for several years."

Of course, no one has countered assertions about the U.S. & other military use of directed energy weapons.  Why?  Because they can't.  Why else would their only possible defense against the POSSIBILITY that Wood & Reynolds might be correct be: ridicule, ad hominem, scorn, abuse, and personal attack?

I like your new definition of L.I.H.O.P. (i.e., Let's Indirectly Help Our President).  However, Daddy Bush's "Boy George" may not have been completely in the loop about specific foreknowledge of the 911 events.  If so, then Boy George would only have been a semi-witting "patsie" ON 9/11/01.  Obviously, Boy George is heavily involved in the cover-up (so he IS still guilty as sin).

My working hypothesis on 9/11 is that the Prime 9/11 Perps are "the oligarchs of the G8+" (on which I will elaborate at a later time).  In addition, IF (and I emphasize IF) so-called "beam weapons" were in fact used on 9/11, then they may have been in the control of this shadowy international group of the powers behind the thrown in the G8+ nations.

Along this same line, one propable Prime 9/11 Perp point person in the U.S. would then probably be Daddy Bush (former President George H.W. Bush and former Director of Central Intelligence for the U.S.).  Daddy Bush & Boy George were on this week's cover of Newsweek magazine.  A slightly modified version of this Newsweek cover is below.  Below the slightly modifed cover is the original Newsweek cover. 

Can you spot the subtle differences between the two covers?

Daddy Bush & Boy George (Version #1)

Daddy Bush & Boy George (Version #2)


let's stop this "disinfo" shit and look at whatever theory is presented in a sober way that checks out all of the facts. it seems to me this is what fetzer is doing. he is looking at the anomalies in the present theory (CD by thermite/thermate) and determining if the new hypothesis (directed energy beams)
could account for these anomalies. it's called science.


During the interview, Wood also sidestepped a very important issue: how much energy it would take to turn 80% of the building into dust as she claims happened. She sidestepped the issue by saying the amount of energy isn't important because the building did actually turn to dust, implying that the energy mechanism was unimportant. This is circular logic and is completely unpersuasive, similar to the way NIST stopped at "collapse initiation" without looking at all of the interesting features of the collapse, all of which happened after collapse initiation. With regards to Wood, the energy required to turn the building into dust is one of, if not the, most important questions that needs to be answered because it is part of the mechanism of the collapse, and she didn't seem very interested.

I find Wood's arguments wholly unpersuasive and think they stand in stark contrast to Jones's well reasoned, thoughtfully presented arguments and analysis. I'm not completely convinced that either of them has it right, but if I had to chose one explanation right now, it would be Jones hands down.

Show "Casseia, Wood & Reynolds Have Now Posted More Evidence" by Thomas J Mattingly

Show "Steve & Judy - Congratulations!" by Thomas J Mattingly
Show ""Project Trailblazer"- Pre-" by Wob Woodwork (not verified)

Am I "doing more harm than good"?

Based on my asking scientifically skeptical questions of both Judy Wood and Steve Jones about their weekend presentations, one of the four (4) persons to whom I sent the above email has now said that I may be "doing more harm than good."

Based on the fact that I have not posted any comments in this thread in over 24 hours, you may be able to guess from which two (2) of my four (4) email addressees comes the most probable source of this question.

Nevertheless, I will persist in asking scientifically & otherwise skeptical questions both of Wood & Reynolds and of Jones & Fetzer.

Is "Multi-Factorial Controlled Demoliton" a real possibilty?  My working hypothesis is that both Steve Jones and Wood & Reynolds may be right -- in part.  Screw the big egos -- no matter how mild-mannered that they may apear to be.  In addition, I am not prejudiced against any valid evidence (no matter who says and/or how "incredible").

To refute the W+R beam weapons thesis, someone else recently told me: "To my mind, [there] is pretty good evidence that Thermite was used to sever the columns on the 81st floor of WTC 2."

My answer: "Yes!  But, so?  Let's assume that Thermite and/or its exotic but unproven successors and/or exotic but unproven explosives were used to pulverize portions of the WTC towers.  Specifically, how is this alleged fact inconsistent with the possibility that "Beam Weapons" were also used to pulverize [80% of] the WTC towers into talcum-powder-sized dust?"  In addition, Thermite does not explode to pulverize steel & concrete and does not answer questions about the selectively "toasted cars" found one-half mile from Ground Zero.

I encourage you all to remain skeptical -- as you examine, investigate & research the alleged truths of what both Wood & Reynolds and Jones have to say from purely scientific & evidentiary viewpoints.

Good 9/11 science is not a popularity contest...



Now, would you please stop?

No, Casseia, Scientific Skepticism Is Good!

No, Casseia, scientific skepticism Is good!

No matter how much that others & you would like me to stop asking scientifically & otherwise skeptical questions of both of Wood & Reynolds and of Jones & Fetzer, I will continue to do so.

To do otherwise would only help the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.  And you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Anyone ever get the feeling that Wood, Reynolds, & Nico Haupt

are trying to take over 9/11 truth leadership with their preposterous theories & then destroy the entire movement? I do!


That's my opinion - yes.

You see - its not just this one absurdist theory that they are promoting. They are also the "cartoon planes" people - the "Keebler elves" people - the "Road Runner image super-imposed on the tower" people - the attack dogs against other activists people. The "mini-nukes" people. the "wingTV" people.

just a humorous aside - WingTV made Reynold "Man of the Year" - Haupt "Activist of the Year" - and "Criminal Politics" magazine of the year. LOL!!! "Criminal Politics" is THE most OBVIOUS cointelpro anti-semitic crazy tin foil hat magazine on the planet. Les Jamieson was caught distributing this same magazine in NYC.

WingTV is also known for advocating violence and death threats against other 9/11 Truth activists - calling them "war criminals" - and calling for executions.

its a small world - ain't it?

i can't believe we even ENGAGE these people in debate. Judy Wood? She claims she was in a coma for 6 years.

Look up medical statistics for the survival rate of people who have been in comas for 6 years. look into how many of them wake up - and RETURN TO NORMAL.

John Albanese

Given your unwillingness to accept these theories proposed by others, would you please post your hypothesis regarding the events of 9/11 which accounts for all of the observed phenomena?

If you do not have a "unified theory", please state your position, as clearly as possible, on those aspects of 9/11 on which you have reached conclusions. This would allow others to dismiss the notion that you do not have a theory which accounts for the observed phenomena, examine your theory or positions and assist you in filling in any 'missing pieces'.

Also, I believe you were an eyewitness to some of the events of that day so perhaps you could provide a statement detailing what you saw, where you were and when  the events you witnessed occurred.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.


My OPINION - which i have given here many times - is that the collective research of Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Nico Haupt constitute intentional disinformation - cointelpro - organized disruption.

whether it is no-planes or star wars beams or mini-nukes or the magazine Criminal Politics or the mutual support of WingTV or the continued attacks by these individuals (and their supporters)on credible activists - it is my prudent and carefully considered OPINION that all of this hogwash constitutes organized and intentional disinformation.

As such there can be no debate about the actual research - since it merely constitutes a facade - a false front - not worthy of wasting time and energy to address.

This is one of the purposes of disinformation. IT is designed to suck up our time and focus - away from the REAL evidence.

regarding 9/11 - it is not my job to answer these questions. it is the government's job to answer these questions. and - in cases where they have lied or stonewalled the public - they must be FORCED to answer - FORCED to comply with the public's demand to know.

asking ME my opinions is worthless. i don't know shit. either do you. i know there is a lot of damning evidence - on a prima facie basis to demand the pursuit of a criminal prosecution.

that is what i want.

let other people claim to know all the answers about the unknown. but - i blieve in the end we will discover that there is a lot we did NOT know - and a LOT we were wrong about also.


I did not ask for your opinion, I asked for your theory regarding the events of 9/11 and, understanding you to have been an eyewitness to some of the events of that day, to share with us some of your recollections of those events.
You did not answer any question.
You did not posit any theory.
You did not share any recollections.
John, when the "officials" tell you the facts you already have are, in fact, facts, will you then be able to reach any conclusions?
"disinformation - cointelpro - organized disruption."
I'd say so.


I do not give theories. Theories are for fools who discredit this movement. We are called "conspiracy theorists" because of these fools.

I simply point out that there is enough prima facie evidence of government complicity to warrant reopening an independent investigation.

i am not going to speculate - and i am CERTAINLY not going to publish papers claiming star wars energy beams brought down the towers. sheesh!

Theories are for fools?

Einstein: theory of relativity

Darwin: theory of evolution

Copernicus: theory of heliocentrism

"Theories are for fools " - John Albanese

proposing an overarching

proposing an overarching theory without laying down some framework, built from hypotheses is moronic.

Hang on though, WING TV has,

Hang on though, WING TV has, since that time (post-2004) heartily decried BOTH the no-planes theory and the people promoting it (Reynolds, Haupt, Web Fairy), and even Webster Tarpley for stating that he "doesn't want to defang no-planes".

And by the way, can we once and for all decide that there is a difference between "no plane at WTC" and "no plane at Pentagon", one of which the evidence suggests may be the case, the other not?


no plane pentagon is right.

no plane towers is wrong.

there is a reason why the perps decided to use NPT--it was to try to discredited NPP. guilt by association--learn the tricks!

apparently they're fond of something called the hegelian dialectic...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Albanese is CIA

Albanese is CIA

Show "John Albanese Is NOT CIA !" by Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden (verified nut) (not verified)



The Nico Haupt Secret Fan Cub Responds to Personal Attacks

Calling All 9/11 Newbies and Old Bees!

Nico Haupt is the long-time, long-term, tireless, passionate, peripatetic conscience of 9/11 Truth-Seeking.

Nico Haupt was seeking 9/11 truths before 9/11 truth-seeking was cool. Nico Haupt co-founded NY911Truth.org, is a principal researcher with Team8Plus, pioneered in Terror Drill research & pioneered in Controlled Demoltion research (amongst Nico's many, 9/11 truth-seeking accomplishments)..

For better or for worse, Nico Haupt has been diligently seeking and finding 9/11 truths before SOME OF YOU were born again to believe that personal attacks, telling lies, and hiding possible 9/11 truths sometimes helps the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So, what happened? Why is Nico Haupt now villified in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement? What happened is that Nico Haupt found possible 9/11 truths that SOME OF YOU don't like. (Who are you?)

What happened is that Nico Haupt was then mercilessly attacked by SOME OF YOU for the same tirelessness, the same passion, the same risk-taking, and the same conscience that we ALL found to be so admirable when the 9/11 Truth Movement was about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.. My, my my -- how times have changed...

Nico Haupt did NOT pioneer in personal attacks, but Nico did call a spade a spade. After all, an orwellian truthling is merely an orwellian truthling -- no matter how high in the digestive track that the reverse peristaltic response pushes such orwellian truthlings. Nico Haupt also RESPONDED (heaven forbid!) when SOME OF YOU mercilessly and personally attacked this tireless, passionate, risk-taking, and (yes) sometimes mistake-ful 9/11 truth-seeker.

Given Nico's stand-out idiosyncracies and his unique mode of speech, Nico Haupt became an easy target for SOME OF YOU and for some in the mainstream 9/11 cover-up media (which SOME OF YOU are witfully or witlessly supporting when you personally attack Nico Haupt).

For better or for worse, Nico Haupt is a sometimes famous, sometimes infamous ICON ot 9/11 truth-seeking. For better or for worse, Nico Haupt is a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement -- if only because he is now the one that SOME OF YOU love to hate.

If you want to tar and feather others who are pursuing some possible 9/11 truths that SOME OF YOU do not like, then one way to do it is by attempting to associate the peripatetic Nico Haupt with that issue or with those others. Voila! Instant Taint! How fair is that? How truth-full is that? Or are SOME OF YOU so full of something else that your eyes are turning brown (assuming that your shadiness is not congenital)?

Now, ANONYMOUS is attempting to tar and feather Wood and Reynolds with guilt by association with Nico Haupt, because Wood, Reynolds, and Haupt are supposedly "trying to take over 9/11 truth leadership with their preposterous theories & then destroy the entire movement" (an assertion without a scintilla of proof).

Tar-and-Feather Guilt by Association in action! Are SOME OF YOU proud of yourselves? If your desire is to CONTINUE to cover up possible 9/11 truths, then SOME OF YOU should be proud of yourselves! For SOME OF YOU, I understand that the pay is good. (Unfortunately, witless orwellian truthlings don't get paid.)

Now, what do we do to appropriately channel the energies of Nico Haupt, who has admittedly made mistakes but who is nevertheless still tirelessly and passionately committed to 9/11 truth-seeking? Well, one thing that SOME OF YOU can do is to stop attacking Nico. If his possible 9/11 truths are not worth considering, then why do SOME OF YOU spend so much time considering them and talking about them?

Let Nico Haupt and others do their research, do their science, and do their publishing with the SOUNDS OF SILENCE from you. Personally attacking Nico and others only HURTS the 9/11 Truth Movement (in general) and paradoxically HELPS Nico to publicize his ideas (in particular). So, paradoxically, one way to HELP Nico in part (while hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement) is for SOME OF YOU to continue to attack him.

So, please continue as you were. If the 9/11 Truth Movement is anything like the JFK Assassination Truth Movement, then we might be able to find some additional possible 9/11 truths -- in another 43 years or so.

Respectfully submitted (after a unanimous vote),

President, Nico Haupt's Secret Fan Club

John Albanese, Jon Gold, Stallion4, and Dem Bruce Lee Stiles
Vice Presidents, Nico Haupt's Secret Fan Club


How'd you work your way into Mike Berger's film Improbable Collapse? Does he know you're into space beams? If so, did he know about your interest in space beams before he put you on the project? I'm being serious. I'd really like to know how you became aquatinted with him and if he is aware of your interest in space beams taking down the twin towers..

re: Andrew's involvement with Mike Berger's film

I am proud to have been asked to contribute my work to Mike Berger's excellent and important film.

So Berger "asked" you to be a part of the production? Details please, Andrew.

He did the music

Are you worried he'll put space beam sounds in the music?

Man, you people are not helping your case to new people like me. Forensics and science is not a popularity contest.

Letting the media off the hook, if they are guilty, would be such a pyrrhic victory.

"You people"?

Is that you, Andrew? Just tell us all how you involved yourself with Berger's film -- to later begin spewing crap about cartoon planes and "space beams" after your name was attached to it? As far as I know, you didn't do that until just after the film was released -- at least here on 911Blogger.com using the screen name "Andrew Lowe Watson".

I'm not offended

I just think we'd all be better off if you spent your time playing music instead of playing 9/11 SPACE BEAM games. 'Cause I think your music is spectacular. But your 9/11 BS detector... not so spectacular.


You sound like my ex-girlfriend. She was a drama queen too.

President, Nico Haupt's Secret Fan Club

John Albanese, Jon Gold, Stallion4, and Dem Bruce Lee Stiles
Vice Presidents, Nico Haupt's Secret Fan Club

Put down that pipe, Nico, and check yourself into a program before you reach the point of no return. I'm starting to worry about ya. ;)

What bothers me more here is

What bothers me more here is Fetzer, why is he praising Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds? This is kind of a gut punch for me because I liked Fetzer. But if he is disinfo then that would also explain why "WING TV" is all over st911.org. I'm disgusted by this shit, it's a disgrace.


Seems to think we've forgotten how he jumped on the coattails of Griffin and Jones within days of Jones coming forward. He seems to think we've forgotten how he has affiliations with WingTV, and has promoted them, and defended them. He seems to think we've forgotten how he made a spectacle of himself at a JFK book signing. He seems to think we've forgotten how he promoted Barbara Olsen as being alive, and on and on and on.

There is reason to think Fetzer is showing his true colors with his promotion of Judy Wood's work.

I'm not going to go there. All I will say is that William Pepper told us to be cautious of disinformation, and that's what I'm doing. Being cautious.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

i am releasing a film

very soon.....

on this entire subject. i have bene working on it for weeks.

this has gone on long enough - and its time to expose this scam.

the film is 90% done.

in my opinion i think every reputable 9/11 website should very clearly post a disclaimer about the known disinformation of this movement - with a link to the evidence and proof. these clowns have incriminated themselves - but no one has put all the evidence together (in one place) - connected all the dots - to make the case.

its time to clean house - and i hope the 911Blogger will carry this film once it is complete. i think it is essential to the future of this movement to weed out the negative research.


I look forward to seeing it. Hopefully there will be some mention about how important "Keeping It Simple" is.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It time to "clean house" John

So why don't you get the witnesses together you have always promised? Why don't you assemble some of the 1000's of witnesses you claim exist and allow them to be questioned? Why do you keep making claims which can't be supported, except by the mainstream media and government, that we already know deceive us?

I just met an Entertainment lawyer who's office was near John st. And Broadway. Without me prompting him, just bringing up the idea of researching 9/11, he stated that it was weird, but he saw no airplane. And told me he kept thinking that he had confused what was on TV with what he "saw," when he was standing there. He said he should've been able to see it from where he stood on the ground. But did not.

This without any prompting on my part.

I told him, "Well, from where you are standing you could not see it since you were north and the airplane supposedly hit on the south side. He shook his head no. I said the real test would be if he had *heard* an airplane or not. "No" there too.

He has nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, knows nothing about it, but he said no, he did not hear it. He had been thinking about it and it stuck in his mind.

I think you should talk about why you need to disparage people and sow discord among researchers and activists.

The public at large is being trained by the mass media to think we are all "crazy." Why do you play along with that and reinforce it? Why do you attack others for supposedly "crazy" ideas when you yourself are part of a "movement" labeled by it's enemies as "crazy?"

Are you contending such a film, as you describe, will be "good" for the political progress of the opponants to the government's narrative?

Who is really sowing the discord here?


yes - i am assembling the 1000 witnesses who saw the planes - along with the hundreds of amateur photographers who took pictures of the planes - and we are all going to put our hands on a bible and swear to you personally that we witnessed the planes.


but - just to be fair - you should assemble the Keebler elves and Darth Vader to advocate Judy Wood's research.

we'll let the Mad Hatter be the impartial judge.

No Scrutiny Allowed

Thanks for illustrating that all you have is smear tactics.

And making your refusal to allow scrutiny of your alleged evidence public and written.


you dog me on these boards like a bad a hemorrhoid that just won't go away. everytime i turn around - there you are - accusing me of being an agent or misrepresenting my position on CD. i am sick of it.

meanwhile - you promote no planes - a position that has ZERO credibility in this movement. go figure.

Why are you picking fights?

Why are you picking fights?

I never called you an agent. You claim I say that.

Why do you think that?

Can you point out where I ever said you were an agent? If you can't show or prove that, we will have to conclude that you lie.

As you did before.

You wrote that I gave out anti-semitic literature at St. Marks - which is a total lie, and I don't think you ever took that back or corrected it, which makes you guilty of libel. Even after I requested you correct it.

You are the one constantly repeating that people are disinfo and spies.

Part of the right of free speech is to correct others when they libel you. This is my legal right.

I have no other recourse to stop you spreading lies about me than to deny them.

Am I not supposed to correct the record when you misrepresent me?

Also, you stated right here, on this thread, that you have no idea nor do you speculate or develop theories about what really happened re: 9/11 events, but just wish to have the government reinvestigate itself. You said right out that you didn't believe it necessary to clarify your postion. So what is your job?

Did I misrepresent your postiion? Will you correct me, please, if I have?

You yourself are open about where you are at. I don't have to make anything up.

Everyone sees you harrass and belittle anyone who talks about theories of which you don't approve or believe should be talked about.

Why is it then that you constantly appear on topic threads about which you are not interested, and which you believe should be ignored, to belittle and harass others? Which is against the ostensible rules of this site?

Make sure you videotape their statements..

If I see videos of only 20 BELIEVABLE eyewitneses who say they saw the plane buttering into the tower... I will publicly recant and beg for yous forgiveness.

Bring em on.

Make sure they can explain WHY their statement is believable, therefore explain to them at length the no-plane/ bluescreen theories and ask them again a few months later.

My guess is that if you do not pressure them (like imply that they are stupid arseholes, and friends of nico or harm the movement) SOME of those eye-witnesses will say things like:

Hey, come to think of it.. I saw a plane, but not "as it hit the tower" and so on.

again, I will beg for forgiveness.. publicly, in this forum or whatever forum you choose. and I willmake it a good one.


Don't forget to ask whether the engines were of the MD80 type, like the aeroplane this eyewitness saw:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm “I saw a plane coming, it had two engines on either side of the tail”

I resigned from ST911

partially because of this Fetzer issue.  There are many reasons to scrutinize Fetzer's role.

Again, the movement can't be made about personalities...

Whether it's Fetzer, Jones, the other Jones, or anyone else. It doesn't matter if any one of them is disinfo--the bottom line is to think for ourselves, and encourage others to do so too.

And also don't make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the disinfo water--just because someone turns out to be disinfo (like Fetzer seems to be) doesn't mean we therefore reject everything they have ever said. I for one don't doubt for a second that Barbara Olson is alive. Or at least that she didn't die by crashing into the Pentagon, that much is obvious.

The truth has a way of outing, and we can help it by not being blind followers of anyone. We can do it by waking up as many people as possible--numbers help because the more people there are looking into these things the more obvious what the important issues are becomes. I have great trust in the masses, when informed, to do the right thing.

My job then, is to inform.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



this is getting ponderous! Unless somebody can convince me that those photos of huge steel support beams sliced diagonally and cleanly like a piece of cheese were faked, I'm going with controlled demo.

And, as someone else stated on here, Fox will be chomping at the bit to get Fetzer back on the show if he starts talking about space beams and we're all screwed.

Jeebus, I have a hard enough time just getting anyone to look at the CD evidence which is OVERWHELMING. I still can't get my friend who is a METALLURGIST to admit CD caused it - and he's watched 911 Mysteries with me and I have talked to him about the molten steel in the basement, 'where are the 47 steel columns at Ground Zero, how did they just "evaporate' TWICE?" And I STILL cannot get him to admit that the planes did not do it.

Jeez, thanksalot, Fetzer.

This is Jim Fetzer your host

This is Jim Fetzer your host on Non-Random Thoughts with my special guest Judy Wood. I must say, I think we are finding out Judy what happened on 9/11, I'm just blown away by your work. I think this is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11, you gotta tell us more!

Fetzer has gullible written all over his forehead.

Don't forget...

The great Jesse Ventura... "Fetzer thinks everything is a Conspiracy..."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Her Theory explained [much of] the Data

He was excited because Wood's insight was astonishing and unexpected.

if Fox continues to showcase Uncle Fetzer

Then we ignore them, and him. If anyone tells you they saw some hokey guy on Fox talking about space beams, simply look at them like they're idots and say

"Why are you watching Fox? Don't you realize yet that it's fake news? Have you seen the latest talk by David Ray Griffin? He's a serious scholar unlike the clowns that Fox has on."

Simple as that. Once someone discredits themeselves with talk of space beams, lizard people, or cartoon planes, do what comes naturally and distance yourself from them. Don't give them the attention they crave. Keep the focus on serious issues. Don't live your life in chat rooms and forums--get out there and talk to real people about real issues.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Fetzer, not serious?" by Peggy Carter
Show "Physical Evidence is the Achilles Heel of this movement" by John Albanese

there you go again John

Poo-pooing the strongest evidence--the obvious fact that building 7 was demolished on purpose with explosives, the suspicion that that confirms that the fact that the towers display every sign of controlled demolition is because they WERE controlled demolitions, not some speculative total collapse for which no evidence exists.

Instead you would have us believe that Michael "cut and run" Ruppert is a visionary instead of a sideshow. That for some reason if we stop talking about CD then everyone in the world will wake up to the fact that NORAD lied, and then somehow magically that will make everyone realize that the towers and building 7 really were demolished. Newsflash John--here's what will happen with your approach. We'll have endless eharings and investigations about who said what to whom when on the morning of 9/11. People will ile through their teeth under oath and there will be no evidence other than people's conflicting testimony to help people determine who is telling the truth.

Why don't you stop doing the conspirators' work for them and stop trying to link CD evidence with bogus theories like laser beams and holograms? No one thinks that they are in any way comparable except you it seems. And you constantly point it out to people. Why don't you just push whatever you think is important and let other people push what they believe? Why do you have to go on and on feeding a self-fulfilling (the conspirators can hope) prohecy about how people will perceive any talk of physical evidence?

You know why I stopped accusing people of being shills? Because it's not necessary--the proof is in the pudding. Yummmmm....


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


your response

is reactionary and immature.

i never called Ruppert a visionary. putting words in someone's mouth is a sure-fire way of appearing boorish on a subject - like Bill O'Reilly conflates the position of others.

"Why don't you stop doing the conspirators' work for them and stop trying to link CD evidence with bogus theories like laser beams and holograms?"

I'm not. It appears that Reynolds and Wood and Haupt and Fetzer are doing that.

and that's my point which you refuse to see.

"No one thinks that they are in any way comparable except you it seems."

I never said they were comparable. Again - you are putting words in my mouth. I am trying to make a finer point about the problematic nature of theories associates with physical evidence.

Again - you need to take a more mature position on CD. You consistently take this absolutist position that EVERYONE must agree with YOU that CD is the "Strongest Evidence."

Well, that's just nonsense. I have seen many posters here -including Jon Gold (for example) - who have had to confront you on this fundamentalism thing. no - not everyone believes it is the strongest evidence.

"Why don't you just push whatever you think is important and let other people push what they believe?"

Because some people are pushing rubbish - and the media is using it to obscure the real evidence. There is a REASON why Foxnews is JUST focusing on physical evidence - and if you are too stubborn to see it then you are not being objective.

when was the last time you saw FoxNews do a show on Able Danger or NORAD?

think about that for a minute before reflexively lashing out at me for pointing out the OBVIOUS weaknesses to the CD fetishists.

John, You are absolutely


You are absolutely right on. I've tried to make this point before on this blog, but with no avail. Real Truther and others need to stop working from the bottom up. The movement needs a goal and a method / plan to get there. As a successful business owner and project manager, I can tell you that many times to have to put on the shelf many valid ideas and points so that progress can be made in an overall plan. This is what needs to be done with 9/11 truth. This blog is not advancing the movement anymore. It is stagnated by rehashing to same information.

No one can possibly prove anything without access to documented information, testimony and real physical evidence. The only way to get this is with a new investigation by people with authority. Unless Real Truther plans to overthrow the government, the only way to do this is through the legal system or through a state/congressional investigation. Therefore, while it may be interesting and fun to blog all day about "this", "that" and the "other thing", at this point it is not leading anywhere except to crazier theories about laser beams and no-planes.

So the question needs to be answered - Is 911Blogger's goal to bring about an investigation, or simply a clearing house for ideas. If it is the latter, then the status quo and be maintained and lets all have fun speculating about no-plane, laserbeams and CD. If it former, we need to put our energy into organizing an effort to push for a new investigation and enlighten the public that there are real questions about 9/11 (without focusing in on any given theory as proven fact).

So what's it going to be people?

I respect your point of view

but you don't enhance your argument when you incorrectly (to my knowledge) assume that Real Truther just "blogs all day." My understanding is that he has face-to-face contact with the public in Harvard Square while holding 9/11 Truth signs as a matter of regular practice. (I've done that a few times in Portland, and I can state unequivocally that it takes guts and commitment -- more than I usually have, in fact. How about you? What do you do?)

It's unproductive to put

It's unproductive to put words in peoples mouths. I did not state that Real Truther spends all his days blogging.
The point remains that the people that are loyal to this forum need to know what the next step is and where to
put their energies. WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THIS BLOG, IF ANY?

Excuse my inference

but when you write two successive sentences as follows

"Unless Real Truther plans to overthrow the government, the only way to do this is through the legal system or through a state/congressional investigation. Therefore, while it may be interesting and fun to blog all day about "this", "that" and the "other thing", at this point it is not leading anywhere except to crazier theories about laser beams and no-planes."

I don't think it's an unreasonable one, at all.

And BTW, what is it that you do (other than blog) for 9/11 Truth?

More in-the-streets

More in-the-streets activism, perhaps? More sit-ins, more clamor, more noise?

CD Denier, Parallel here.

John does this because he spent years as a CD denier.

Now, he is updating the issue, but the tactics are the same.

That's why all physical evidence is suspect to him.

No that's the bullshit

No that's the bullshit disinfo assclowns like you point to to discredited everyone, pro CD or not.

Peggy is

my own personal disinfo agent. she follows me wherever i go - wherever i make comments - throwing accusations at me.

my position regarding CD has not changed. its just that when i saw the movement turning into the 24/7 CD movement i became concerned and began questioning this approach.

this, of course, was twisted into my OPPOSING the theory itself.

this is the typical childish response i always get on this subject. people cannot distinguish between a discussion on the validity of CD with a discussion on the validity of an APPROACH to activism.

i just share the same opinion of Paul Thompson, Ruppert Murdoch and Jon Gold (to name a few) on this subject - and i would ask the rest of you CD fundamentalists to not convene the 9/11 equivalent of the spanish inquisitions in an attempt to incriminate anyone in the movement who does not agree with your approach.

So - put away the thumb screws Peggy - and go back to proving there were no planes.

The owner...

Of Newscorp? Don't you mean Michael Ruppert?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."



now Nico is going to send out an email to 15 thousand people announcing i am Ruppert Murdochs sex slave.


Are you?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You Lie Again

You told me when you met me last Spring that you didn't believe the Demolition Theory.

We spoke about it at lenght. You didn't even seem familiar with it at all.

You opposed it.

I saw and heard you. Why are you denying it?

In public you said you didn't like it for strategic reasons, when I saw you speak at St. Mark's. But you also said you didn't believe it. So did Nick Levis....even after working on the film with Berger!!

let me expound on what my problem is with your approach John

I think it's fine and dandy that you and Jon have a tendency to focus on one type of evidence over another. I FIRMLY believe in a diversity of approaches, when they are responsible (and for all my sparring with you guys I do not put you anywhere near the likes of a Nico or Judy Jetson)

What I object to very strenuously is the way that you seem to periodically chime in when No Planes or Space Beams make an appearance that "physical evidence is our achilles heel". First, the statement is wrong, but you can be forgiven for being wrong--that is part of the value of an honest difference of opinion/diversity. Second and more to the point, the timing of your interludes seems to imply lumping controlled demolition with the "fantasy theories", which is more than wrong, it is damaging because you are discouraging people from learning more about CD to be able to explain it in public. You are making people who are just learning about the movement reluctant to familiarize themselves with some of the strongest most powerful evidence of complicity.

You suggest instead everyone pay as much attention as you do to other issues. Issues that may be relevant but which I don't think are quite as important. So you want us to see that clearly NORAD stood down. Did they? Or were they confused by the war games? How do you propose we answer THAT question to everybody's satisfaction? With an investigation? Great! We think an investigation involving Larry Silverstein facing some jail time if he can't explain how his property was destroyed might also do the trick.

While there is currently NO explanation for the destruction of Larry's building 7, the failure to intercept has already been explained away in the American psyche--incompetence. How do you propose we get beyond people's propensity to see the Bush admin as incompetent? I'm all ears, but good luck, dude!

The Pakistan connection--i.e. the money trail, is another thing you think is key. I think the money trail is key too. I think we should start with the missing trillions reported on September 10th, though. That would lead us to look at Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, and his involvement in companies that developed remote aircraft navigation technologies. And the planes that went missing under his watch also sound suspicious--Boeings among them, I think.

I'm pretty sure you can see where I'm going with this. I'm not surprised that so many people get criticized for being Zionist assets--while they may or may not be, it certainly seems more popular to focus on Pakistani rather than Israeli involvement. What's the difference? HUGE. The Pakistani angle suggests that the arab hijackers were on the planes that hit the towers. Given that a lot of planted evidence leads to the same conclusion, can you see the problem?

Controlled demolition arranged with the help of Silverstein, the Bush connection to security at the WTC in combination with the existence of a vast Israeli spy ring and presence of the dancing Israelis in New York City on 9/11 dressed as Arabs and blaming Palestinians for the attacks would seem, well, slightly more germane given the use of 9/11 to justify a neocon-inspired series of wars in the middle east.

Instead of poo-pooing, why don't you simply try to convince us of why you're right about this? In other words, don't tell us CD bad, tell us other stuff good BECAUSE bla bla bla. In the end it all has to tie in together, and frankly I see that as being your main problem with CD--it weakens the hijacker thesis. How could they rig the buildings with explosives and then risk the hijackers failing in their mission? That to me is the most obvious problem, other than the clear attempt at manufacturing evidence, with the "real hijackers theory."

And just to clarify, there is time for blogging (to share info, learn, and develop ideas and strategy) and there is time for hard core truthing--copying and handing out DVDs, standing outside with signs, engaging people in dialogue, etc. I kind of assumed everyone was doing something like that, but maybe not. It''s not everyone's cup of tea and it took me a while to become comfortable with it. But even that's not everything. We NEED people to hit gatekeeper sites with SANE truth stuff, if only to combat the space beam and hologram disinfo. We NEED people to leave comments on college newspaper websites--we are failing miserably on campuses--that is disappointing. We need to be talking more about these efforts and strategies and less about which version of the truth is more likely to appeal to people. Here's a tip--forget what everyone here says and go out and talk to people--then make up your own mind on what works. Then DO IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!!

Alright, as always gents, a pleasure to disagree with you... :)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


i think i've explained my position

enough times\

i see no reason to continue to whip this dead horse.

suffice it to say that i respectfully disagree with you - and i still contend that physical evidence is problematic for this movement - and agree with Michael Ruppert's 'magic bullet' comparison.

but - just for the record - i have seen you tear down legitimate blogs that have focused on (for example) the Pakistan connection. so - to many of us here you do appear to be very narrow minded - single mindedly obsessed with controlled demolition to the exclusion of everything else - including INCREDIBLY damning and incriminating evidence that should be the basis of criminal investigations.

in my opinion there are certain people in this movement who can ONLY think about CD because its SIMPLE.

but - lets drop this. we are on the same team and diversity is good. lets just agree to disagree.

agreed to diasgree!

I think you should open your mind a bit more to Israeli involvement, for the record. Given the general taboo on criticism of Israel in the US media, and the extraordinarily defensive stance pro-Israel shills take when it comes to 9/11, I think it's weird to think that Pakistan is somehow a more salient target to focus on. AIPAC spying and still getting sucked up to, dancing Israelis, Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon for the missing trillions, the neocons clear Israel-first attitudes... If we ignore these issues we are making it seem that only racists and bigots think it's legitimate stuff. I just read 9/11 Evil by Victor Thorn from Wing TV, and my take is that it is a great resource except for the tone--a bit too intolerant and maybe even hateful. That's a shame, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were by design. If anyone wanting to look into the copious evidence of Israeli connections to 9/11, they have to wade through some fairly racist stuff. if on the other hand, you want to focus on Pakistani complicity based on their links to al Qaeda (which had nothing to do with 9/11) you'll find plenty of acceptable outlets for your efforts.

Did y'all know that Michael Chertoff, while in the Justice Department, arranged for the release of the dancing Israelis without charges? No? Maybe that's because that info is hidden on sites that seem too "hateful" for regular folks to visit. If WE, the NONHATEFUL and indeed I think sometimes TOO conciliatory folks don't discuss these things, what are we accomplishing? Strengthening hateful groups and individuals on BOTH sides, that's what. This has to end. Let's talk about Israel.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


John, I honestly can't wait

John, I honestly can't wait for your mini-doc on the disinfo, it should be brilliant! But I wouldn’t go and lump controlled demolition in with all this shit or even just insinuate that it’s connected. I think you'll scupper the film's success and effectiveness. I totally agree in regards to your sentiment, I understand that what your concerned with here is credibility, and not wanting to promote things that sound ridiculous. But the controlled demolition of building 7 in particular, is one of the most potent, fast spreading, valid and credible issues that's sparking people's scepticism, interest and outrage. I don't think you appreciate that and I can't blame you for not getting it. But trust me even though I also think that controlled demolition sounds wild, It sounds wild to everyone until they see the collapse of WTC7, after which that initial feeling of absurdity at the idea becomes, for many people, a galvanising drive to get to and expose the truth.

i do not

i do not mention controlled demolition at all in this film.

people need to stop being so sensitive on the CD topic.

it is Reynolds and Wood and Haupt and Fetzer who are connecting controlled demolition to little green men - not me.


That is the nature of physical evidence. it is easy to co-opt and corrupt with "experts" who contradict or add absurd theories.

That is my point. i am so tired of people over-reacting to this subject.

Well put.

I completely agree.

I think what John may overlook is that there was a huge influx of activists into the 9/11 Truth movement in 2006 (of which I count myself one) who were motivated by controlled demolition arguments, as a direct result of the work of Steven Jones. People for whom the witness-testimony arguments just never crossed the threshold of galvanizing awareness. That's true of the Pentagon theories as well -- they just never made me say "No fucking way! They're lying!" the way CD did. Different tools work with different people.

What tool is going to take us to the next level and bring in the next influx of people? I think it's wrong to assume that it's any of the tools out there already, necessarily, although Real Truther makes a compelling argument for Building 7 in terms of snapping back the heads of real people he meets and tries to enlighten. Perhaps controlled demolition has peaked (mwahahaha -- that's a loaded word these days) not in terms of truth, but in terms of its power to convince the unconvinced that the official story is just a hopelessly pathetic hodgepodge of lies. What's next?

And what you're overlooking missy...

Is that people in this movement developed an iron clad case for a new investigation long before Steven Jones came onto the scene, and hardly any of it was based on scientific evidence.

The "foundation" of the movement as it were. The stuff that no matter how hard people try, they can not argue against, and in most cases, avoid entirely.

For years now, I have been promoting 9/11 Truth without mention of Controlled Demolition, and the Pentagon, and people still love me, and I still manage to get people interested.

I guess it's all about perspective.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

As a matter of fact, Mr. Gold,

I am well aware of the "iron clad case for a new investigation" that was made before CD became a widespread preoccupation of the movement. I am merely pointing out that for whatever reason, undoubtedly based in one of my many character flaws, I did not give a shit about 9/11, the cover-up, or the need for a new investigation until I realized they were lying about how the buildings collapsed.

As far as getting people interested, you're obviously a special, special man in so many ways. That's why people love you. The rest of us have to work with what we've got.


I can't argue that. Why couldn't all disagreements end with telling me how special I am?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

i think she meant.....

....."short bus" special.

I refuse...

To make fun of the mentally handicapped. For shame John. For shame...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

For the record, "short bus special" is not what I meant

at all. I was teasing Jon a little, but I like him (as he knows) and I do in fact think he's an unusually good-hearted guy who has worked incredibly hard for 9/11 Truth.



"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

i know

i was just taking a cheap shot from the sidelines.

For what it's worth...

What should our self-appointed 9/11 truth leaders discuss when appearing on mainstream media TV & Radio Shows if they could only talk about one 9/11 related issue for one minute?

Dumb Question...

If we have a weapon that can fire beams powerful enough to decimate two of the world's tallest structures, why do we even bother using troops? We could blast entire sections of cities from the sky, and no one would be able to do anything about it. Causing them to surrender. At that point, you send in troops, but if we have this type of technology, why don't we use it as a first strike weapon?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Firing Beams..Nope

If this were really true..then the testing would have been from the ground to air at first..The stationary setting of this weapon would need to use the earth's surface to try and hit a moving target such as aircraft to test it's effectiveness in targeting.
To that end, it would be a continuation for the Star Wars program..but to then set this up in a satellite and target objects from a base on earth is ,to put it mildly, a chance to fail.

It's interesting...

That a Democratic candidate that supports the 9/11 Truth Movement got 44% of the vote (a newsworthy event), and now we have stories about the "Star Wars" technology as being the culprit behind the towers collapse.

The very technology this Democratic candidate used to be in charge of.

I could see in the headlines, "ex-Star Wars Chief Supports Idea That Star Wars Program Brought Down Towers."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

International treaties

It would violate international treaties to openly use such a weapon on another country. Russia can't object if US military assets fry NYC.

It would...

Most likely violate international treaties to even exist.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Bush pulled out of the ABM

Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and totally backstabbed Putin.

A Space-Based beam weapon would fall under this for sure, as its only practical use would be to destroy ICBMs as they travel in space.

Atmosphere has a way of making lasers USELESS.  

This whole subject is 100% pure disinformation, after this goes through its rounds we will have yet another paper by someone proposing earthquake weapons, then trans-dimensional weapons, etc...

Its all pure bull, distract and lower the signal to noise ratio.

Move along, nothing to see hear, except to note who the proponents and enablers are. 

Hey, imgstacke, Wood & Reynolds May Be Wrong!

Hey, imgstacke, Wood & Reynolds may be wrong!  But not necessarily for the reasons that others & you state (or don't state).

The W+R article posits "9/11 beam weapons" as the answer.  A more generic way of saying "beam weapons" may be "directed energy weapons."  As Scholars for 9/11 Truth Co-Chair Dr. Jim Fetzer has partially proven about Senator Paul Wellstone's fatal October 2004  plane crash and as has been partially shown about U.S. use of such weapons in Iraq (etc.),  such "directed energy weapons" DO exist.

Ridicule may not be the last refuge of scoundrels, but it's close.  Please continue...

In 2002, Christopher Bollyn wrote an article about "Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center" at www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm.  Although Mr. Bollyn may or may not continue to support his previous thesis, directed energy weapons are a reality about which we in the 9/11 Truth Movement may want to ask scientifically skeptical questions.

The "directed energy weapons" may not have been lasers (or masers).  Wood & Reynolds may be wrong about this!  The "directed energy weapons" may have been Tesla-type directed energy electrical weapons (of a type that is not often discussed on the internet -- or elsewhere).

However, how else do you account for the circular-shaped, scalloped holes -- from the top --> down -- in the hollowed-out WTC6 U.S. Customs Building (picture above); the selectively "toasted cars" (page 5 of the W+R article); and the downwardly-spiraling, disintegrating, pulverizing, exterior steel columns from above the 20th floor that never hit the ground???  See, for example, the following image (i.e., Figure 314[a] from page 3 of the current W+R 9/11 beam weapons article [caption =  "As WTC2 is destroyed, disintegrating steel 'wheatchex' showered down on WTC3, the Marriott Hotel"]). 

Why didn't these steel exterior columns ever hit the ground?  Are "directed energy weapns" a real possibility?  Or does Thermite exclusively account for all of these phenomena?  Inquiring 9/11 minds may want to know...

Downwardly-Spiraling, Exterior, DisintegratING, Steel Columns that Never Hit the Ground

Video on High Energy Beam Weapons

Start at 9:20 for the press conference with Rumsfeld and General Myers [I dont trust them.Why should I? ]

Then goes to a general discussion of the issue and the approx. funding: said to be under one billion.

I think they lie about the scale. But yes, these weapons exist.

At the end, the plans for high enregy weapons are said to involve domestic use alone.

Yea, just like they didn't use phosphorous in Faluja.

A Disturbing Video & A Disturbing Article re "Beam Weapons"

Peggy, yes, the above video is indeed disturbing. However, it is a "must see" for anyone who doubts the existence of "beam weapons."

An equally or more disturbing article about a different type of "beam weapon" apparently in use by the U.S. & other military groups is detailed in "American Mind Control in Baghdad: Spooks Use Technology 'Proved' on One-Million Dead Africans" by Joe Vialls at www.vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/mindcontrol.html.

I was in still in communication with Joe during the week that he died about his health.  .Some of Joe's articles definitely contain "disinfo," and I cannot completely vouch for the contents of this article.  However, I also know two (2) of the alleged developers of the "beam weapon" technology detailed in Joe's article (linked above). 

These developers of one supposedly-key aspect of this "beam weapon" technology were compartmentalized in the R&D chain, and they did not know what they were working on.  Because of the use to which this technology was put (and for other reasons), these developers will no longer do any DoD-related R&D.

If you are even a little bit squeamish about the evil that some human beings can do to other human beings with such "beam weapons," then I would suggest that you not read the linked article.

Disinfo, pure and simple

Lasers and particle beams make lousy weapons. This was discovered at taxpayer's expense during the Reagan era. There's little reason to speculate about imaginary weapons, when C4 or RDX can pulverize the WTC's so easily.

And Judy, haven't you made a few previous mistakes? Didn't you claim that the molten metal was aluminum, until Steven Jones demonstrated that it lacked the emissivity to glow as it poured out of the building? Do you think we've forgotten?

Also, all physicists I know are well-aware of the famous invention of the laser in 1960. Since you claim right here it was 1955, perhaps you should read up on them a bit more?

As a mechanical engineer, how would you know anything at all about beam weapons, which are the realm of physicists?

Let's not get distracted with this. There's plenty of valid material about 9/11 out there. I can only wonder why this kind of nonsense keeps appearing.

I *like* the new DARK GREY point system


the "bad" posts (that the busybodies Jon Alba Dem et al) flag with gusto.. are actually the best.

Peggy, I am impressed with your perceptiveness. Schoolyard in-crowd vs out-crowd.. HAHA, wonderful observation, fits 100%.

Wonderful.. now I just have to look at the DARK GREY posts, and can skip the noise ..

thank yous!

Better yet

start your own blog website and leave completely.

Even better

Leave completely and DON'T start your own site...

Another Dumb Question...

Why is "Dr. Steven E. Jones" listed as one of the keywords for this thread? I know for a fact he doesn't endorse this. Are you purposefully trying to associate him with this? That's being deceitful.

Much like Dr. Jones' name was used to promote "TV Fakery."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Dr Steve Jones IS endorsing a scientific look at Beam Weapons

Hi, Jon:

Professor Steve Jones IS endorsing a close, scientific examination of the 9/11 beam weapons hypothesis that Wood & Reynolds present.  And so is his Scholars for 9/11 Truth Co-Chair Dr. Jim Fetzer.

Did you read my original blog (above)?  Or are you just negatively commenting because Wood & Reynolds are involved in this research (and you don't like them)?

In my original blog (above), Professor Steve Jones (who goes by the moniker of "Hard Evidence") says in part: "Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have begun construction of web pages describing the use of laser/microwave beams at the web site below, and we ought to take a look at these ideas. Nice photos." 

If Steve's exhortation that "we ought to take a look at these ideas" does not motivate you to take an objective, scientific look at these ideas, then what will motivate you, Jon?

I too am skeptical.  But let me know.  Thanx.

Thomas J Mattingly

P.S. You also ask & say: "Are you purposefully trying to associate [Jones] with this? That's being deceitful.  Much like Dr. Jones' name was used to promote 'TV Fakery.'" 

But Jon, Steve Jones did sign Nico Haupt's petition calling for articleS on 9/11 TV Fakery to be published in his Journal of 9/11 Studies (at my request to Steve, by the way).  Are you going to use Steve Jones' endorsement of Nico Haupt's 9/11 TV Fakery petition to taint Steve Jones (just as ohters & you do with Reynolds & Wood)?

I'm still looking forward to seeing the other side of these issues published in Steve's Journal (and yes, I know what Steve's personal position is on the No Big Boeings Hypothesis).  Viewing these opposing articles side by side in Steve's journal is both fair -- and the scholarly way!

If nothing else, Steve has stated that he endorses a close, objective, scientific examination of all serious 9/11 hypotheses -- no matter how unpopular.  After all, science is not a popularity contest (otherwise the Earth might still be flat). 

In addition, this is also The Scientific Method -- whether you like it or not...


Signed his petition because he was being nice, but stated in his signature that the theory had to meet all 5 requirements. He did not endorse the theory, however, his signature on the petition was used as if he did endorse it, and that was simply not the case.

"Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have begun construction of web pages describing the use of laser/microwave beams at the web site below, and we ought to take a look at these ideas. Nice photos."

I wonder what context this statement originated from. Could he have meant, "We ought to take a look at these ideas, and debunk them as soon as possible because they are ridiculous?"

I have an email from him that I'm not going to post because it is between he and I, however, I voiced my concerns over the ridiculousness of this "theory", and simply put, he agreed with me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Steve Jones Still Endorses "The Scientific Method," Doesn't He?

Jon, will you concede the possibiltiy that Professor Steve Jones still endorses "The Scientific Method" -- even if he has his own personal beliefs & opinions on these issues (as we all do)?  In addition, I suspect that even Steven would concede that he's been scientifically mistaken about one or two of his personal beliefs & opinions in the past.

If you don't think that Steve is in favor of a scientific & objective look at both the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis and the 9/11 TV Fakery Hypohesis, then why don't you ask him?  Tell him that you plan to publish his response here in reply to my question.

Jon, I know that some of the others & you are honest & sincere in your beliefs & opinions about these issues.  However, honesty & sincerity don't necessarily make good science.  Otherwise, the Earth might still be flat -- a very popular opinion, honestly & sincerely believed by many at one time.

My advocacy for the devil (personified by Haupt, Reynolds, Wood & a few others, of course), is just that:  I'm playing devil's advocate (a scientifically necessary role -- especially for unpopular, ridiculous but possible hypotheses). 

I too am skeptical about these issues.  But we may want the issues to get some notice and a fair scientific hearing.  That's the only way that we can put these issues to rest, once and for all (if they can be put to rest). 

You know that the proponents of these 911-Blogger-unpopular hypotheses aren't going to just crawl back into the woodwork (as much as some might hope).  So let's shine a scientific spotlight on the supposed cockroaches, and let's see if they run or die off.  If you don't like that, then just ignore the supposed cockroaches, and see if they go away...

It may be difficult for some to recognize that we are probably being subtly but effectively manipulated by those against whom we should really be fighting -- namely the oft-mentioned 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.  But WE sometimes are (me too) -- in a 1984-type manner (Cognitive Dissonance at its best... or worst). 

The price of freedom of 9/11 scientific thought is eternal vigilance -- not neo-Luddite, anti-scientific dalliance & vigilate-ance.

Please help others & me to reinvigorate the 9/11 Truth Movement with the true original spirit of 9/11 truthseeking -- no matter what possible 9/11 truths may be really out there.  (And some of them are "really out there," aren't they, Jon [LoL]?)

By the way, Steve MAY be coming to Washington to speak sometime in the semi-near future.  I hope that you will join us, if & when he comes.  I'll let you know...

Steve Jones Still Endorses "The Scientific Method," Doesn't He?

His activities of late seem to indicate a negative response to your query.

Thomas J Mattingly ,

I think you are pseudo-intellectual. Your repeated call for a "a fair scientific hearing" of these issues starts to stink.
These issues were given loads of hearing time already. Enough, given what they have to offer.
We heard the theories, and everything from now on is endless. Is that what you like about them?

So, the Earth Is Still Flat, Eh?

Wood & Reynolds posted a preliminary draft of their 9/11 Beam Weapons article on October 17th.  The article is still "under construction."  Almost before the digital ink was dry on the last page of the first draft of the article, a vocal minority of 9/11 Blogger commentators responded with a coordinated chorus of ridicule & scorn. 

One 911 Blogger commentator said that the reason that Judy Wood was writing such "nonsense" was probably because she is "dickriding" Morgan Reynolds.  I don't know, and I don't care.  However, the poster-boy for "dickriding" was supported by a coordinated chorus of other 911 Blogger commentators and tacitly encouraged by one 911 Blogger moderator.

Is this the "loads of hearing time already" about which you write with such passion?  If you don't want to listen, then tune out.

Wood & Reynolds recently spoke in Seattle before 500+ 9/11 truthseekers.  They were planning to talk about traditional, tried & true, generally-accepted "9/11 Truth" (some of which 9/11 truths even you might accept).  The conference organizers asked instead for Wood to speak about her 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis

Reynolds gave the more traditional talk about tried & true 9/11 truths -- but he did mention one of your pet bugaboos: the No Big Boeings Hypothesis.  Both Reynolds & Wood were warmly received -- with NO 911-Blogger-type ridicule, boos & catcalls.  In addition, several members of the scientifically-astute, Boeing-based Seattle audience asked them: "Why haven't we heard about these issues before?"

Yet you would say that they have already had good notice and a fair opportunity for scientific hearing???  Oh, really?  Are you serious?  R.U. Sirius?

Wood received a standing ovation at the NY911Truth.org 9/11 Fifth Anniversary Conference in New York City.  Earlier in September, Reynolds & Wood spoke before a large, receptive audience at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.  Last Saturday, Scholars for 9/11 Truth Co-Chair Dr. Jim Fetzer was overly effusive & gushing in his premature praise for Wood and the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis on Jim's RBN Live international radio show. 

Virtually the only place where Reynolds & Wood are heaped with ridicule, scorn, abuse & personal attacks is at 911 Blogger.  Imagine that!

NONE of the above proves that the Wood & Reynolds 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis is true.  Wood & Reynolds may be totally WRONG!  After all, Good science is not a popularity contest.

IF this building-disintegrating, directed energy weapons technology really exists (and I have good second-hand information to indicate that it does), then we still need more proof that it could have been and was used on 9/11. 

After others & I do some further checking, I may be back here at 911 Blogger to tell you that Wood & Reynolds are WRONG (if they are).  And I will be more than happy to do so... one more possible 9/11 truth eliminated.  There may even be several more possible 9/11 truths to ridicule and scientifically eliminate before we're done.

In the interim, I too remain skeptical.  Using 9/11 Beam Weapons to disintegrate most of the WTC towers just sounds too ridiculous & fantastic to be true, right?. 

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.  We'll soon see, now won't we?  Maybe...  But only if we keep our eyes and minds open.

So, the Earth is still flat, eh?

T J M,

"IF this building-disintegrating, directed energy weapons technology really exists (and I have good second-hand information to indicate that it does), then we still need more proof that it could have been and was used on 9/11. .............There may even be several more possible 9/11 truths to ridicule and scientifically eliminate before we're done."

Let me ask you, do you seriously and honestly believe that :
1: More talk and discussion about this issue will make it any clearer or more proofable in any direction
2: that it is possible to solve the mysterious tower collapses by "scientifically eliminating" all the various theories that come up along the way?

3: by which kind of standard do you 'filter' out what and which theory is worth investigating and which is not? Im just curious, you know.

For me, the answer to both 1+2 above are NO.
For 3, it is, well, i think its worth investigating and pushing anything that increases the chances for an investigation with access to classified information and documents. Because of my answer to question 2.

Half of the people in the states have never heard of WTC7. And you talk about Beam Weapons and how we can solve and proof anything such whatsoever.
Its just ridiculous. Because you can't proof any such theory. Not now and not after bloggin about it 4 more years. But im sure it wont be space beams that long, the next one is waiting around the corner i guess...

It's going to be plasmoids!

My prediction, anyway, based on this old article to which they link in a post up above, to bolster their beam weapon theory.


Thank you, casseia. I always knew that I could count on you...

Thank you, casseia.  I always knew that I could count on you.

The article that you link is Christopher Bollyn's pioneering 9/11 article of February 2002, entitled "Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center" at www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm.  We had Christopher Bollyn as our speaker at the National Press Club on election rigging in November 2004. 

Of course, Christopher may or may not be correct about such laser beam weapons being used at the WTC site, and he may or may not have changed his mind.

Regarding "plasmoids," see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid ("A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning,[1] magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere,[2] and objects in cometary tails,[3] in the solar wind,[4][5] in the solar atmosphere,[6] and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.")

Christopher Bollyn states the following in his article: "Directed Energy Weapons: A former East German physicist who studied Soviet infrared technology and plasmoids during the 60s and 70s, and who was directly involved in a demonstration of a Soviet laser beam weapon in 1991 for the U.S. Air Force in Weimar (DDR), told AFP that there is evidence that a directed-energy weapon using "deep infrared" radiation was used to bring down the WTC. Although infrared weapon technology is not widely discussed in the West, the Soviet infrared beam weapon is nothing new and was already used during a Soviet dispute with China in 1969 to destroy "a wall" at the Ussuri River, which separates Manchuria from Russia's Far East, according to the physicist. "

Later, about possible man-made plasmoid use at the Pentagon on 9/11, Christopher continues: "The Pentagon was less damaged by a similar plane crash and fire because either a plasmoid was not involved or as the physicist speculated, "the Pentagon is technically shielded and protected from plasmoids." "The thermal infrared plasmoid would have raised the heat of the building. One should examine the videos in slow motion to see exactly when the fires started. A plasmoid would have affected the computers in neighboring buildings, because the plasmoid affects computers and cannot be targeted precisely," the physicist said."

Unlike you, casseia, I don't have any predictions.  I am just following the evidence trail.  The W&R 9/11 Beam Weapons article linked above contains SOME additional breadcrumbs of 9/11 evidence.  In addition, unlike Wood & Reynolds, I am not only looking for this evidence where the light is best and where the possibly-planted information is the most voluminous -- but also where the probable Prime 9/11 Perps would least prefer that I look & seek.

Tesla-type technologies, plasmoid technologies, and other directed energy weapons technologies are amongst the most highly classified types of information in all of the G8+ nations that possess scuh technologies (i.e., higher classifications than nuclear weapons).

casseia, On what evidence do you base your prediction that "It's going to be plasmoids"?

An image of a visible-spectrum, man-made plasmoid is below. 

Man-Made Plasmoid

On what do I base my prediction?

On the fact that it sounds about one notch crazier than beam weapons or "Tesla strike weapons" on a progression that is leading directly to "UFOs and their green reptilian pilots brought down the Towers."

casseia, My Hopes for You Are Dashed (temporarily, I hope)!

casseia, My hopes for you are dashed (temporarily, I hope)!

As Niels Bohr, a contemporary peer of Albert Einstein, once said to a young physicist: "Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."


As for your 9/11 theory about "UFOs and their green reptilian pilots brought down the Towers," please tell me more (LoL).


TJM, you are either an idiot or you do this on purpose.
Another one of your "may or may not be true" esssays that sounds as shallow and fake as it gets.

em7, Good Questions!

em7, good questions!

You ask: "[D]o you seriously and honestly believe that: More talk and discussion about this issue will make it any clearer or more proofable in any direction[?]"

Yes, the W+R 9/11 Beam Weapons article is not yet finished.  Let's at least wait until the article is finished and until some real scientists have had a chance to take a whack at Wood & Reynolds and the evidentiary & scientific assertions in their article.  Few if any of the 9/11 Blogger commentators who are ridiculing the W+R 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis are scientists; and, regardless, they use NO science to support their ridicule.

You ask: "[D]o you seriously and honestly believe that:  ... it is possible to solve the mysterious tower collapses by 'scientifically eliminating' all the various theories that come up along the way?"

Yes, however, the towers did NOT "collapse."  We all saw that approximately 80% of the WTC towers disintegrated and were pulverized into talcum-powder-sized dust on 9/11.  In addition, there is hard & soft physical & other evidence for this fact.  Approximately 80% of the WTC towers did NOT hit the ground within the footprint of the WTC towers.  The WTC towers steel, concrete, building contents, and human beings were literally disintegrated, puliverized and blown UP & OUT into the air and spewed at high velocity into the atmosphere and over lower Manhattan & over the Hudson River. 

The WTC towers did NOT collapse.  Please remember this phrase when you hear others talking about the "collapse" of the WTC towers.  Even Dr. Steven Jones now usually uses the word "destroyed" instead of "collapsed."  Steve knows about and appreciates this issue.

As our good buddy, Sherlock Holmes once said (and I'm paraphrasing), "After you eliminate the impossible [e.g., jet planes, jet fuel, and maybe even conventional & other explosives], whatever remains is your answer -- no matter how improbable" (maybe even directed energy beam weaponry).

You also ask: "[B]y which kind of standard do you 'filter' out what and which theory is worth investigating and which is not? Im just curious, you know."

My education, background, and experience in physics, chemistry, engineering, medicine, space technologies, electronics, computers, and telecommunications is relatively extensive (and rather eclectic),  And I don't mind being and sometimes like to be WRONG.  It's one of the few ways that I can learn any more.  So, when I play devil's advocate against the popular grain, I don't care if I am mistaken.  Please tell me.

I also have a relatively extensive background in high-profile cover-ups -- dating back to the Viet Nam War.  For example, I knew enough to seek out & meet Daniel Ellsberg before he released the Pentagon Papers.

In addition, when I view an event like 9/11 (and the ensuing cover-ups & PsyOps), I look at the purpose of the event, who benefits, and who squawks when certain hypotheses are first discussed.  The louder the squawks from certain people, the more likely is the need to INVESTIGATE those hypotheses.  This does NOT mean that those hypotheses are necessarily true.

I also have decent domestic & international contacts in business, science, intel, foreign policy, military, and politics.  When something weird comes up, I just ask some of my contacts:  "Is this worth pursuing?"  After the years, and since they know that I will also ask their competitors, they usually give me an honest answer.

Others & you talk about WTC7.  It's an important issue -- but not necessarily for the reasons that most might think.  WTC7 was destroyed in a different manner than the WTC towers (WTC1 & WTC2).  WTC7 does in fact look like traditional "Controlled Demoltion."  WTC7 plunged to the ground into its own footprint.  The WTC towers were mostly disintegrated & pulverized and blew UP and OUT (not down, and NOT into its own footprint).  Thus, WTC7 may be a RED HERRING (to draw attention away from the disintegration of WTC1&2).  We can & should still use WTC7 to gain support.

You say: "i think its worth investigating and pushing anything that increases the chances for an investigation with access to classified information and documents."

Yes and No. IMHO, ALL of the G8+ and other significant governments on this planet are controlled by the same group that are or may be the Prime 9/11 Perps.  Until we solve and remedy 9/11 & its aftermath, we may never get such an investigation or access to that classified information and those documents (if they still exist). 

Have you noticed that neither Russia nor China nor any of the intel services & governments of the G8+ nations are challenging the U.S. on 9/11?  Why is that? 

Hi Chris!

Hi Chris! <not the Chris from 911blogger>


"Yes, however, the towers did NOT "collapse." "

Ok, the word collapse was probably not a good choice. See, english is not my first language, so bear with me. I DO think the towers were demolished. But that has nothing to do with my questions. You once again manage to write a 'nice and long' essay that sounds like its only purpose is to show your incredibly eclectic knowledge and interest in what you call 'sience' . To be honest, i don't even believe you. But that might be my own problem, i dont know. The only thing i know youre an expert in at this point is writing long posts that run in circles and defend theories that lead nowhere.
The fact that you believe we can 'solve' 911 using "Wood + Reynolds 'science'" is, to put it mildly, strange, specially given your 'eclectic background'.

Let me ask you this: Have you seen the interview with Reynolds on FOX, a few months ago, where he talks about 'comics hitting the building' ?
What did you think ? Did you seriously think 'ahh this brings us closer to the truth' ? Did you look at Reynolds eyes when he said that?
Now imagine Reynolds on Fox today. What would he be talking about? And you still believe its bringing us 'closer to solving it', in this 'sherlok holmes' style?? I knew you woud bring that Sherlock quote up, but hey, have you ever thought about the fact that Sherlock did not have to deal + eliminate theories involving technology he knows NOTHING about??
Where would he have ended if he had to 'disprove' theories that he just can't either proof or disproof cause its out of his reach?

em7, Don't Knock Sherlock Holmes!

The "collapse" issue is NOT insignificant.  No less of a 9/11 authority than Professor Steve Jones had been regularly using the word "collapse" to describe what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11 -- until his Scholars for 9/11 Truth Co-Chair Dr. Jim Fetzer began to correct him (after the 9/11 Beam Weapons article was first published in preliminary form).

Regarless of the ultimate fate of the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis, there is adequate evidence in the article and elsewhere to prove that the WTC towers did NOT collapse.  About 80% of the WTC towers were disintegrated, pulverized, and blown UP and OUT into the atmosphere and over lower Manhattan & the Hudson River.  What could do this?

One of the more popular 9/11 videos is now "Imprrobable Collapse."  The title and some of the content gives many a wrong sense about what really happened on 9/11.  Otherwise, much of the video is very good.

You ask: "Let me ask you this: Have you seen the interview with Reynolds on FOX, a few months ago, where he talks about 'comics hitting the building' ?  What did you think ? Did you seriously think 'ahh this brings us closer to the truth' ? Did you look at Reynolds eyes when he said that?  Now imagine Reynolds on Fox today. What would he be talking about? And you still believe its bringing us 'closer to solving it', in this 'sherlok holmes' style??"

Yes, I saw the interview.  In fact, I helped to set it up (after Reynolds' & Wood's presentations at the National Press Club, which I also helped to set up -- after Steve Jones declined our invitation).  Morgan did about as well as he could -- under the circumstances.  At the National Press Club, Reynolds & Wood concentrated on tried & true 9/11 truths -- not the No Big Boeings Hypothesis & TV Fakery Hypothesis.

Could Reynolds have done better on Faux News?  Absolutely!  Everyone (including Reynolds) later thought about a lot of other ways that he could have responded to the questions.  Should others & he not pursue possible 9/11 truths because of the possible questions that the mainstream 9/11 cover-up media will ask them?  No, ALL reasonable and semi-reasonable possible 9/11 truths should be pursued & investigated.  The 9/11 Truth Movement should never be afraid of any possible 9/11 truth.  If we are afraid of any possible 9/11 truths, then we should change our name.

Fox News attacks ALL 9/11 truthseekers, 9/11 truths, and possible 9/11 truths.  John Albanese also got attacked on Faux News, but I also felt that John did well -- and as well as he could under the circumstances.  The mainstream 9/11 cover-up media will find any reason to attack any and all 9/11 truthseekers.

Fox News will probably not invite Reynolds back for a another interview -- and, even if they do, they will probably not ask him about the 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis.  Unfortunately & unwittingly, those of our 9/11 truth heroes who do appear in & on the mainstream 9/11 cover-up media are probably serving more of the purposes of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps than most of us may realize.  Otherwise, our 9/11 truth heroes would not get much if any media coverage.

Although the Wood & Reynolds 9/11 Beam Weapons Hypothesis may be WRONG, the mainstream media (including Fox) have covered the U.S. military use of beam weapons & directed energy weapons enough that this hypothesis might raise too many questions in the minds of the average Fox News viewer.  Virtually the only place where the existence of beam weapons & directed energy weapons is NOT taken seriously by a vocal minority is at 911 Blogger.  However, this does NOT mean that the hypothesis is necessarily true.

And, hey, don't knock Sherlock Holmes!  He knew something about everything (almost as badly as I do -- LoL).


how come you think i did knock Sherlock??
also, my point was not if Reynolds got attacked on Fox or not. Of course, everyone that challenges the official conspiracy gets attacked. But hey, it was you who said, a few posts earlier, that no other 'significant' government will aid in getting the truth out.
And i sort of agree on that.
So, i guess, the only ones who can make a change are.. the people, after all. John Doe and Hans Muster, right?
Do you agree on this?
I dont mean one John Doe and two Hans Musters, i mean 90% of John Does .
Now ok, how do you get John Doe and Hans interested and aware? ........etc etc etc etc
Tssss.. back on 911 blogger after weeks of abstinence (due to work overload) and im already caught in a loopy discussion with the master of "i connect the dots of research and out-there-speculation in the most proper and pseudo intellectual way" himself...i need a coffee

Countering the NWO with the New World Dis-Order -- in Energy

Yes, em7, only the people can make the changes necessary to counter the aftermath of 9/11.

The oligarchs of the G8+, the New World Order, or the Powers-That-Be are not worried about us finding all of the evidence about what happened (most of which is hidden in plain sight).  After all, they control both the criminal justice systems and the governments in the G8+ nations and most others.

If so, then how do we do it?  How do we counter the NWO (or whatever you want to call it)?  One possible way is with the New World Disorder, with an almost anarchic freedom of thought & freedom of action -- even about what really happened on 9/11.

We have a steadily-increasing number of people on the planet who question, doubt, and disbelieve the 9/11 Official Government Conspiracy Theory.  In many countries, this figure is approaching if not exceeding 50%What more do we need? 

There is no evidence that any of the hypotheses that a vocal minority at 911 Blogger don't like are impeding the growth of this critical mass of the planet's people.  In fact, if supposedly-newbie Dwight is an indication, such hypotheses may actually be helping (regardless of their possible falsehood).  So, why is a vocal minority at 911 Blogger so worried?

How do we achieve this freedome of thought and freedom of action?  Well, one way is to STOP paying so much attention to the mainstream media.  Turn off your TVs -- especially mainstream cover-up media news (which is used as a tool to program the masses -- even you).  Another way is to STOP telling other people how to speak & think.  If someone told you how to speak & think, then you wouldn't like it, right?

A third way is by researching & developing the energy technologies behind what MAY have been used to disintegrate & pulverize the WTC towers (e.g., the Tesla technologies).  Regardless of whether these technologies were actually used for this purpose on 9/11, the Tesla & other supposedly-exotic energy technologies are cheap, decentralized energy devices that can be used to power cars, boats, planes, homes, businesses, and industries around the planet -- especially in Third World nations.  Using these technologies on 9/11 (IF they were used on 9/11) may have been one way to taint the peaceful use of these technologies.

Such cheap energy technologies can give every nation energy independence -- virtually overnight.  With energy independence comes a lessening and elimination of resource scarcities (allowing additional freedom of action and virtually eliminating control by the Powers-That-Be).

The biggest secret on the planet is that there are no resource scarcities (a primary means used by the Powers-That-Be to manipulate the masses and to induce conflict & chaos).  The main problem is a distribution problem.  A secondary problem is an extraction problem.  Cheap energy solves both of those problems.  Voila!  No more scarcities.

Regarding energy & resource abundance, check out the writings of R. Buckminster Fuller (whom I knew, when he was alive).  An especially good book of his is Critical Path, which is available at Amazon.com and which may be available for free on the internet.

The real revolution that we so badly need may NOT be a political revolution.  The real revolution that we need may be a technological revolution.  Some of us have been working on such things behind the scenes for a long time.  However, the fruits of this work may soon burst forth into the planetary public consciousness -- on the internet (not in the mainstream cover-up media). 

You can help -- if only by not interfering with the freedom of speech and freedom of thought of others.

Now, I need some coffee...  But thank you for the impetus to write the above.

tech revolution?

"The real revolution that we need may be a technological revolution. Some of us have been working on such things behind the scenes for a long time. However, the fruits of this work may soon burst forth into the planetary public consciousness -- on the internet (not in the mainstream cover-up media). "

Ooh, now you made me curious.
Please enlighten me.
To be brutally honest, i doubt your credibility on technical issues. But I could be wrong, of course. Its your chance to proove it. But i am very much a tech head myself, and my bullshit detector is beeping....

Tech Rev -versus- Pol Rev

Thanks for your interest, em7.

The planetary political & criminal justice processes are firmly control of the Powers-That-Be.  For example, the Dems wouldn't/couldn't even elect anti-Iraq-War Murtha as Majority Leader in the House.  The vote was not even close (about 2 to 1, if I recall correctly).  Yet a emerging majority of American are opposed to continued U.S. participation in the Iraq War, and anti-war sentiment recently put the Dems into power in Congress.

For another example, a clear majority of Americans disbelieve much if not must of the 9/11 Commision Report.  (Jim Marrs, Morgan Reynolds, Bob Bowman, Barb Honnegar & I had lunch with Kean & Hamilton on 9/11/06.  Kean & Hamilton are a bad joke!)  Yet we cannot even get a new investigation.  In addition, even if we could, who would appoint the investigators, control the purse strings, and control access to information?

The old primary meta-source whom I recommended is Bucky Fuller, especially his book, Critical Path.  In 1985, Bucky was already talking about the existing ability to do trans-hemispheric electrical grids, using existing technology (due to fact that most electricity is used during the daytime).  New superconducting technology would eliminate the electrical power loss with transmission (or "wheeling") of electric power over long distances.  Google "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc."  The only thing that they are missing for their room temperature superconductors is the abilty to extrude long lengths of this room temperature superconductor.  This would make Bucky's idea even easier to do.

Bucky said that such transhemispheric grids and use of existing, off-the-shelf technology would result in electricity availability at less than one (1) penny per kilowatt hour.  Due to my research & contacts (and what I have seen with my own eyes), I personally know that Bucky was right about what he said -- and then some.

Tesla-type technologies to generate electricity at virtually no cost have been available (and suppressed) for more than 100 years.  Variants on what some call "Zero Point Energy" (a deliberate misnomer) have been proven "over unity" electricity in the labs of comapnies that I personally know ("over unity" = getting more electricity out of the device than you put in -- without violating laws of physics, as expanded by Tesla's principles of physics).

With cheap electricity, you eliminate the resource distribution & extraction problems -- thus, eliminating ALL resource scarcities on the planet.

In addition to the above & other cheap energy technologies, cheap crop-doubling agricultural technologies, cheap earth-girdling telecom technologies (planetary universal telephony, video & high-speed internet), cures for many if not most modern diseases, etc. are a few of the other areas in which I formally & informally work on a semi-regular basis.

If you are truly interested in this stuff, then P.M. me, and I will write back with more info.

Yes, I am for real -- and verifiable (although I am probably no where near as smart as I sometimes like to think that I am).  Some of the people whom you know who know who I am (and with whom I communicate sem-regularly) are Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Jim Marrs & Webster Tarpley.


"...cures for many if not most modern diseases.."

Hmm. Im awaiting your answer to my P.M..

EM7, Finally Got It! Will respond later on Monday...

EM7, you say that you sent me a P.M. through 911 Blogger.  Finally got it! 

Your P.M. went to my junk email box & was reported as "suspiciouis" (due to how 911 Blogger sends out such emails): "We couldn't verify the sender's identity. For your safety, contact the sender before opening this message. This message has been blocked for your safety."

I have now read your email without opening it, and will respond later on Monday.  Thanx.

still waiting...

still waiting...

em7, these guys will talk

em7, these guys will talk you in circles for literally months if you let them... 

I saw them

I liked them, though Reynolds no-Boeings theory made me worried he was a plant. So I did a lot of research.
I now think he's right because what the video depicts -- the knife-into-butter plane - is physically impossible. Was it a cartoon? A missile? Something else? I don't care.

This means that the media may be complicit, and that there may not have been Arab hijackers, other than assets used as props to be seen before 9/11. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time speculating about Pakistan, Israel, NORAD, forewarnings, etc.. If the no-Boeings theory is true, all that is a sideshow - worse, it could lead to the crime being covered up.

IMO, all that is important is the physical evidence, which includes the destruction of the towers, however it was done. The rest will follow. Other people should pursue whatever they think will reveal what happened. And quit your bitching.

By the way, nice timing Fetzer

Gotta love the way he had this perfectly timed to happen on the same day as the groundbreaking Lifting The Fog conference - a 12 hour schedule of presentations on the WTC disaster based in the scientific method, ie reality.

By promoting "Space Beams" and the ones who do...

You're not only helping the POTUS, you're helping everyone involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11, including hundreds of thousands more in Iraq and elsewhere, to stay free on our streets. I hope you sleep well.

You didn't vote someone two points up

at least i don't think so. There's a funny thing that happens sometimes -- you see a static page when you're reading through comments. It doesn't show new comments (comments made while you are reading) while you're reading it -- you have to refresh the page first. However, when you vote, it's as if that tiny portion of the page is refreshed, and if someone else has also voted the comment up/down while you've been reading the page, then you see the change caused by both your vote and the other person's vote.

And you can vote for yourself, it's true. I think it's bad form, but I do suspect that certain posters automatically vote their own posts up right as they post them. Ahem.

The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis

The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis
by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
December 14, 2006

And you bumped up a blog that's over a month old

that has a rating of 3 because...?

Show "What's your point?" by Anonymous (not verified)

My point...

is self-evident. Your little disinfo show has been exposed. The vast majority of this community realize that this op involving Jones/Wood/Fetzer/Reynolds/SPACE BEAMer/NO PLANEer/TV FAKEers etc. was created to distract, divde and discredit the 9/11 truth movement. The op has been exposed.

Steven "Los Alamos"

Steven "Los Alamos" Jones/HeavyWaterGate: Cold Fusion Patent Holder linked to U.S. Army Future Weaponry Committee
By ewing2001
(*thx to Gritzle70, 911Inside Jobbers Yahoo !)
(see also
Pre-9/11 Cold Fusion U.S. Patent, once blocked by Steven E. Jones, linked to suspicious murder
ScrewLoose about ProfJones/"HeavyWaterGate": "Deniers Turning on Dr Jones?"

As Gritzle70 found out, RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, who registered a patent on "Cold Fusion" (once blocked by Professor Steven E. Jones) only a few weeks before 9/11, also wrote a book about weaponry management.
At http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5036&page=R1
you will find "Commercial Multimedia Technologies for Twenty-First Century Army Battlefields:
A Technology Management Strategy (1995)"
Scroll down the page and you will find the staff, involved in this book:
"....1994 Staff ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, Study Director, 1994 ALVERA GIRCYS, Senior Program Assistant ALLISON KNIGHT, Senior Program Assistant, 1994 NORMAN M. HAILER, Consultant . . ."
Committee on Future Technologies for Army Multimedia Communications,
National Research Council Authoring Organizations

This book responds to an request by the U.S. Army to study the applicability of commercial multimedia technologies to command, control, communications and intelligence needs on future battlefields. After reviewing Army's needs and discussing relevant commercial technologies within the context ...
DEPS Boards and Committees
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)
Director George Levin
Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST)
Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Bruce Braun
Board on Assessment of NIST Programs (NIST)
(ed: Panel on Air and Ground Vehicle Technology, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences)
Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Jim McGee
Space Studies Board (SSB)
Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Marcia Smith

More about Authors of
"Commercial Multimedia Technologies for Twenty-First Century Army Battlefields:
A Technology Management Strategy (1995)":

They're all part of the

ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director
RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, Study Director, 1994
ALVERA GIRCYS, Senior Program Assistant
ALLISON KNIGHT, Senior Program Assistant, 1994
NORMAN M. HALLER, Consultant

Jones sabotaged cold fusion

Jones sabotaged cold fusion research


Steven "Los Alamos" Jones biggest Traitor of U.S. since George Westinghouse (1880)
By ewing2001
9/11-Steven "Los Alamos" Jones biggest Traitor of U.S. since George Westinghouse (1880)
NOTE: Alex Floum is Top-Lapdog of biggest Traitor of U.S. since George Westinghouse (1880)

(...the story will continue about Prof. Jones' biggest Lapdog right now,
which is Attorney Alexander Floum aka GeorgeWashington(.blogspot), 911blogger.com, who
also ran st911.org.
Specialized in Intellectual Property Law (his old company had US Department of Energy and
Los Alamos clients), he's meanwhile linked as a President of the Contra Costa County Bar
Association (CCCBA) and The Williams Law Firm (which is also specialized in Blogware and
Blog property issues).
D. Alexander Floum
Firm: Law Offices of Timothy C. Williams ]

The founding father of WLF, Craig Williams focuses in the areas of complex business
litigation with emphasis on environmental, real estate, land-use and computer matters and
their respective insurance coverage and related tort issues.

Floum started his career at BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, from which we found a bizarre link to Mark
Bingham, the hero of "flight93".

Not only that both Bingham Group and Bingham MClutchen operated in San Francisco, his
former gay rugby team, the San Francisco Fog is linked with his best friend Dan Albracht,
Delta '99 to the San Francisco Giants, which happened to be cooperating with BINGHAM
James L. Hunt (BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN) acted as counsel to the San Francisco Giants, through
two ownerships and two sales... )
911bloglines editorial
9/11 was planned as a Cover-up for (WorldWar with) Exotic Weaponry, since at least 1984, with the assistance of Bill Clinton (Project Trailblazer/StarWars 1998/99, ANSER Institute for Homeland Security 1999), George Bush and other U.S. Presidents
by Nico Haupt
December 13, 2006
In the 1880s George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison turned into Energy Traitors by becoming adversaries due to Edison's promotion of direct current (DC) for electric power distribution.

Nicola Tesla devised at the same time a system for generation, transmission, and use of AC power.
First he partnered with George Westinghouse.

But only a few years later they sabotaged Tesla by supporting the AC project of Thomas Edison.
Eventually, Edison's General Electric company converted to the AC system and began manufacture of AC machines...

In 1989 the U.S. was betrayed again by the U.S. Department of Energy, with the help of Steven E. Jones ("Heavywatergate"), by blocking a free energy project, Cold Fusion.

Silently however, inner U.S. Military circles developed a military arm of it.

(Photo: Cold fusion cell at the US Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego (2005), which is a big network hub contractor of SAIC, also supporting their
Naval Warfare Systems.

SAIC is furthermore strongly connected with NSA and listed among its largest contracts one called "Trailblazer Technical Development Program, (globalfreepress reported in 2004)" which happened to be part of the very same StarWars/Directed Energy Program, which existence is currently oppressed from the leadership of the 9/11 Truth Movement (Bowman, Jones, Hoffman, all three themselves basically linked to StarWars, with the Hoffman-Armstrong Family even receiving a pre-911 Trailblazer Contract as well!)

Furthermore since the 1990s, at least 2 U.S. Patents on behalf of the Cold Fusion Research of once sabotaged Pons/Fleischman were approved, the latest only 3 months before 9/11, as seen below.

More bizarre, right after 9/11, former director of 911truth.org, David Kubiak, is working with another defense associate, Russ George, in Japan on Cold Fusion Projects, while the chinese version is sponsored by the James Baker Institute, once again with the help of Westinghouse...
picked up at:
"...Cold fusion was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March 1989...
...A panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy concluded there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion...
The US Patent Office accepted a patent in cold fusion in 2001.[8]
... US patent 6,248,221, cited by Infinite energy

DZ if you dont start

DZ if you dont start banning these fucking idiots who do nothing but repeatedly post hit pieces on Jones
and promoting "spacebeams" and "imaginary airplanes" I for one will stop refering people to this site.
They are turning this "movement" into a fucking laughing stock.
How can you possibly expect someone who just starts
researching 9/11 to take anything on here seriously, when the first blog they read says,


If I may....

I would like to note that these electro-lasers are incapable of transmitting a charge over a vacuum, such as space, due to the lack of a medium to ionize and convert to plasma state, or more simply a complete lack of any conductor. What's more, according to my calculations, many billions of amps (not accounting for resistance in the beam trajectory) over about an hour would be needed to cause steel to melt. It would be impractical to launch this into space. Batteries this large have not been developed. Having a miniscule voltage is not an option because of the sheer watt count needed to cause this heat effect. It seems to me that a consipracy theory is being drafted where none truly occurred. Are you seeking the real 9/11 truth? Or are you seeking conspiracy theories? If we are to really discover the truth of 9/11, we have to consider all possibilities. There is very strong evidence pointing to the collapse due to a kerosene fire, and if, as you read this, you think a kerosene fire is a ludicrous explanation, look at this very thread! A space laser, transmitting pehaps a hundred billion amps through a complete vacuum? Which would actually melt the towers in a visible manner, not 'crumble them to dust'? My personal conjecture of another issue with this ridiculous theory is that the massive amounts of energy would travel into the power grid and 'fry' it, so to speak. The massive amounts of energy involved in this theory might easily have cut off power to a whole section of the city. Really, consider this: a kerosene fire, burning for an hour, might not reach a high enough temperature to melt steel itself, but it would keep heating the steel. For an hour, it would keep getting hotter and hotter until its tensile strength was lost by about 70% (occurring at about 700 degrees celsius or 1292 degrees fahrenheit), when it is quite reasonable that it would not be able to hold itself together anymore. Really, what is this, a site seeking real Truth or a site dedicated to disproving whatever is said to be the truth? Right now, I'm really not so sure.