Andrew said (January 19, 2017):

Thanks for trying to raise awareness of what actually happened to the WTC.

The facts of Fetzer’s statement #1 refute Fetzer’s statement #2. That is, Dr. Wood presented the USGS data at Fetzer’s “conference” in 2007. Wasn’t Fetzer paying attention? Why hold a conference if the information presented is ignored by the host – unless it is to cover up that very information?

The USGS data is also presented in Dr. Wood’s book. So why is it that Fetzer is trying to convince the public that a) it is “new” information and b) that Dr. Wood has not addressed this information? People with integrity would like to know. Item #3 on Fetzer’s list is an attempt to reframe Dr. Wood’s work into something it is not. Dr. Wood presents evidence; she does not present at theory about a “DEW weapon” or any other weapon. Dr. Wood presents evidence. She does not promote a theory to “explain” a theory. Dr. Wood presents evidence and evidence cannot be wrong.

Over the years, Mr Fetzer (above) has repeatedly attempted to muddle up statements made by Dr Wood in her book and elsewhere. Mr Fetzer often “shows up” when popular postings are made about this research (look at the volume of comments he made in a review of the book on Amazon). One can see how this “muddle-up” and deliberate mis-direction activity has evolved since 2005, when Mr Fetzer 1st invited me to join his now defunct “Scholars for 911 Truth” group. For those interested, I documented this in detail in my free ebook “911 finding the truth” http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

I hope there are still enough discerning readers out there who can judge when they are being deliberately mislead.

Michael C said (January 18, 2017):

I am on the same page as Barry (below) for the most part about all this. I have had dinner with Richard Gage, and read Dr. Woods book. It really is not a big deal. Tesla dealt with free energy that was squashed. The big issue is the official lie about planes and Arab hijackers doing the destruction. With that base, an honest investigation will reveal all factors, if such investigation can be done. It is entirely possible that more than one source of destruction was used.

Judy does point out odd anomalies. I think people have trouble wrapping there head around free energy. Here is another problem. I mentioned the probability to an intelligent female friend who looked stunned and commented, "We can't have that, it would destroy the economy." How many Americans think like her?

Barry (UK) said (January 17, 2017):

I have been following the 911 saga for over ten years. As an engineer I have no doubt that the official story is nonsense. However, too many researchers are trying to prove exactly how it was done and offer up various theories to back up their case. As interesting as these theories may be, they are unnecessary and only serve to distract and divide 911 truthers. This cacophony of argument causes them to miss the most important point: that it is only necessary to prove the official story is nonsense (which has been done) and use that evidence to push for a thorough independent investigation that is well funded and with full access to all relevant documents. Of course it isn’t going to happen. The establishment are well aware that an increasing number of people are determined to have the truth. They are just as determined that we are not going to have it. We have reached an impasse and no progress is possible without massive public pressure.

While we argue over “how it was done” and “who dunnit” the chance of a united front ever forming to challenge the establishment is not going to happen. The establishment is also playing for time. Another major event is on the cards, which most likely will be a global financial collapse. When that happens, efforts into finding the truth of 911 will be on the back burner.

James Perloff said (January 17, 2017):

I acknowledge that there are many sincere and intelligent people on all sides of this debate. My own take on the Towers’ destruction is at

https://jamesperloff.com/2016/11/22/to-911-and-beyond-the-rothschild-israeli-obsession-with-nuclear-weapons/

I will only note here that (as you will see in the post), Chris Bollyn has stated that a Mossad asset tried interest him in the DEW hypothesis long before Dr. Wood came on the scene. Mossad’s interest in promoting the DEW theory would not be surprising, since Israel would not have possessed “Star Wars Beam Weapons” (as Dr. Wood initially called them in 2006) and it goes a long way toward taking Israel off the hook for 9/11.

C said (January 17, 2017):

Well, I am A long-time Alex Jones listener and remember how he would shut anyone down in the most ham-fisted way when anyone even mentioned this lady's name. YEs, she makes a lot of sense. I do think he is part of the controlled opposition, much as I like him. But I don't trust him 100per cent.

Having said that though, this technology doesn't free society from anything as long as the criminals running the show are in place. And I should add, the people in general with their "end justifies the means" hearts and minds.

David S said (January 17, 2017):

George 2 critique citing the simplest (Occam's razor) answer doesn't apply. Dr. Wood DID consider nukes but states that the tritium, light, sound and heat is not in the evidence. Therefore to remain open to an explanation that fits the results is the scientific method.

Art said (January 17, 2017):

If one were to neatly stack, as efficiently as possible, all the steel used in each tower it would stand over 10 stories tall inside the footprint of each building. It's easily proven that falling steel won't arrange itself efficiently into a uniform pile. It would be MUCH higher. So where'd it go?

The directed energy weapon theory is a hypothesis that she is using in an attempt to explain a physical fact. Most of the material that went into the construction of the towers ISN'T there after they crashed to the ground. That's a FACT and it would be great if everyone takes a break regurgitating what's been programmed into you long enough to answer one question. Where'd the mass go? We're all ears.

in response to George 2- below

One who brings Occam into it should know that the least complex answer is "preferable", not necessarily fact. Have you considered the perpe"traitors" using Occam's razor when planning their deed? If 80% of us only consider Occam, this crime will never be solved.

Besides ... Occam's razor has a caveat. It was intended to be used when analyzing natural systems, not the demented thought processes of mass murderers.

George 2 said (January 16, 2017):

I have read Judy Wood's book. It is voluminous and filled with all sorts of references to URLs and other sources. It suffers from one insuperable fault.

Her book violates what may be the most basic rule of scientific thought: Ockham's Razor. Entia non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem sunt. (The order of the Latin words is variable). Entities are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary. Put another way, the simplest explanation is always preferable.

Judy hypothesizes some unknown mechanism by which WTC1 and WTC2 were pulverized, steel and concrete vaporized, bodies simply disappeared. The facts are adequately explained by the use of tactical nukes, which have been around in one form or another since the 50s.

That gives a new meaning to the phrase "Manhattan Project."

There is obviously a very major incentive on the part of the perpetrators to avoid the conclusion that they nuked our nation to facilitate an assault on our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and innocent nations around the world.

The problem with Judy Wood's book, which I did in fact read, is that it violates the principle of Ockham's Razor, or simplicity of hypothesis.

David S said (January 16, 2017):

Judy Wood is a disciplined scientist. Her strong point is that she constantly reminds one to consider what you see rather than what others tell you what you see. She also went to the trouble of acquiring massive documents in response to public information requests.

I reject the conventional controlled demolition hypothesis. More energy is needed to turn concrete and gypsum into dust blowing away in the wind which is obviously what happened based on pictures and video. The lack of mass from a collapse still has to be answered.

Some other force was needed to toast cars within a 5 block radius in a line of sight exposure. Whether it was a nuclear EMP blast, I don't know. But something is needed to explain how aluminum door handles were vaporized, and iron engine blocks burned up, seemingly by spontaneous combustion. An examination of the photos must exclude raining burning embers as an explanation as offered by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Woods lays out a compelling case which is needed for the debate. Hopefully, we can get a fair re investigation in the new administration.

Those of us who study the research on 911 do not know everything. But what we do know is sufficient to render the government explanation a lie.

Pat said (January 16, 2017):

When I first mentioned everything turning into dust, my brother said it didn't. Later he mocked Dr. Wood. I also had a falling out with a truther, who was stuck on thermite and demolition. Lost an American friend living here too. She was intelligent but very patriotic.

But now I remember the testimony of the workers who were on the lower level staircases, wondering what was happening and then suddenly they saw the sky above them. I hope these articles get around.

TW said (January 16, 2017):

I'd like to ask Ziggy below how the "bathtub" was not damaged if a subterranean nuclear device was used whereby the shock wave "pulverized everything".

George said (January 16, 2017):

How do they fit in? Jim Fetzer is probably the top philosopher of science in his generation. He was McKnight Professor of Philososphy at University of Minnesota, a powerhouse for philosophy of science. He is an undisputed expert on scientific reasoning. Together with Wolfgang Halbig, he is the top authority on the Sandy Hook hoax. He also has very good manners, making a point of addressing issues rather than attacking personalities. His stamina in speaking and writing is seemingly superhuman, never with a loss of focus or discipline that I have observed.

Steve Jones was a professor of physics at Brigham Young University. He made a big name for himself refuting the Fleishchman/Pons cold fusion thesis. He was forced into early retirement for questioning the official story about 9/11. He is a bishop in the Mormon Church. Mormons have a massive presence (some say dominating presence) in our nuclear research facilities. They have very strict party discipline, and disfellowship (break off all personal and business relations) with anyone who defies the Mormon Church hierarchy. The Mormons are fanatically pro-Israel. Steve Jones is a bitter enemy of Ed Ward on the nuclear weapons issue, and espouses the nano-thermite thesis. He is very closely allied with Christopher Bollyn on the nano-thermite issue.

Kevin Barrett, PhD in Islamic studies, was an instructor at University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is very courageous and aggressive, and has led the charge on the Bataclan Massacre and Charlie Hebdo hoaxes.

Richard Gage is the head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They have primarily focused on WT7 and refuting the NIST Report. As a matter of policy, they stay away from the Pentagon Attack and WTC1 and WTC2. Their sole position on WTC7 is that it was an obvious controlled demolition.

David Ray Griffin is a complex phenomenon. He is the one of the leading American theologians of his generation, if not the very top. He is a proponent of process theology, a Whiteheadian conception of God as active in the world rather than a mere aloof Creator. He is also very active in the Gaia worship concept, a One World Religion endeavor. His books on 9/11 are prolific and of uniformly high quality. He stays away from technical scientific analysis for the most part, and refuses to point the finger of blame on possible specific perpetrators, by and large. He is particularly opposed to the instigation of a clash of civilizations, which he regards as a malevolent enterprise. He is very ecumenical in his religious outlook, an admirer of Pope Francis.

These are all distinguished figures, IMHO. All of them have high intellectual stature and very high levels of courage.
----

Thnx George,

which makes the question raised by this article all the more pressing...

h

Ziggy said (January 16, 2017):

What a joke! If any, it's Judy Wood who has been throwing people off the truth with her ridiculous speculations about sci-fi beam weapons.

The towers were brought down by the demolition mechanism built into them when they were constructed. Planning permission would not have been granted for them otherwise. The "dustification" of steel and concrete points to the use of a subterranean nuclear charge: its shock wave would pulverise everything.

And as for the question of "whodunnit?", Chris Bollyn solved the case (he all but proves Israel did it) and he'll tell you all about Judy Wood and her nonsense...

Debra said (January 16, 2017):

My personal thought about 911 Truth is that it ultimately does not matter how “they” brought the towers down; It matters “WHO DID IT” and why. Humanity needs to know who their real enemy is. Christopher Bollyn has an article about Judy Wood’s theory in link below. Who does Judy Wood believe carried out 911 and has she ever discussed this issue? (I don’t personally have an opinion either way about Judy Wood. I am not an expert in physics and science.)

Judy Wood's Blatant Misrepresentation of 9-11 FactsFebruary 21, 2013

www.bollyn.com/the-antidote-for-disinfo/#article_14134

There are three fundamental aspects of the 9-11 evidence that Ms Wood completely and intentionally misrepresents:
1. The amount of steel left in the rubble;

2. The nature of the active thermitic material found in the dust;

3. The temperature of the dust.

--

Debra

I believe Bollyn espouses the planes hit the WTC view?
I applaud his courageous work, especially his implication of the Zionists, but that is suspect.

henry

C said (January 16, 2017):

When Mr Potter attacks "Sandy Hook hoaxers" that is really all I need to know about the Judy Woods cult's bona fides. The evidence of Sandy Hook being a hoax is overwhelming - at least as overwhelming as the evidence that the American government was in on 9/11. Regardless of what method was used to carry out the destruction of the twin towers, the idea - implicit in Potter's article - that the U.S. Government was an innocent victim of these events, and is still open to information that will lead to to the truth, is preposterous. That in turn raises the question of why the Woods groupies always seek to divert attention away from the totaility of 9/11 (Shanksville, the Pentagon etc) and the identity of the perps.

--

C

He is not attacking the view that Sandy Hook is a hoax. He is is talking about a pattern of obfuscation.

To answer your question, the identity of the perps is not in doubt. The real question is how can we ignore the unprecedented nature of the spectacle that transpired on 9-11?

henry

Kevin Boyle said (January 16, 2017):

I don't trust Wood or Potter. Theirs is an exercise in division. not their interpretation of the observable facts, but their denigration of other sincere 9/11 activists.

What sense is there in people who AGREE on the essential point attacking each other in public?

Once we agree that the collapses were controlled demolitions (and we do) IT DOESN'T MATTER how it was done. We know the method for 1 & 2 was unconventional but fighting about it makes the 'Truthers' look ridiculous ... and this is the purpose of Potter's schick in my opinion.

Why not keep repeating the proof of controlled demolition and use this to continue to insist that 9/11 was an inside job. Hundreds of millions around the world KNOW this.

The perps are on the run and extremely worried at the moment because of Brexit and Trump.

We really don't need this kind of misdirection.

--

Kevin

I think the fact that these "truthers" have ignored Wood's findings is significant.

henry