According to some, the World Trade Center buildings could not have collapsed as fast as they obviously did, and therefore must have been destroyed by directed energy weapons which caused “molecular dissociation” of the building materials.
The latest hero of this movement is Dr. Judy Wood, formerly of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University. Dr. Wood has released a long article on her supposed evidence that the World Trade Center buildings did not collapse, but in fact were destroyed by energy beams.
After reading through the tedious article, which was filled with leaps of ill-logic and lots of photos that showed no evidence of directed energy weapons, or phaser fire, or “molecular dissociation”, I am amazed that people can so easily confuse science fiction with science fact.
I am not going to bother refuting the arguments anymore, that has been done very well by others. I am much more interested in what I feel is a concerted effort to divide, demoralize, and discredit the progressive movement.
For all you conspiracy theorists, this may be a new one that you had not thought of, which is much more plausible than the idea of phasers taking down the World Trade Center buildings.
George Bush and Dick Cheney were in charge during the worst attack against Americans on US soil in US history. They blew it as badly as anyone in charge could have blown it. They ignored all the warnings and did absolutely nothing to protect the country. As Democrats and progressives began scoring points against the administration by pointing out their extreme ineptitude and negligence, Karl Rove comes up with the idea of circulating wild 9/11 conspiracy theories all over the Internet to discredit detractors.
Everyone knows that hired Republican trolls prowl progressive websites and comment sections. It would be very easy for them, posing as liberal commenters, to begin spreading rumors that were outlandish to most people, but intriguing to some. The initial conspiracy theories suggested that pre-planted explosives and cruise missiles were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon. All sorts of details were eventually added, including who had access to the buildings in such a way that the detonation charges could have been planted, who might have actually pressed the button to detonate the charges, etc.
More recently, the conspiracy theories have turned clearly away from doubtful yet plausible explanations such as controlled demolition to the idea that top-secret military molecular dissociation energy beams were used to deliberately destroy the buildings. In case you hadn't noticed, this is precisely what phasers from Star Trek were supposed to do.
I am sure that many conspiracy theorists are well intentioned progressives, and are also very sincere, yet I have a very strong feeling that some small proportion of the 9/11 conspiracy movement includes planted conservative trolls. That's my conspiracy theory. And it's just a theory, not a fact. Their purpose would be to discredit all 9/11 conspiracy theories as outlandish. It also helps confuse the issue, and tarnish the left-wing progressive movement in general because the movement is composed of people who can not even agree on simple basic facts such as the fact that there are no such things as phasers.
If George Bush and Dick Cheney had taken the presidential daily brief’s warnings seriously throughout August 2001, and had implemented tighter security measures at airports, the disasters of September 11, 2001 could have easily been avoided. I believe that the conspiracy theory they wanted to distract everyone's attention away from is the one that seems most plausible. The administration was looking for a so-called “Pearl Harbor-like event” to galvanize the country behind a war against Iraq. The news that an attempted terrorist attack against the United States was imminent, maybe a small bomb on a Subway train for instance, might have actually been considered good news to Bush and Company.
Then came a Pearl Harbor-like event beyond their wildest imagination.
Think of the expression on George Bush's face as he sat reading My Pet Goat to a gradeschool class, and then was told about the second plane striking the World Trade Center. His expression was completely consistent with them expecting a small, ineffective attack, and just like everything else he has ever done, getting it completely wrong.
This is still the only 9/11 conspiracy theory I have heard that makes any sense whatsoever, and it is the one I believe they are trying to distract everyone from with the outlandish ideas being offered by people like Dr. Wood. Whether Dr. Wood believes these things, or has other motives, I can not say, but this type of conspiracy theory divides progressives, and tarnishes them all with an unfairly broad brush.
“Fire the phasers Dick!”,
“No Mr. President, you have the honor”.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published over 45 scientific articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
How can you call into question the views of some of the most gullible people in the world? When the population is apparently willing to accept the current embarrassment in the White House why would they not accept ridiculous conspiracy theories? According to the so-called Military channel on TV the US military has an answer to everything except how to clearly win in Iraq or elsewhere for that matter. Perhaps if they shipped all the contaminated Chinese products to Iraq they could eventually poison the bad guys? Or maybe the 21 million pounds of e. Coli ground beef?
by
bird (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 10:08:44 AM
"Then came a Pearl Harbor-like event beyond their wildest imagination.
Think of the expression on George Bush's face as he sat reading My Pet Goat to a gradeschool class, and then was told about the second plane striking the World Trade Center. His expression was completely consistent with them expecting a small, ineffective attack, and just like everything else he has ever done, getting it completely wrong."
The above is something I have been thinking all along. bushes reaction was that of someone that was not surprised at the days events. I think that they may have been surprised at the scope and timing of the attacks, but they were not surprised something was going to happen.
It probably explains the extended vacation in August. The middle of Texas was probably a more secure location.
If you look at the PNAC, the same group responsible for PNAC in place and the events of 9/11, you can only deduce that is was not a surprise, but a concerted effort.
by
Winston Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 11:29:43 AM
Bush always vacations in August. What adds ammunition to the theory that they, (most neocons in the administration including Cheney) figured something was going to happen but not something this big was Bush's happy statement in North Carolina shortly after 911 that, "Who would have guessed we would have gotten the trifecta." A statement that referred to their theory that they needed an economic crisis or an attack on the US or one other thing I can't remember, in order to implement their PNAC agenda.
There is also the report that Dick Cheney was mesmerized watching the towers implode on TV and had to be physically carted away to the underground bunker.
by
Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments)
on Monday, October 1, 2007 at 1:21:55 PM
I would say that I do not agree with some theories as to what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I will also say that I do not believe the official story. I don't think anyone does. So what REALLY happened.?
To call people who question the story is not only immature, but certainly dosen't help build your case.
For those of you who stick their heads in the sand, Mr Moffett, I have nothing but contempt because it is people like you who have allowed this country to get where it is today.
by
Reverend Mark J. Seydel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 12:03:10 PM
This is the central goal of those of us who do not accept the official 9/11 story; jumping to conclusoins about specific alternative explanations is not the desired action. There are countless inconsistencies between the facts of 9/11 and the official story. There is no reasonable explanation of why building 7 in the WTC complex collapses, for example. If you are skeptical of the 9/11 truth movement, please spend some time at www.patriotsquestion911.org to see the incredible array of very reputable people that want a new investigation.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 5:23:33 PM
Dr Hirschhorn, I agree regarding WTC 7. Buildings don't collapse/pulverize like that from fire/debris damage.
But I firmly believe WTC 7 is a red herring. Both WTC 7 and molten metal are pushed by Steven Jones as being the best evidence. But Jones' 9/11 work mirrors and is as deceptive as his former Cold Fusion research, as fully explained here. In addition, it's been shown the molten metal stories are fabrications designed to distract people from other issues. (See here.)
It's really amazing how much is being done to silence Dr Wood's directed energy weapon research and Dr Reynolds TV-Fakery research. Many of these attempts seem to come in the form of snide remarks (as can be seen here and on many other sites as well!)
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 5:55:48 PM
Those interested in a new 9/11 investigation should support those who are actually pursuing one. Dr Judy Wood has called for a new investigation. Not only that, she is actually taking action and holding the perps accountable. Isn't that what we want?
Why do so many attack Dr Wood instead of supporting her? Doesn't that harm efforts?
Dr Wood has made numerous Formal Challenges to the government. These are legal challenges, which are being assisted by Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart. She has been in contact with officials at NIST, the Directed Energy Directorate, and possibly others. Full documentation here.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 6:56:19 PM
Look Doctor, perhaps you might look prior to leaping, thus avoiding injury or embarrassment. The towers were built upon Port Authority land, thus exempting them from NYC building codes. This enabled the architects to design a building that utilized more interior space by avoiding much of the vertical I beam support that the codes deemed necesary. This can be visualised as a stack of pancakes supported only around the edges and not in the center.
I had dined frequently at the wonderful restaurant atop one tower (Window on the World) and always was impressed by the spacious interior design, never comprehending that this design would lead to such disaster.
Those who advance conspiracy theories only harm the cause and make the calls for a necesary investigation into the events of 9/11, from a standpoint of administration incompetence and unreadiness in the face of many warnings, seem unecesary to many. I wish you guys would simply do research, your own and not crackpot ravings, and shut up about this ridiculous garbage, you are really hurting the cause of truth.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 8:16:18 PM
Judy Wood is hardly the latest "hero" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have watched interviews where she has been pretty embarrasssed by other 9/11 students, because some of her statements are rambling or sloppy. I have poured over her website and she does raise some good points, such as how could rows of automobiles an extensive distance away from the WTC complex look as if they had been torched by firebombs, sometimes only half the car appearing that way, with the other half looking pristine. Such incongruities need explanations.
But over all, her talk of laser weaponry is not a very popular view, and even she just posits this while not offering any concrete knowledge for such weapons systems, other than to acknowledge that the government has been doing research and development in this field for years. She certainly hasn't said anything about Star Trek phasers.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1069 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 3:36:06 PM
I have not read Dr. Wood's "theory," nor do I intend to. I believe that you must first toss out ALL that is impossible before the possible -- and the probable -- rears its ugly head. Unfortunately, the burden of proof has been placed on those of us who have questions, rather than upon those who are advocating the impossible official story.
Am I a conspiracy theorist for asking what caused Bldg 7 to collapse in the same manner as WTC bldgs 1 and 2, even though no plane flew into it? Is there a reason the 9-11 Commission failed to even mention Bldg 7 in its investigation and report? Is there an explanation for buildings imploding within hours of the onset of fire -- when no single building in the history of burning buildings has fallen in this manner? Three in one day -- amazing -- and I submit it will never happen again in this manner.
The trolls are fairly easy to recognize, and their agenda is understandable. However, far too many progressive websites have become "gatekeepers" for the administration and its bewildering explanation. It's one thing to say Bush and Cheney were "in charge" and allowed it to happen. It's quite another to silence all legitimate questions and brand those who question as left-wing conspiracy theorists.
I don't know what happened on that day. I do know what didn't happen. Those who claim a mangy group of box-cuttin' flight-school drop-outs pulled off the precision of events of that terrible day have the burden of proof. Now THAT's a hell of a conspiracy theory!
But thanks to well-meaning people like you, they will not be called to account for the lies, the needless destruction of lives and the river of blood that continues to gush from the sands of Iraq.
All roads lead back to 9-11, no matter how fast you drive or how many twists and turns you make. It is, but should not be, an ideological matter. I am sure both Republicans and Democrats perished on that day. To be accepted in "polite" political society, those of us who have questions are expected to just wave our patriotic flags and keep on truckin'...
Sorry. We cannot do that.
by
Sheila Samples (51 articles, 3853 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 403 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 4:34:32 PM
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and FranciscanfriarWilliam of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):
“
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
”
which translates to:
“
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
”
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristicmaxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 8:22:58 PM
It was supposed to be a joke, sort of like your blind loyalty to such as you promote.
Had you studied the architectual drawings of those towers you might open what is basically a closed mind...so sad for you.
Look, what point is served by proposing a theory that will never be accepted by any reasonable person? All you conspiracy folks are doing, regardless of the merit of your argument, is alienating the majority of those we need in order to make progress.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, October 1, 2007 at 8:50:36 AM
It's as simple as that. For those to not be able to see the clear evidence of directed energy weapons at the WTC from the pictures I posted in the second commenton this page, demonstrates "scientific inability". It's as clear as day.
One must wonder what John R Moffett's objective is. Assuming he is a "dr", he should certainly have the ability to analysis evidence. But he seems more content with jumping to conclusions:
He said:"According to some, the World Trade Center buildings could not have collapsed as fast as they obviously did, and therefore must have been destroyed by directed energy weapons which caused “molecular dissociation” of the building materials."
Is Moffett trying to mislead people? Or is he, himself, misled? Why does he jump from "collapse" speed to directed energy weapons? That's not scientific. I wonder why he does that.
I also find it peculiar that he concentrates on the Bush administration's faults, instead of the core evidence: directed energy weapons / TV Fakery.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 4:37:22 PM
Gee let's see. Dr. John Moffett describes himself as an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org. Dr. Judy Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson who has earned degrees in civil engineering (emphasis on structural), engineering mechanics (also known as applied physics), and materials engineering science, in which she holds her Ph.D. I wonder which of them is better qualified to address the issues involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center? It is my inference that Dr. Moffett has been taken in by attacks upon Dr. Wood that are well-known as works of disinformation. He seems to have no grasp of the limitations of his own bacakground and abilities. As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (911scholars.org), I regard her as one of the, if not the, best qualified scientist(s) studying 9/11. Those who want to understand what happened in New York that day would do well to visit her web site at drjudywood.com.
by
Jim Fetzer (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 5:42:03 PM
The vast bulk of 9/11 truth folks have completely rejected Judy and her fantasies. Not because they are impossible but because they are extremely improbable and because she proposes them as basically fact, hers and others similar efforts simply help discredit the movement as a whole.
Our government said they would try to control information on the internet. And we have know for a long time that there have been shills in the 9/11 truth movement from the very beginning...... and there are more now.
note:
Excerpts for Mike Whitney's 'The Pentagon's War on the Internet -- --
“The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap”, which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.
The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document which speaks of “fighting the net”; implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system."
(snip)
The Pentagon sees information as essential in manipulating public perceptions and, thus, a crucial tool in eliciting support for unpopular policies. The recent revelations of the military placing propaganda in the foreign press demonstrate the importance that is given to co-opting public opinion.
(snip)
The internet, on the other hand, is the last bastion of American democracy; a virtual world where reliable information moves instantly from person to person without passing through the corporate filter. Online visitors can get a clear picture of their governments’ depredations with a click of the mouse. This is the liberalization of the news, an open source of mind-expanding information that elevates citizen awareness of complex issues and threatens the status quo.
The Pentagon program is just one facet of a broader culture of deception; a pervasive ethos of dishonesty that envelopes all aspects of the Bush White House. The “Strategic Intelligence” Dept is a division of the Defense establishment that is entirely devoted to concealing, distorting, omitting and manipulating the truth.
In what way is “strategic intelligence” different from plain intelligence?
It is information that is shaped in a way that meets the needs of a particular group. In other words, it is not the truth at all, but a fabrication, a fiction, a lie.
The Information Operations Roadmap (IOR) recommends that psychological operations (Psyops) “should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.” No idea is too costly or too far-fetched that it escapes the serious consideration of the Pentagon chieftains.
The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet. “
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 789 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 5:55:37 PM
Dr Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Research Scientist to get NIST to confirm the statement in their own NIST Report of how they did not analyze the "collapses"! This confirmation comes in NIST's response to her Request for Correction, both of which can be downloaded here. For convenience, I will type out the exact quote from the NIST Chief, Management and Organization Division in the letter to Dr Wood:
"As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the inititiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves."
Dr Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Research Scientist who has been in communication with government officials, such as an official at the Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base. Information here.
Dr Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Research Scientist whose directed energy weapon theory takes into account all the avaiable data!
Dr Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Research Scientist whose theories are being ridiculed by the 9/11 perp run "truth movement":
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
How can anyone consider Dr Wood not credible?
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 6:21:58 PM
I have never read such an uninformed, unenlightened article by any individual possessing a Ph.D. as Dr. Moffett's gross dismissal of Dr. Wood. What is extremely telling is his failure to critically examine with an open mind all the evidence presented to date by many 9/11 researchers, including Dr. Wood. His ignorance of 9/11 research is beyond obvious.
The US Military POSSESSES the technology and USES directed energy weapons as we speak. Read about the Weapons Systems being used currently in the Pacific. www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/EIS.aspx
