It's important to remember that the Pentagon has admitted to forming a program to spread disinformation on the internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

Hi CB,

I'm wondering if you have seen this interview with Judy Woods yet? Greg Jenkins sat down with her and tried to get some specific information regarding her theory. I think most people would agree that she never really answered any questions, either qualitatively or quantitaively.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

In addition, Greg Jenkins has also wrote a letter and an article at the Journal of 9/11 Studies discussing this theory at great length and I encourage you to take a look.

Letter:
http://www.journalof911studies.org/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-nati...

Article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed...

This has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with finding the most probably explanation for the attack. Unsupported hypotheses are simply that, and should be abandoned in favor of hypotheses that fit the data, that is all. Please take a look.

CB has seen that video. We've been 'round 'n 'round the mulberry bush with him and others like him for months regarding the disinfo coming from people like Wood, Fetzer, Reynolds, etc.. There are blogs all over 911blogger that look very much like this one, unfortunately.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

I agree with you that my post is unlikely to change CB's mind, as he has been railing on about this topic for months. But as a large majority of people who read forums do not actually post, my posting was aimed more at those people who are interested in a rational examination of the facts. The old rule of not feeding the troll is true, but in this case my intent is not to rebut him, but to educate others on this issue, and especially the ignorance of said trolls on this issue.

Thanks.

Richard, I agree with stallion4 on this. Even so I like your post. You give a good summary which, under normal circumstances, would really clear the air.

Holy hell, have you no shame? (Purely rhetorical.) Not only do you have the set-up at the Press Club totally mischaracterized (I was there), but you end with sounding like a pedophile priest using candy to coax some confused kid into the rectomy, er, ah, rectory.

I just love the smell of desperation in the evening!

Fifth Type of Disinformation:

by Jim Fetzer 

“The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating--usually by writing--entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”

Example:

[Brian Vasquez] “So, I decided to contacted Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book “Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace” and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron”

Judy wrote, “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

Judy,

Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org. Thank you.

Jim [Fetzer]

Just a few months later, in December, Judy published a new paper named “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html) and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around…. Judy [Wood] wrote,

“The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

“We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.”

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I was at the 9/11 Accountability Conference and I heard Fetzer and Jones speak. Fetzer gave no evidence, no scientific data, nothing. He cited Judy Wood's website and her data there which hasn't been updated in many, many months!! Jones had real data, real scientists, real research, some of which was "hot off the press". Fetzer got nice applause at the end of his spiel, Jones got a long standing ovation at the end of his presentation.

Have you ever bothered to read anything Dr. Jones or Dr. Jenkins or any of the other scientists have written?

I think you are perpetuating the disinfo.

This is LEH's friend, right?

---

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Great to meet you!

---

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood (9/11 Blogger)

“Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon” (Jan. 9, 2007) James Gourley

"The Damage to WTC Bldg's 3 and 6, the debate between the controlled demolition and beam weapons..." (Jan. 26, 2007) Tony Szamboti

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Feb. 9, 2007) Greg Jenkins

The Overwhelming Inplausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (Feb. 2007) Gregory S. Jenkins

In Defense of Steven Jones: the Deliberate Effort to Discredit him and his Research (9/11 Blogger: Arabesque)

"A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds" (Jan. 11, 2007) Dr. Frank Legge.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

This is good stuff. If you haven't seen the Greg Jenkins/Judy Wood interview, I highly reccomend it not only for its practical use, it's honestly entertaining.

Questions for Jim Fetzer

1. Why does the ST911 truth website expose no alternate theories (aside from the “official” story) as false? Given the fact that there are many theories about 9/11, why is it that the ST911 website fails to reveal any theories as false?

2. Do you think the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis is a falsifiable theory? If so, how can it be tested by scientists? How can it be shown that it is false with experiments? A non-falsifiable theory is non-scientific by definition.

3. A non falsifiable theory can’t be tested—therefore it can’t be proven. How can un-testable theories ever lead to the “truth” about 9/11?

4. If the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis is not a falsifiable theory, why is it being pursued in favor of the concrete physical evidence that Steven Jones has accumulated strongly supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis and more importantly—an inside job?

5. Steven Jones offered the opinion that we don’t need to prove everything that happened on 9/11. He argues that we should focus on the solid (i.e. non-speculative) evidence that supports an inside job so that we can use it to get the public to support an investigation to finally uncover the entire truth about 9/11. Do you agree with this opinion?

6. In an essay written by Wood and Reynolds it is claimed that Steven Jones is maintaining a “thermite hypothesis” [http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html]. This is a straw-man fallacy as Jones has never maintained that only thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC buildings. I will quote your own interview:

Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?

A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives”[1]

Also, this paper ignores all of the 11 features of controlled demolition as well as his position that other explosives could have been used in combination. My question is: do you consider it acceptable behavior that Wood and Reynolds are distorting Steven Jones’ controlled demolition hypothesis by implying his entire theory is a “thermite hypothesis”?

7. Given this stunning straw-man fallacy committed by Wood and Reynolds, when are you planning on removing this essay from “founder’s corner” on Scholars for 9/11 truth? Are they planning on issuing an apology to Steven Jones for their distortions? Read Responses to it here:

• http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/d/a-study-of-some-issues-raised-in-a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf
• http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf

8. Judy Wood maintains that a Star Wars Beam Weapon was only used to destroy the towers on 9/11. Recently, Dr. Greg Jenkins said:

“the energy [required] is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.. This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.”

My questions is: what would it take for you to be convinced that Directed Energy Weapons were not used on 9/11? You have said repeatedly that you are only promoting Directed Energy Weapons as a “hypothesis”. Given the fact that a hypothesis is rejected when it is contradicted by the evidence, what evidence would convince you that this hypothesis is incorrect and force you to abandon it? If you honestly believe in supporting this theory you should be able to provide a compelling answer.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Look man you were like exposed like months ago man.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

EDIT:

When I originally posted this it was for something that truth911 posted, but it's since been removed, or he removed it himself. I'm not trying to get truth911 banned (not that I could), so please don't vote this up. I think he's done some good work in the past. And I think his website is decent too last time I checked, but it's been a while. Anyway, sorry to the readers of this blog for my part in the flamewar with truth911.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

"look man... CB_Brooklyn is right. I didn't use to believe in space weapons, but when i looked into it, i now believe it. all the people that believe in this are people who have been looking into 9/11 in great detail and for quite a long time."

Submitted by truth911.net on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 5:45am.

 

I voted your poll up for this reason.

Fetzer's only theory is that he points to melted cars and "sliced buildings" and since he can't explain it he comes up with the 'space beam theory'. How is that a scientific approach? Where is the evidence for this theory?

I'm not a scientist but couldn't a laser, plasmoid beam be determined using spectral analysis?

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

There is far more evidence for a Tesla resonance device than a space beam... which is both a 0
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss