Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[James H. Fetzer]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/20/judy-wood-and-dews-the-good...

By Jim Fetzer and Don Fox


On 11 November 2006, I (Jim Fetzer) first interviewed Judy Wood on a program with Republic Broadcasting Network. I was in Tucson, AZ, at the time, and would discuss her ideas about the use of directed energy weapons (or “DEW”s) during lectures I would present in the following days.

I had founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth almost exactly a year earlier and had invited Steve Jones, Ph.D., a physicist from BYU, to be my co-chair as the recommendation of David Ray Griffin.

But I had become increasingly skeptical of the theory that Steve was advancing, according to which nanothermite was responsible for pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel at the Twin Towers. I believed that Scholars had to cast its net more widely and interviewing Judy was an appropriate step to take in that direction.

The effects were fast and furious. Almost immediately, Steve and his allies, especially Kevin Ryan, began to plan to take over the Scholars web site at http://st911.org, which had become world-famous, even though I had been responsible for selecting every entry that had been made on our site from its conception. They would fake a phony poll of the members, which they falsely claimed had come from the “Membership Administrator”, and freeze me from access to the site.

I had entrusted a member, Alex Floum, to secure the domain name, which he refused to relinquish to me when Steve and others, including from 1/3 to 1/2 of the members, left Scholars for a new group they would name “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”. It was a bleak time for the 9/11 community, where I believed we had to emphasize TRUTH in the search for 9/11 Truth and nanothermite did not advance it, where subsequent research with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, has demonstrated that I was right.

While the 9/11 Truth community was being feted with such false depictions as, “Nanothermite: What in the world is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11?” which was being lauded as “the smoking gun” of 9/11 and described as, “a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories.

This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes”, it would turn out that a principle of materials science–which is actually a law of nature–holds that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless its detonation velocity is greater than the speed of sound in that material.

The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest know detonation velocity for nanothertmite is 895 m/s, which means you can’t get there from there. The claims for nanothermite were therefore greatly exaggerated.

In the meanwhile, I was interviewing Judy Wood on my radio programs and reviewing her web site again and again, topping out with 15 interviews. I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and would feature her as the principal speaker at the Madison Conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″, which was held 3-5 August 2007, during which I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak. Morgan Reynolds, a close associate, and Jerry Leaphart, the attorney for her pro se lawsuit, were also invited and spoke. When I would later organized The Vancouver Hearings, which were held 15-17 June 2012, I again invited her to speak, in spite of several odd encounters with some of her supporters that transpired in the meanwhile, but I received no response. I invited Morgan Reynolds, who accepted at first and then withdrew, and then asked John Hutchison, who initially agreed, but then would not respond when I asked for him to verify a bio-sketch I had drafted. Clare Kuehn would accept the challenge of presenting Judy’s position during the event, but it was a mystery why Judy herself was unwilling to speak up.

I suppose I should have seen it coming. On 26 January 2010, I had published “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation” on my personal blog, which had been immediately attacked by Andrew Johnson, who may be Judy’s closest ally, on the purported grounds that the photos had come from Judy’s site. That was very odd, because, with one exception, they had not come from “Judy’s site” and even the photos on Judy’s site were not taken by Judy and she has no proprietary claim to them. Moreover, what I published there was a chapter from THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), namely: the color-photo section, and had been prepared by Jack White, who had long maintained his own photo studies 0f 9/11 as well as of JFK. (Jack died recently, but eventually responded to Andrew’s fanciful allegation by sending me an email, which I posted on the blog.) Ironically, it was the chapter that appeared immediately before the chapter by Judy Wood, “A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”, where, on the basis of temporal considerations and elementary physics, she showed that a progressive, floor by floor, collapse would have required 96.7 seconds, not the 10 seconds alleged. I liked her work, but the tempest on my blog would be an early indication I was not dealing with a normal research group.

(read more)

[James H. Fetzer]

Wonderful comments, Jeannon.  I will be publishing a piece on The Vancouver Hearings soon, where attention is given to the scientific issues of nukes vs. DEWs and so forth.  This article was not intended to do that, only to show that her dismissal of nukes is unwarranted and unjustifiable.  If science can establish anything, it should be able to establish how the Twin Towers were destroyed--but it requires very patient "sifting and winnowing" of the evidence, not wholesale and ridiculous attacks on those who hold different opinions.  I will be hosting Chuck Boldwyn this evening from 5-7 PM/CT on "The Real Deal" for more on the Twin Towers.  

[Jeannon Kralj]

A few of my thoughts on reading this...

 

"I had founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth almost exactly a year earlier and had invited Steve Jones, Ph.D., a physicist from BYU, to be my co-chair as the recommendation of David Ray Griffin."

What a tragic error to have invited Dr. Jones to be your co-chair.  It is new information to me that Dr. Griffin recommended Dr. Jones to you.  I have observed that Dr. Griffin has always appeared to support the nanothermite idea.  While I appreciate Dr. Griffin's contributions to helping us find the truth, he seems to me to be operating only within some relatively narrow parameters of truth seeking.  Dr. Griffin supposedly appreciates reason and logic and proofs but apparently chooses to "cast his net" more narrowly by ignoring the findings of Mark Hightower regarding nanothermite.

 

"Steve and his allies, especially Kevin Ryan, began to plan to take over the Scholars web site at http://st911.org, which had become world-famous, even though I had been responsible for selecting every entry that had been made on our site from its conception. They would fake a phony poll of the members, which they falsely claimed had come from the “Membership Administrator”, and freeze me from access to the site.

I had entrusted a member, Alex Floum, to secure the domain name, which he refused to relinquish to me when Steve and others, including from 1/3 to 1/2 of the members, left Scholars for a new group they would name “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”. It was a bleak time for the 9/11 community..."

 

This to me is such vicious, unethical, dishonest, illegal behavior.  Is this how good Mormons such as Dr. Jones demonstrate ethical moral conduct ?  With "scientists" like Steven Jones, who needs liars, crooks and theives?

___________

 

 

“Nanothermite: What in the world is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11?”

 

“the smoking gun” of 9/11

 

“a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, "

 

Thanks for posting some of the phrases Dr. Jones and associates have used to convey the false idea that the explosive characteristic of nanothermite is sufficient to make it an explanation of what was oberserved of the destruction in progress of the Twin Towers.  (I might add that Richard Gage also uses similarly misleading phrases such as "explosive nanothermite" in his speeches these days, and even those novices who are just getting in to 9-11 truth seem wedded to the false Jones / Gage "explosive nanothermite" meme.)  If Dr. Jones is the real "scientist" he so often claims to be, he already and surely knows that nanothermite is not an explosive that could even be spoken of in the same breath with the magnitude of the energy observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and that makes all of these false misleading phrases characterizing nanothermite outright deliberate lies.

 

_______________

It is good that you have made a record of the Judy Wood / James Fetzer history of communications.  However, I think, but could be wrong, that you have already thorougly documented this in other writings.  If you, Dr. Fetzer, have given us true and accurate record of your dealings with Dr. Wood, and I believe you have, the reactions by Dr. Wood and her followers looks totally irrational, as well as dishonest, underhanded, vicious, and unethical.  If Dr. Wood has some reason to not want anything to do with you, Dr. Fetzer, then I cannot understand why she and her followers do not just totally ignore you and go on their own path.  Likewise, I think it has now been thoroughly established that Dr. Wood is not going to respond favorably to any invitation profered nor is she going to respond in an upright, aboveboard, professional manner to any discussions, so I think you, Dr. Fetzer, now having set the record in writing straight and clear, ought to just move on yourself and not attempt to right an unrightable situation with Dr. Wood.

_________________

 

As far as Dr. Wood claiming she has no "theory", I would say her behavior in many ways closely resembles the apparent game plan or modus operandi of Dr. Jones.  They both seem to lapse into verbal slipperyness when attempts are made to get them to state clearly what they are asserting.  They both reply to such efforts by start ing in on their old tap dance routines ... ' No, I did not say that.  No, that is not what I said. '  But they never ever say what they ARE saying.  What they ARE actually asserting is deliberately  left slippery and ungraspable.  The inquirer is made to appear unreasonable and combative.  When Don Fox asks "But does Judy believe this herself?", I wonder the same of Dr. Jones.  Does Dr. Jones believe this himself?

_________________

 

"while empirical evidence consists of photographs, remnants of steel and other physical things"

 

I can see physical things being empirical evidence, but I cannot see photographs being "empirical evidence."  To me, the whole use of the word "evidence" has been inconsistent and confusing throughout 9-11 truth seeking efforts.   Photographs and videos can be corrupted in very sophisticated ways these days.  I do not know how much we can trust them or how much we should rely on them for our "scientific" searchings.  Also, the way some photographs are interpreted, even if everyone agrees it is a true photograph, varies widely.  (e.g., Building 7 is said to show 5 or 6 floors of "pancakes" in its rubble.  That is a photo I have never seen.  Dr. Wood claims Building 7 rubble is just a pile of mud, a photo showing this I also have never seen.)

 

__________________

 

I really liked your criticism on the statement of Dr. Wood about the evidence speaking the truth to you if you will only listen to it.   That kind of rhetoric from Dr. Wood's earliest appearance on the 9-11 truth scene has totally undermined and sabotaged her own efforts to be taken seriously.  It does not come off as the words of a "scientist".  It comes off more as what would be taken by the audience as new age nonsense speech.  I don't believe the "evidence will always tell you the truth", but I sure wish the scholars and scientists would always tell us the truth.

______________

"Anyone who compares the features that distinguish the collapse of WTC-7 with the features that distinguish the destruction of the Twin Towers, which are completely different, would recognize the scam, as “This is an orange” and “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, so elegantly reveal.  In summary form, they include:

 

Nice chart.  But remember, Dr. Wood, Dr. Sabrosky, Steven Jones, Richard Gage and scores of other "leaders" in the 9-11 "truth movement" all take for granted that the three building were destroyed as a result of use of the same primary agent of destruction.  This "all three buildings destroyed by the same means" idea is something that Dr. Wood's ideas have in common with those who ascribe to the nanothermite only ideas of Dr. Steven Jones.

 

___________

About the definition of cult, I having been raised in the Roman Catholic religion, understand the term "cult" to have a more neutral or generic meaning.  In recent decades, the term "cult" has indeed taken on the meaning you show in this essay.

 

(In Roman Catholicism, cultus or cult is the technical term for devotions or veneration extended to a particular saint.   Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy distinguish between worship (Latin adoratio, Greek latreia [λατρεια]) which is only acceptable to be offered to God alone, and veneration (Latin veneratio, Greek doulia [δουλεια]), which may be offered to the saints." )

______________

I personally still have many questions about the use of nukes of any kind.  It was said that there were close to 200 strange gaping holes in Building 6.  I know the argument has been made that nukes can be directed from the bottom up in a building to make for these holes, but that just does not seem like a real explanation of those strange holes. 

Another seemingly contradictory observance is that if the towers were destroyed below ground level, I do not see how nukes could have done that destruction and not fractured the bathtub.

There are many other questions about nukes that I have but there does not seem to be any venue to discuss these things.

______________

I personally do not think we ought to engage in endless arguments about specifically what did happen to the Towers in their exact mode of destruction.  I do not think that anything I was always taught was "science" can be employed to ever make that determination.  All of this was planned and implemented in a very sophisticated way and I feel sure that the perpetrators would have made sure that nothing could ever be proven scientifically regarding the mode of destruction.

 

As far as who is a "gatekeeper", that naturally is the kind of thought that comes to ones mind about certain behaviors of certain 9-11 truth researchers.  I guess it is a natural way to think.  All I know is when someone cannot speak or write objectively and noncombatively about 9-11 findings and when someone tries to block or thwart avenues of inquiry about 9-11, I always come to the conclusion that truth is not the primary goal.