Where Did The Towers Go? - Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11 – Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D. - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T21:41:40Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/where-did-the-towers-go?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A23274&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThank very much Jeannon for g…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-16:3488444:Comment:231912011-05-16T17:34:09.175ZDr. J. P. Huberthttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>Thank very much Jeannon for getting back to me with that information. It is very helpful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wish Eric Larsen had indicated in the book review he wrote that he had edited Judy's book. I think history has proven that full disclosure is always the best policy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank very much Jeannon for getting back to me with that information. It is very helpful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wish Eric Larsen had indicated in the book review he wrote that he had edited Judy's book. I think history has proven that full disclosure is always the best policy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Dr. Hubert,
I have searched…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-16:3488444:Comment:231902011-05-16T17:28:18.545ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Dr. Hubert,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have searched further to try and verify, as I read on Dr. Fetzer's blog, that Eric Larsen's company was indeed the publisher of Dr. Wood's book. I have not been able to verify that and Dr. Fetzer may need to amend his blog on that point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is what Eric Larsen wrote in his letter to PatriotsQuestion911 website...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>" I have never met Dr. Wood, but I have been aware of her work and have corresponded with her for many years. For…</p>
<p>Dr. Hubert,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have searched further to try and verify, as I read on Dr. Fetzer's blog, that Eric Larsen's company was indeed the publisher of Dr. Wood's book. I have not been able to verify that and Dr. Fetzer may need to amend his blog on that point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is what Eric Larsen wrote in his letter to PatriotsQuestion911 website...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>" I have never met Dr. Wood, but I have been aware of her work and have corresponded with her for many years. For the past six of those years, she has been working on a book, due out this year, that will present her work and its results in totality. I know the book very well, since—in consideration of my qualifications as essayist, writer, novelist and author, retired professor of writing, publisher, editor, and 9/11 truth-seeker myself—I have edited it in its entirety two times, once chapter by chapter and then again when the book was pulled together into its entirety."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So Eric Larsen only claims to have served as an editor on her book, as also has Dr. Morgan Reynolds. Dr. Larsen has NOT said, so far as I have yet been able to determine, that his company published the book.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will keep searching. I apologize for my misstatement. <br/><br/><cite>Dr. J. P. Hubert said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div><p>Thank you for your response. It truly is news to me that Eric Larsen published Judy Wood's book. There is nothing in that book which mentions Larsen or his Oliver Arts and Open Press Company. If he or his company published the book it must have been surreptitiously.. Here is a link to what I could find and I understand to be the books his Company has published which does not mention Judy Wood's book:</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.oliveropenpress.com/CATALOGUE_OF_OLIVER_BOOKS.pdf">http://www.oliveropenpress.com/CATALOGUE_OF_OLIVER_BOOKS.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't want to be fooled here any more than you do, but so far I can't document that Larsen or his company had anything to do with Wood's book. That of course is a separate issue from the ones you raise with respect to the way he writes about it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As an aside, I also listended to Jim Fetzer's interviews of Morgan Reynolds. He was very informative.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On page 452 of her book, Wood comes as close as I can imagine to stating her hypothesis without using that precise word. She wrote:</p>
<p>"In chapter 17, we saw that all of the phenomena seen at the WTC on 9/11 could be produced by the Huchison Effect. Although they are not on the same scale, they appear to be the same phenomena or to involve the same type of physics...</p>
<p>What reason is there that a technology based on the same type of physics as the Hutchison Effect, and one that produces the same phenomena as the Hutchison Effect cannot be supersized?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On pages 386 and 387 she again states: "...a type of technology similar to the Hutchinson Effect was employed in the destruction of the WTC complex."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In many other parts of the book she makes clear that in her view the data are competely incompatible with gravitational, controlled conventional demolition or nuclear explosive induced collapse. Whether that is true or not is the question that is, has she made the correct conclusion in that regard. I don't know yet.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> Firstly, I must thank you for…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-16:3488444:Comment:231012011-05-16T17:06:29.842ZShallel Octaviahttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Shallel
<p>Firstly, I must thank you for your ideas and theories to ponder, Chuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We are getting to the interesting parts here.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I must disagree with your theories of thermite/nano thermite/super thermate</p>
<p>being sufficient to explain the phenomena at GZ. It simply cannot turn steel to </p>
<p>ash. It is also contraindicated by it's temperature, which is highly radiative in the visible and IR spectrum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Similarly, any known nuclear bomb will be so…</p>
<p>Firstly, I must thank you for your ideas and theories to ponder, Chuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We are getting to the interesting parts here.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I must disagree with your theories of thermite/nano thermite/super thermate</p>
<p>being sufficient to explain the phenomena at GZ. It simply cannot turn steel to </p>
<p>ash. It is also contraindicated by it's temperature, which is highly radiative in the visible and IR spectrum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Similarly, any known nuclear bomb will be so luminescent in visible and IR ranges,</p>
<p>as well as higher energy UV, x-rays and gamma rays that videos would be washed out completely, and people watching would be blinded.</p>
<p>Conventional explosives cannot provide the energy necessary to pulverize steel to an 80 micron level and below. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As we know, the planning for 9/11 goes back decades. </p>
<p><i>It is my opinion</i> that the reason that so many features of the destruction at GZ resemble the dubious evidence produced by Hutchison, who has been proven to be in contact with the Black Project folks at the Pentagon [Col. Alexander], is that he was working under the control of the Mil-Ind Complex, and playing his part as a nutty professor/ celebrity in the eighties, with quite a bit of exposure on the Mind Control Programming Box. {TV}</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He was their loony character charged with producing videos of easily debunk-able anti-gravity videos, along with samples of metals that were produced in the militaries' secret labs tasked with the development of Tesla's work along with work gained from George Westinghouse's knowledge of the experiments of Walter Russell, who demonstrated transmutation of elements in 1927.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, I challenge you to reconsider your critique of Dr. Wood's work in light of this perspective, or provide the explanation I have been calling for all along, the answer to the question:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Where is the heat and light?</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>It seems a good analogy would be trying to understand nuclear reactions with only Newtonian physics. There are levels of physics beyond Einstein - the energy density in the vacuum is 10^93 dynes/cc. Only a small amount of this vacuum energy could explain the effects at GZ, and as Dr. Wood states, solve all our energy problems if it were allowed by our self- appointed Global Controllers. This is not as far fetched as the PTB would like you to believe.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Blessings, </p>
<p>Shallel</p>
<p> </p> All phenomena and destruction…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-16:3488444:Comment:230962011-05-16T03:00:27.990ZChuck Boldwynhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ChuckBoldwyn
<p>All phenomena and destruction of every type or kind that occurred at the WTC Complex can easily be explained by</p>
<p>1. Thermate or some form of Thermate</p>
<p>2. High Explosives or mini neutron bombs or some other mini nuke</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have done 7 hours of shows on Judy's book so far. Listen to them and you will see how silly her theory is.</p>
<p>All anomolies are easily and logically explained by the above 2 destructive forces.</p>
<p>Judy can not explain her theory to any degree…</p>
<p>All phenomena and destruction of every type or kind that occurred at the WTC Complex can easily be explained by</p>
<p>1. Thermate or some form of Thermate</p>
<p>2. High Explosives or mini neutron bombs or some other mini nuke</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have done 7 hours of shows on Judy's book so far. Listen to them and you will see how silly her theory is.</p>
<p>All anomolies are easily and logically explained by the above 2 destructive forces.</p>
<p>Judy can not explain her theory to any degree of preciseness. It is all fictional speculation and unbelievable suggestion.</p>
<p>I will be doing at lest 1 to 4 more shows on Judy's book and/or related topics.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Judy came up with her DEWS only because she has not the knowledge nor skill to scientifically determine any other solution to all of the anomolies. Most people can not figure this all out, especially the non-scientists who do not have a prayer without a very sound knowledge of basic physics and now, especially chemistry.</p>
<p>The Physics & Chemistry allow all to be explained, with great simplicity, all anomolies, all of them...</p>
<p>Even very good Physicists and very good Chemists can not solve these anomolies.</p>
<p>My background is Polymer Science, which is the Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, and Math of all materials, even explosives and nuclear materials. It is hard to imagine a better background to have to be able to solve all of the scientific problems associated with the destructions of the WTC Complex. Being an Engineer is certainly not adequate.</p>
<p>One must be mutidisciplinary to solve all of these problems or be self educated beyond one's small area of expertise, like Judy, whose chemistry background must be inadequate, otherwise she might, might have been able to figure out all of this destruction without resort of the far, far fetched idea of DEWs and The Hutchison Field Effects...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Chuck</p> Thank you for your response.…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:230952011-05-15T23:46:20.915ZDr. J. P. Huberthttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>Thank you for your response. It truly is news to me that Eric Larsen published Judy Wood's book. There is nothing in that book which mentions Larsen or his Oliver Arts and Open Press Company. If he or his company published the book it must have been surreptitiously.. Here is a link to what I could find and I understand to be the books his Company has published which does not mention Judy Wood's book:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for your response. It truly is news to me that Eric Larsen published Judy Wood's book. There is nothing in that book which mentions Larsen or his Oliver Arts and Open Press Company. If he or his company published the book it must have been surreptitiously.. Here is a link to what I could find and I understand to be the books his Company has published which does not mention Judy Wood's book:</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.oliveropenpress.com/CATALOGUE_OF_OLIVER_BOOKS.pdf">http://www.oliveropenpress.com/CATALOGUE_OF_OLIVER_BOOKS.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't want to be fooled here any more than you do, but so far I can't document that Larsen or his company had anything to do with Wood's book. That of course is a separate issue from the ones you raise with respect to the way he writes about it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As an aside, I also listended to Jim Fetzer's interviews of Morgan Reynolds. He was very informative.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On page 452 of her book, Wood comes as close as I can imagine to stating her hypothesis without using that precise word. She wrote:</p>
<p>"In chapter 17, we saw that all of the phenomena seen at the WTC on 9/11 could be produced by the Huchison Effect. Although they are not on the same scale, they appear to be the same phenomena or to involve the same type of physics...</p>
<p>What reason is there that a technology based on the same type of physics as the Hutchison Effect, and one that produces the same phenomena as the Hutchison Effect cannot be supersized?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On pages 386 and 387 she again states: "...a type of technology similar to the Hutchinson Effect was employed in the destruction of the WTC complex."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In many other parts of the book she makes clear that in her view the data are competely incompatible with gravitational, controlled conventional demolition or nuclear explosive induced collapse. Whether that is true or not is the question that is, has she made the correct conclusion in that regard. I don't know yet.</p> "
With respect to the claim t…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:232752011-05-15T23:05:56.915ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
"<br></br>
<p>With respect to the claim that Judy’s book was published by Eric Larsen’s company, I just looked at mine and it was printed in China and appears to have been self-published by Judy Woods based on what appears on the copyright page."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Hubert, I got my information regarding the publisher of Dr. Wood's book from Dr. Fetzer's blog. I do not own the book and have never seen the book.</p>
<p> …</p>
<p></p>
"<br/>
<p>With respect to the claim that Judy’s book was published by Eric Larsen’s company, I just looked at mine and it was printed in China and appears to have been self-published by Judy Woods based on what appears on the copyright page."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Hubert, I got my information regarding the publisher of Dr. Wood's book from Dr. Fetzer's blog. I do not own the book and have never seen the book.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html">http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html</a></p>
<p><b>Friday, March 11, 2011</b></p>
<p><b><a rel="nofollow" href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/open-response-to-open-letter-from-eric.html">An Open Response to an "Open Letter" from Eric Larsen</a></b></p>
<p>An Open Response to an "Open Letter" from Eric Larsen</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“Eric Larsen is the editor and publisher of The Oliver Arts and Open <br/>Press, which has published WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010)”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>______________</p>
<p>"At this point I have no idea if Judy Wood’s hypothesis can be proven empirically by multiple independent investigators."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Wood, to my knowledge, has not set forth an hypothesis. I believe Chuck Boldwyn has alluded to that a few times in his radio series on Dr. Fetzer's radio program. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>________________</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>Admittedly, Eric Larsen’s language was extremely flowery and that may have been off-putting to some people."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In my previous post, I said</p>
<p>"This is the same literary trick used in many of the writings of many other, now discredited, 9-11 truth writers and speakers over the years."</p>
<p>Actually this use of emotion laden language was employed by mainstream media writers supporting the official story of 9-11,</p>
<p>not "9-11 truth writers" as I mistakenly wrote.</p>
<p><br/>I am not saying that "flowerly" language is "off-putting" although of course it is. It just seems that this book and this book review had a lot to say about what "true science" is and is not, but the article, and even the book to some extent, use language that is not neutral, value free, language. Also, this flowery "book review" was done, as Thoth put it, by a Dr. Wood "groupie." (I suspect Larsen became a groupie when he gained a financial interest in the property, the book.")</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am saying that the use of certain words and phrases actually make us less able to think or less able to think critically. Using certain words are designed to manipulate us psychologically. (Read article "The Apocalypse of Coercion" by Dr. Kevin Barrett) The use of certain words and phrases are designed to disable rational thought. It is not Larsen's flowery words that concern me so much, but rather his "scare" words.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The mainstream writer and official theory promoters used words like these...</p>
<p>terror</p>
<p>terrorism</p>
<p>war on terror</p>
<p>hate our freedoms</p>
<p>hate our values</p>
<p>patriot</p>
<p>patriotic</p>
<p>Patriot Act</p>
<p>evildoers</p>
<p>extremists</p>
<p>security</p>
<p>anthrax</p>
<p>homeland</p>
<p>biological weapons</p>
<p>Islamo-fascist</p>
<p>dirty bombs</p>
<p>weapons of mass destruction</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>In this instance, Eric Larsen seems to be using the same trick to force people to accept without thinking all the Dr. Wood writes in her book but with different words.</p>
<p>Here are Larsen's words... </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"complete, unmitigated disaster 9/11 and the ten awful years following it have been—ten years of murder, crime, lawlessness, deceit, stupidity, and blindness"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To me, the manipulation is --'you had better accept Dr. Wood's ideas or truth or you are a person supporting 'wanton criminality and destructiveness" Something like that anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>__________</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I won't make any further responses in this thread but may perhaps if another thread is started.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Morgan Reynolds on his most recent guest visit with Dr. Fetzer on the radio show said two things that greatly impacted my thinking. I will not go back and get the exact quotes but I think I can get close enough.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>' I'm afraid they got away with it." meaning they were able to pull off this false flag terrorist event on us and they will never be brought to justice and there really is no way to prove anything scientifically to build evidence and a legal case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Reynolds also said that he has spoken with several legal atttorney type people and they all say they could not bring a solid legal case against the government regarding 9-11. That makes me very sad. Dr. Reynolds, who does know about the legal possibilities for 9-11 truth and has spoken on these matters more than anyone, is saying the hope for justice in a court of law regarding 9-11 is just not possible now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Reynolds speaks truth and what he is saying is 9-11 truth and justice are not going to be possible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br/> </p> At this point I have no idea…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:232742011-05-15T21:51:25.700ZDr. J. P. Huberthttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>At this point I have no idea if Judy Wood’s hypothesis can be proven empirically by multiple independent investigators. It may be that the proof already exists in closed/classified files. Serious basic science investigators should consider attempting to further refine/reject her hypothesis. There are certainly some experiments that might be done with conventional explosives the results of which might be helpful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>With respect to the claim that Judy’s book was published by Eric…</p>
<p>At this point I have no idea if Judy Wood’s hypothesis can be proven empirically by multiple independent investigators. It may be that the proof already exists in closed/classified files. Serious basic science investigators should consider attempting to further refine/reject her hypothesis. There are certainly some experiments that might be done with conventional explosives the results of which might be helpful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>With respect to the claim that Judy’s book was published by Eric Larsen’s company, I just looked at mine and it was printed in China and appears to have been self-published by Judy Woods based on what appears on the copyright page.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Admittedly, Eric Larsen’s language was extremely flowery and that may have been off-putting to some people.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>With respect to the claim above: “It is NOT, repeat NOT, ‘<em><b><u>all</u></b></em> of the available <strong><u>evidence</u></strong>.’ It is NOT ‘the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed.’ I know of no ‘empirical evidence’, in the strict sense of that term, that Dr. Wood has gathered. She has gathered video and still photographs for about 90 percent of her data but she has not taken actual samples of any tangible material from the site.” Judy Wood has not personally collected physical samples of WTC debris to the best of my knowledge. However, many forensic analyses are contributed to mightily by professionals who do not actually physically handle the evidence. I do not find this objectionable and I do not get the impression that Judy Wood has attempted to disguise her methods in that regard.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will hopefully start another discussion on this thread.</p> Thank you Professor Larsen. I…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:229022011-05-15T21:15:09.894ZDr. J. P. Huberthttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>Thank you Professor Larsen. I just finished reading Judy's book and agree with you that it is truly a monumental undertaking. I have learned an immense amount from the careful reading of her book. Subsequent to completing it, I have tried to construct a list of still debatable questions in light of what Judy has demonstrated.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some questions still remain in my mind about issues of fact that should once and for all be settled e.g. the alleged presence of thermite/nano-thermite…</p>
<p>Thank you Professor Larsen. I just finished reading Judy's book and agree with you that it is truly a monumental undertaking. I have learned an immense amount from the careful reading of her book. Subsequent to completing it, I have tried to construct a list of still debatable questions in light of what Judy has demonstrated.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some questions still remain in my mind about issues of fact that should once and for all be settled e.g. the alleged presence of thermite/nano-thermite in the WTC dust, whether a proper chain of custody was maintained and if so, whether Judy's allegation that the elements iron and aluminum, constituents of thermite/nano-thermite indeed should have been present in the WTC dust if Judy's hypothesis is correct with respect to the causal agent of destruction --“a magnetic electrogravitic nuclear reaction." In other words, even if thermite/nano-thermite were present, perhaps it represents a “red herring” and is the result not the cause of the destruction.</p> "At the same time, however, s…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:230082011-05-15T15:03:30.513ZThoth IIhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>"At the same time, however, she shows <em>that all of them are in keeping with the patterns and traits of directed-energy power</em>, of force-fields directed into interference with one another in ways following the scientific logic of Nikola Tesla’s thought and experimentation—<em>and</em> in ways also paralleling the work of contemporary Canadian scientist and experimenter John Hutchison, who, following Tesla’s lead, has for many years produced again and again and again “the Hutchison…</p>
<p>"At the same time, however, she shows <em>that all of them are in keeping with the patterns and traits of directed-energy power</em>, of force-fields directed into interference with one another in ways following the scientific logic of Nikola Tesla’s thought and experimentation—<em>and</em> in ways also paralleling the work of contemporary Canadian scientist and experimenter John Hutchison, who, following Tesla’s lead, has for many years produced again and again and again “the Hutchison effect,” creating results that include weird fires (having no apparent fuel); the bending, splintering, or fissuring of bars and rods of heavy metal; the coring-out, from <em>inside</em>, of thick metal rods; and the repeated <em>levitation</em>of objects."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>this is meaningless, mundane, 10 year old naive, junk science at its best by a guy who knows nothing about science. Eric Larsen, you are completely irrelevant when it comes to discussing science, and you are just a Judy Wood "groupie".</p> Thanks.
First of all, I do…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-15:3488444:Comment:230922011-05-15T12:48:42.477ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First of all, I do not consider this a "book review" in the usual sense. In the literary world, a "review" of a "book" implies a degree of objectivity. Eric Larsen makes no pretense whatsoever of objectivity. He owns the company that published this book and he wrote the Foreword to the book.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Eric Larsen, for someone who has closely followed Dr. Wood's work and the material put on her website over the last approximate 5 years, seems only now, with…</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First of all, I do not consider this a "book review" in the usual sense. In the literary world, a "review" of a "book" implies a degree of objectivity. Eric Larsen makes no pretense whatsoever of objectivity. He owns the company that published this book and he wrote the Foreword to the book.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Eric Larsen, for someone who has closely followed Dr. Wood's work and the material put on her website over the last approximate 5 years, seems only now, with the advent of Dr. Wood's book, to be declaring himself by name as a supporter of hers. I do not recall his name ever coming up during the time when she first started being a radio show guest, and that was with Dr. Fetzer on his shows, and that started I think in about 2006. There was a period of about at most 3years when Dr. Wood was fairly frequently on the radio and when she commented in forums and when her work was definitely a major topic of discussion in the 9-11 truth environment, and I estimate that to be from about 2006 through 2008. Where was Eric Larsen during that time? She definitely could have used some supporters during that period as she was "demonized" and "marginalized" by the 9-11 "truthers" who seized upon her "beams" and "space beams" ideas in a derogatory way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I forget the complimentary phrase that Dr. Fetzer uses to describe this book but it is something like "the most thorough compendium of the data" of 9-11. It is NOT, repeat NOT, "<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em>all</em></strong></span> of the available <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>evidence</strong></span>." It is NOT "the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed." I know of no "empirical evidence", in the strict sense of that term, that Dr. Wood has gathered. She has gathered video and still photographas for about 90 percent of her data but she has not taken actual samples of any tangible material from the site. For the other estimated 10 percent, she has studied data put out by government and university laboratories regarding seismic recordings and "field effects."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The book is what Dr. Fetzer describes it to be, a compendium of the data, and being that, it is apparently very well done. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But claiming the book ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>is "<i>unassailable, permanent</i>,"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>is a “forensic study of the evidence”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>covers "<em>all</em> of the available evidence"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>says "what really did happen on 9/11"</p>
<p> </p>
<p> is just simply not so.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As far as Dr. Wood being one of those rare persons among the seekers of 9-11 truth because she demonstrates "clear, cool, and commonsense logic", possibly, but I would say Dr. James Fetzer has left her in the shade in that regard and has done a far better job over the longest period of time of keeping the 9-11 truth "movement" on the right path of clear thinking as he is still doing to this day.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think this "book review" is laced with hyperbole and many emotion-laden adjectives and adverbs. This is the same literary trick used in many of the writings of many other, now discredited, 9-11 truth writers and speakers over the years. It has no place in what we are supposed to regard as true "science."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here's an example.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"</p>
<p>What emerges, for the reader, from all of this? What emerges is a lucid, clear, riveting, thorough, spell-binding, page-turning, eye-opening description and analysis of that terrible day—Dr. Wood has referred to it as the “new Hiroshima”—when the fearsomely destructive power of directed-energy in weaponized form was demonstrated to the world, and when, at the same time and however bitterly and ironically, the liberating promise of free energy as a means by which both Earth and all humanity might be saved from certain destruction was also demonstrated for everyone in the world to see."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When I read prose like that my Texan Bovine Excrement Meter goes berserk!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>