In this new paper (still under construction) Dr Wood exposes the information Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins want kept hidden:


"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html


Let Dr Wood walk you through the paper in these recent interviews:

23 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (second half of mp3)
on "The Dynamic Duo"
(image numbers have been updated since this program)
http://tinyurl.com/2zhjjn

25 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Ambrose Lane
on "www.weourselves.org"
Listen: One 25 min segment (mp3)
http://www.frankferg.com/a-lane-5-25-07-jwc.mp3

first off there is absolutely no evidence within that link verifying that jones has anything to hide-- every argument in the conclusion(considering they agree that there is no doubt 9/11 was an inside job) can easily be attributed to the critics taking things out of context -- considering there were 47 solid steel box columns with walls four inches thick i believe it would be inadequate to rule out thermate as a "key" to the implosion-- even though i know your judy wood does seem to have some sort of particle beam theory to push i dont think jones was very wrong in playing it safe and sticking with what is "easily" provable-- coming out with some sort of particle beam theory by bashing an established figure is not such a good idea-- i sure hope that website expands soon to include "more" than just a ton of images and little real data especially if they are going to convince a mass population that can still look at bldg 7 collapse and actually rationalize it with fire

I don't know what Jones can prove. The towers were pulverized, yet Jones still says they "collapsed". I don't think Jones is the right scientist for this.

And Jones did research at Los Alamos, where directed energy weapons are developed. I find it a bit odd for him to be involved in 9/11 "truth"

And on top of that, Dr Wood's Request for Correction (RFC) (and its two supplements) to NIST are archived on an official government website, but for some reason Steven Jones' RFC is not...
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandProg...y/PROD01_002619

In the sense that there is absolutely no data and plenty of unfounded assertions, I couldn't agree more. And that Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in any way, shape or form could have done this is simply demonstrating a startling lack of knowledge in the field of such; no more could green cheese have been responsible than DEWs. Secondly, it unfortunately tells more of the dear Doctor that she is publishing (not even half finished) "papers" online and not in peer reviewed journals.

Best,
Badeskov

Actually, photographs are "hard evidence" and Dr Wood's papers are filled with hard evidence. For you to make those comments above demonstrates your own lack of knowledge about the subject.

Prey tell me, what peer reviewed journal do you expect will publish Dr Wood's paper? Which peer reviewed journal is not being controlled?

CB, I know you subscribe to the theory that whomever committed 9/11 was using TV/photograph fakery to help sell the 'story' to us. You have both posted on the subject (including this one which suggests the planes flew off before hitting the towers using optical camouflage) and you are affiliated with no-planers, having carried their articles and links on your blog.

So at what point did footage and photographs stop being faked and instead become 'hard evidence' on 9/11?

First of all, TV-Fakery is not theory, it's fact. Aluminum airplanes don't glide though steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air. This is no "theory".

Your second question is very important. Videos/photographs cannot automatically be trusted. They must be analyzed for signs of doctoring, as well as compared to others for verification or contradiction. The results must also be compared with non-photographic evidence. Being that every single video shows an aluminum airplane gliding through a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air, then we know it cannot be of a real event. See this site for a complete archive of every single known video: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

The same applies to Dr Wood's photos.

Let's say we accept TV Fakery for the time being - not that I am convinced, but just for the sake of argument. Evidence of TV fakey is not evidence that there were no planes. Further, the overarching problem for the no plane theory is that not one genuine image, whether still or moving, can contain a plane. Not one. They must all be fake and the photographers must all be complicit. If just one genuine image of a plane exists, then the no plane argument is a busted flush.

To my mind it is inconceiveable that every image we have of a plane striking the towers is fake.

I'm sorry, but this tv fakery stuff is just nonsense. Several close friends of mine work on the 42nd floor of a building a couple blocks from the WTC and watched the second impact with their own eyes. Were they halucinating?

I don't believe they were but let's not get back to confusing TV fakery with no-plane theories. The two are seperate theories. Evidence of TV fakery does not prove the no-plane theory, though obviously, evidence of no-planes would prove TV fakery.

If what they saw live and then watched on tv minutes later were the same, what fakery are you talking about?

Don't even send me there!

I'm in another forum where people have been promoting TV fakery real hard. I don't subscribe to it, though I guess I'm prepared to give any theory a look. The problem is that those promoting TV fakery seem to believe that it is inextricably linked to the no-plane theory, which it isn't.

I'm afraid I lack the appetite to expand on the details of the theories in question but if you visit this list of topics, you will see plenty of fakery-oriented threads to read.

No-one says they did. All the pictures show an intact aircraft entering the tower and a fireball/debris storm coming out the other side. What esle would you expect? For that matter, what makes you think that aircraft are only made of aluminium?

No, it's a theory, and a decidedly shaky one at best.

Please can you explain to me on what authority you can state this as "fact"? Are you an expert in aircraft/building collisions? How many years experience do you have in studying them?

Can you please point me in the direction of ANY 911 evidence of an airplane gliding through a steel/concrete building as if it were air? Last time I checked, the WTC photos showed evidence of explosions and rather a lot of debris. I'm no expert in this field either, but I'm fairly sure that if a large plane flying at high speed crashed into a building, you can reasonably expect an explosion (chemical energy) and plenty of debris (kinetic energy).

I'm sure you didn't mean what you said so I'll put it down to a sloppy statement, in which case can you properly define your opinion? Is it your position that planes should just have bounced off the towers? Crumpled on the outside? Partially entered the building? Something else? What corroborating evidence do you have to support your position?

PS Stating such a theory as a proven fact is only likely to get people's backs up (i.e. mine), especially when that theory is an off the wall one (no pun intended). Just a pointer.

Wood lost me with her particle beam theory. I went to her website regarding the matter and she offered dozens of photographs of burned vehicles as evidence of some type of weapon being used. I have been on hundreds of car fires and I looked at each of those photos closely to try and understand what she was trying to get across. I came to the conclusion that she knows nothing about fire and is willing to use random photos as evidence of some beam weapon. Having actual experience with car fires I could explain each and every one of the photos she felt were so mysterious; I see it all of the time. She just didn't know what the heck she was talking about, but presented herself as if she did. I don't trust her, and I do not believe her. She was 100% wrong in the material that I looked at and it was so bad that I really don't that I could take her seriously in any other theory that she may have.

What exactly were the planes supposed to do?

another factoid:

Professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University, which is named after the founder of the Mormon Church.
http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/
The CIA is replete with Mormons. Jone's dismissal from BYU could have been intentionally staged to send
a chill through academia nationwide. Message: shut up, or you will lose your job.

Brigham Young was not the founder of the Mormon church. That would be Joseph Smith. And what evidence is there that the CIA is replete with Mormons? And I must have missed how this relates to how much Judy Wood does not know about directed energy weapons.

It is a well known fact that the CIA and FBI are full of mormons. A very high represenation in the CIA.

I would like to thank people like CB brooklyn.

It is because of 'people' like him, killtown, nico haupt, gerard holmgren, etc, that i was able to see how completely doomed the 9/11 truth movement was and disassociate myself from it before it had a chance to damage my credibility with friends, family, and co-workers. 95% of the people in it are just like CB, they are deluded, and become aggressive when their delusion is threatened. They are anything but open minded and are in fact every bit as bad as the 'sheeple' in their behavior and ignorance. they do not respond to evidence, logic, or fact. The 9/11 truth movement is now nothing but a lunatic fringe religion, dedicated to maintaining and spreading it's delusional beliefs like any other religion with no consideration for reality.

Great Job!!

Nobody KNOWS who was behind 9/11 or what really happened, including the truthers. It is a shame they are so confused and unorganized, at one point in time they may have had the strength to begin a new investigation and find some REAL answers. Now they are just a footnote of pop culture and a limited internet phenomenon.

So now it is a "well known fact" but still no evidence. Yeah sure. And Brigham Young was still not the founder of the Mormon church. In case English is not your first language, founder and leader do not mean the same thing. The Mormon church was founded by Joseph Smith. And again, what does this have to do with how much Judy Wood does not know about directed energy weapons? Or are you deliberately trying to change the subject?

It is you who is changing the subject. My post mentioned nothing about JW.

Brigham Young helped found the Mormon Church and took over after the death of Joseph Smith, and was the founder of the Mormon Church in Utah, where Brigham Young university is located.
You are splitting hairs.

It is a well known fact that CIA and FBI agents have a disproportionately high representation of Mormons among them. Google it or prove me wrong. I will not spoon feed you the world on a silver platter. The Mormons are New Age and heavily into masonic ritual:
video:
Mormons and the Illuminati

What is really going on behind the scenes in the Mormon church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zptF3BIriE...ted&search=

Physics professor Stephen Jones worked at Brigham Young University.

Freemasons caught trying to blow up Sears Tower in Chicago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txMPqoBSuj0...ted&search=

Brigham Young joined the LDS church two years after it was founded, so how did he help found the church? not only that but he was living in Vermont not Missouri. So you're wrong.

If you have a problem with Mormons take it to the religion board an stop trying to link them to the 9/11 conspiracy.

You provide some idea and want others to provide the evidence? Wow, you have some messed up idea about how the burden of proof works. The problem is I and I'm sure many others, don't really even care if you think there are a lot of Mormons in the CIA or FBI. But the existence or not of Mormons in the CIA or FBI is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, as already mentioned, Brigham Young was not the founder and couldn't be as he didn't join until after the church was founded. It is you who is changing the subject as this topic is about Judy Wood and her paper. You even admitted it when you wrote "My post mentioned nothing about JW." Or can you not read the title at the top of each page? If you want to talk about Stephen Jones or Mormons in intelligence, then start a new topic or somehow make it relevant to this one.

Are you blind? I said he was the founder of the Mormon Church in UTAH, the Utah faction. As far as your assertion that he had nothing to do with the founding of the church in Missouri or Utah, and lived in Vermont, I have already, in this very thread, provided a link that directly refutes that. What is the big panic here?
Assuming that you are capable and willing to read , here is the link again:

******
quote:

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/nov/papr/brighamyoung.html

Brigham Young, as leader of the Mormon Church and architect of the Mormon colonization of Utah, was one of the most influential figures in shaping the American West.
*******

Its funny how you keep changing what you said, first you said he founded the church, then co-founded, then was influential in shaping the American west. We aren't disputing the fact that yes, at one point he was the leader of the church.

But again, if its religious bigotry you're trying to pass off as a conspiracy put it in the religion forum, if its a legitimate conspiracy put it in a new thread.

As I said you are splitting hairs. He knew the founder Joseph Smith during the genesis of the Mormon Church, the formative years, was second in command,
and took over the whole thing after Joseph Smith's death. He spearheaded its expansion from Missouri into Utah, and Brigham Young university was named after
him. Brigham Young specialized in spiritual and foreign language training preparation to overseas missionaries (one world government shills) . These kids do
overseas missionary training , establish foreign contacts , and then go straight into the CIA government ops.

If you don't like the truth, go somewhere else.

And yet again, how is any of that related to the topic of this thread?

Actually BYU doesn't train missionaries. If you would actually do some real research into the church instead of listening to that God Makers movies (which by the way has more holes than Loose Change) you'd know that LDS missionaries are trained in the MTC (missionary training center). Its located in Provo and they have one in Brazil. There is absolutely no affiliation with BYU and the MTC. If you like spreading lies stay here.

So you are anti mormon? Give me a break.

did I say I was anti-mormon? I am just putting the facts out there. Stephen Jones was a physics professor from BYU, a CIA spook nest.
Period.

Your claim that LDS missionaries are exclusively trained in the MTC is bogus. Brigham Young University is named after one of the founders of the Mormon Church, specializes in 'spiritual learning'. and also does foreign language training in the heart of Mormon country.
Along with MTC, BYU are also part of training both Mormon and CIA operatives.

This information is extremely relevant to any thread referencing Professor Steven Jones and his connection to 9/11.

No again you are mistaken. Missionaries return to BYU AFTER their mission is over to pursue college, in fact they go anywhere they want to college AFTER their mission. Do you live in Utah?

If he was Jewish, or a Scientologist, or Muslim, or Catholic, would that make a difference? How come its such a big deal if he's Mormon? If you replace "Mormon" with any of the aforementioned religions it sounds like bigotry.

Did I say it was a big deal? This thread was touching on STephen Jones credibility, so I provided some basic information on his background.
It is a fact that there are a disproportionate number of Mormons in the CIA. Jones worked at a school that trains a huge number Mormon missionaries,
who happen to have a very high, and disproportionate representation in the CIA. How many times do I have to answer the same question?

Not directly. But you linked to videos that called Mormons idiots, satanists, liars, and worse. So yes. No one cares if there is a disproportionate number of mormons in the CIA expect for you.

I would think that a lot of people would find that information very interesting, especially mormons themselves, mormons who may have had little knowledge of the inner workings of their own church and the machinations of its one-world govt. political agenda. Will they continue to support it?

Think what you want. I can't change your mind. So are you trying to discredit Stephen Jones? Because he's mormon so therefore an idiot right? I think this entire conversation has come off track due to someones blatant bigotry against Mormons.

Maybe, but only if true, and you have yet to show that it is.The only thing that seems to be a fact is a slightly larger percentage of Mormons in the CIA. That is explainable however in that many Mormons have been missionaries and many but not all of those learn a foreign language while doing so. Knowledge of a foreign language is helpful for a career in the CIA or any other intelligence agency. Does this mean the church specifically recruited them to work for the government. No. It simply means that some few that served a mission, at their own expense, happened to gain a skill in a foreign language which helped them find a job. But, it is still not relevant to the topic of the thread and does smack of religious bigotry and loads of paranoia. Are you purposely trying to derail this thread?

Well, CB, if you are still paying attention to this thread:

If planes did not hit the towers, what set them swaying to greater than 1/3 the amount expected under hurricane-force winds? Source: NIST's NCSTAR1 (Final Report) page 182.

Knowing a foreign language, being born to masonic families , and being part of the 'culture' of the CIA is what makes Mormon missionaries attractive recruits for the CIA, not just knowing a foreign language.

911...The butler did it.

I was told that this speaker on tape is going to win a lot and spearhead a new phase in cleaning out the rats. The governments all over the world are under scam pressure, this began to snowball in January 2006. Every government is leaking corruption. And the pressure against them cannot be stopped.


What next?

I hope it all snowballs quickly.

Perhaps CB_Brooklyn is Dr Judy Wood

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...mp;search_type=

How odd is it compared to Wood's co-hort Morgan Reynolds, whom GW Bush appointed to be his Chief Economist for the Department of Labor, a position he held from 2001-02??

It's also very odd that you never seem to mention that fact. Hmm..



Good point. The government recognizes Wood's RFC, but not Jones'. That's quite understandable, considering Reynolds and Bush had previously worked together..

CB, if your intentions are truly sincere, then that's great.

The problem is your lack of understanding how and why corrupt entities (like the Bush bunch) choose what things to acknowledge and/or get involved with, and what things to ignore and/or dismiss as irrelevant.

In this case, the Bush**es are willing to acknowledge Wood's RFC, and put it on their own site(s) for public viewing. Why?

Do you actually believe they are trying to incriminate themselves? I really hope you are smarter than that.

What possible reason do they have, other than the above nonsense?

Think about it, and post your reply....

These folks are desperate -- distracting onto the "CB is Judy Wood" line. Why? They can't deal with the evidence Dr Wood has presented???

I really hope you are smart enough to know that the criminals don't have 100% control over everything.

Seems like you're the one who's desperate. Looks like they really tore you a new one here:
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tp...m/9610030371001
and here:
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/11...-who-cares.html
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaNHxjEgrP0

But they can control what papers are (and aren't) allowed to be recognized and published on their websites, no?