Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima'

There is a fundamental issue here, namely, that of layers of deception to mask both the methods and the culprits of 9/11.

(SAN FRANCISCO) - This detailed comment is from the Preamble of a study based on Judy Wood's 9/11 work which I had started but never found the time to pursue to completion. I have no affiliation with Dr. Judy Wood (or with the 9/11 Truth Movement) nor have I ever met her. I was motivated to make this work in progress public by the book review by Eric Larsen^[1].

As the caption below for the image of her book indicates, Judy Wood's work, both the book and her website, are a stupendous compilation of new evidence for me. While I have no opinion on her speculative theories which purport to explain this evidence, I do think that the general idea of a “New Hiroshima” is a more apt characterization of 9/11.

I had never heard of Dr. Judy Wood until the beginning of February 2011. I haven't paid much attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement people because I found them patently silly in their prime demand: new investigation. By who? Of what? There is no crime scene hard evidence preserved. And when the judge, jury, executioner, sheriff, and posse, all work for the same club, the club of “imperial mobilization”, what sense does new investigation make?

The only sense of a red herring to keep more peoples occupied in specious pursuits, and perhaps administering some additional Hegelian mind-fck towards eroding national sovereignty by internationalizing the investigation, perhaps under UN, as baby-step towards accomplishing more world government. Now local crimes are investigated by a global body – a justification solidified – since none of the national authorities are deemed capable of it for one reason or another! After my brief communication with the 9/11 Truth movement cheerleaders and scientists (see, for instance, Letter to Editor – Journal of 911 Studies ^[2].), I had given up on anything useful coming out of this lot except hard runs on the treadmills of inefficacy. But I had at least heard the names of its famous participants, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, etceteras.

But never Judy Wood. So imagine my surprise when I encountered this recent interview of Judy Wood by Red Ice Creations, dated January 18, 2011, Where Did the Towers Go?^[3]

I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and for the first time. What is this Hurricane Erin? What is this dip in the Earth's magnetic field? What is this about the seismic signature not being consistent with a Controlled Demolition of 500,000 ton steel buildings? What is this about the audio signature (loud noise) not being consistent with Controlled Demolition (WTC-7's almost whisper-silent collapse)? What is the modality of “Dustification”? Where is the mass of the three tall buildings? What high temperatures – how could workers have been treading on molten steel? Why is the paper not burned?

Hmmm – why had I not heard of these things by way of explaining them in the many technical papers written by Jones, Ryan, Legge, Harrit, et. al., which kept flowing into my in-basket every now and then?

What is the damn explanation for the paper not being burned – isn't that molten steel flowing everywhere in the pictures that Jones et. al., have been showing to indicate a high temperature event? Why did it not burn the paper strewn everywhere? And, only paper is what's seen strewn everywhere. Were is the debris characteristic of occupied buildings having thousands of office occupants (chairs, desks, telephones, toilet bowls, etc.)? What type of fire (NIST), or controlled demolition (JONES), is this which consumes concrete-steel, turns everything to fine dust, and does not touch paper?

Only the demonic fire in the mind of Hectoring Hegemons and their SHM (Science HitMen) dishing Hegelian mind-fcks to the public.

So, I wrote to Judy Wood – and it began my interesting study into this new stuff which this courageous professor had uncovered. Appendix-B [not included here] contains one of my letters to her complimenting her on her stupendous courage.

It was all right there in plain sight. But only she seems to have been highlighting it, as Dr. Wood says, since 2005. My article however is not about Dr. Judy Wood, nor about the 9/11 Truth Movement (which I think is a “collection agency” – using Judy Wood's diction), nor about social engineering. It is primarily about this new evidence which I am seeing for the first time, perhaps because I am now actually interested, because it was always there had I cared to look, and which has led me to use Judy Wood's own apt description of it in the title of this paper: The New Hiroshima.

I do however touch upon all those other topics as appropriate only in the context of the primary focus of this paper, the evidence, and the separation of real evidence from the attendant noise, some of it deliberately fabricated noise as red herrings. This point about evidence and false clues being fabricated and put in place to mislead real investigators requires some elaboration.

There is a fundamental issue here, namely, that of layers of deception to mask both the methods and the culprits of 9/11. Deceptions in 'who dunnit' is already obvious^[4].

Deception in the method of executing 9/11 by the perpetrators; deceptively removing the crime scene and destroying all evidence in the name of cleanup before any forensic study could be performed or evidence preserved for later forensic examination; deception in the myriad cover stories to mask how it was done; deception in misleading and/or concocting any and all investigations spanning the gamut from the official 9/11 Commission and the official NIST studies to the so called private investigators from the academe and from among the activists; have all muddied up the waters by each insisting that their evidence-set and their explanations are the most accurate 'truth'. And what's the best way to obfuscate even honest thinking civilians looking at whatever is available from the photographic evidence and the dust field? Fabricate evidence and leave a whole string of false clues behind.

In this maze of layered deceptions, it is not always obvious what is real evidence, what is cover story, and what is the deception-spin by the Mighty Wurlitzer's agents and assets (see A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer - Anatomy of Modern Propaganda Techniques^[5].

Anyone can write anything. Anyone can publish a book. Anyone can doctor photographs. And anyone can publish a scientific paper on Bentham Open for $800 in the name of “peer review”. I had checked this out myself a while back. Which peer reviewed publication asks for money? Heck, anyone can publish even junk science, from false theories to utter rubbish, in respectable peer reviewed science journals (see Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire^[6].

And of course, Galileo was not published in his time – meaning, real truth which goes against the ruling interests is a rare commodity in public discourses. Especially, when it pertains to such a crime as the New Pearl Harbor the unraveling of which goes against the state's agendas. Such truths, for one thing, cannot be easily ferreted out, and for another, cannot be easily vented without systematic demonization, and ultimately, assassination.

Therefore, it is easy to suggest look at evidence. But when the Mighty Wurlitzer and his minions in the academe, media, and in “truth” investigations teams are at work, just to figure out what is evidence and what are false clues can be a formidable challenge for genuine detectives. And when the pursuit is taken over by faux detectives whose only purpose is to mislead real detectives by introducing what Cass Sunstein called “beneficial cognitive diversity”, the problem is compounded. Perhaps even made intractable and to a solution in a time frame that is meaningful to preventing faits accomplis. 150 years later, just as today even sixth graders learn how the natives were exterminated from the America's with biowarfare and smallpox, our progeny may also study how 9/11 was executed in their junior-high history books with a clarity that is unavailable to the best detective today.

Therefore, for those attempting to study 9/11, it is primarily a forensic case for a Sherlock Holmes and a Hercule Poirot who can draw on expert opinions as pertinent and set aside other expert opinions as false, rather than some simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded) scientists and self-ascribed scholars of truth assuming that the only thing false about 9/11 was the false-flag operation of demolishing the towers, but everything else is straightforward including the “evidence”. Nothing is straightforward. A criminal mind that can plan and execute the 9/11 as 'Operation Canned Goods' for creating the pretext for “imperial mobilization” is certainly also diabolically smart enough to realize that it also would require cover stories and the subsequent spins, including leaving a trail of enticing red herrings right at the crime scene. If an overzealous detective picks up one or more of these red herrings as if they are real clues, and creates his erudite analysis on this “evidence”, you know where he ends up – in the woods! No pun intended.

Having accurate evidence to base subsequent rational analysis on, is the sine qua non of getting useful and real scientific results which are un-biased, un-agendist. Therefore, keeping in mind that if one is interested in fabricating conclusions for hidden motivations, always, almost always, faulty evidence has to be employed and passed off as real evidence, followed by faulty logic and specious reasoning to reach the pre-determined conclusion. Therefore, the emphasis on acquiring un-tempered and genuine data followed by correct reasoning process cannot be over emphasized. Those employing the former used to be called “sophists” in ancient Greece, but today, I'll just straightforwardly call them prostituting for empire to cause them maximum offense.

What Judy Wood has done is gathered all the evidence available from the mainstream news and official sources themselves and put them up for our examination. Which of that evidence-stream are false clues, and which are real? For instance, was this a high temperature event or was it a low temperature event? What is the role of Hurricane Erin on the day of 9/11? A list of evidence is comprehensively compiled in Judy Wood's book and on her website (linked to with the image of her book cover above). What method of demolishing the towers explains all the evidence? As Judy Wood herself argues, and which I too agree with, a theory must explain all the evidence, including separating out false clues from real evidence.

But I do not subscribe to many of the theories that Dr. Judy Wood has put forth to explain this evidence, such as the “Hutchison Effect” which no scientist can reproduce. (See details in my letter of February 06, 2011 to Judy Wood, What's wrong with this picture, ^[7] on John Hutchison's admission that “I actually had my own encounters with the UFOs” – anyone who talks UFO gibberish is part of the Hegelian mind-fck and I have no time for them; anyone who cites a UFO aficionado as a source of science is spinning absurdities – isn't Judy Wood aware of that, or does she too believe in UFOs? ^[8], ^[9], ^[10].

I have no idea how it was done. Nor do I speculate based on hearsay. As Judy herself admits, the science and technology behind it all would be a most highly classified military and state-secret. Then why does she keenly speculate herself? My inquiry to Judy to explain her terminology that she had been using, such as “interference”, etc., elicited a rather humorous response from her. Here is an excerpt from that email exchange (some ramblings in my letter are omitted, Judy's reply is complete):

1) I am not sure that I understand at all what you are talking about when you say "interference", "mix and match". How can superposition ever apply to microwave frequency and radio frequency simultaneously, for instance? Can you show me in some simple exposition how energy bands of markedly different wavelengths can ever interfere?

2) My next investigation question is about this Tesla business. I don't understand this "scalor waves" business (seems like a non-sequitur, "scalor" implies it has no direction component in the traditional sense, only magnitude) – and I have looked at this stuff many many times over the years until I dismissed it all as gibberish. Like you, I don't know what HARP is, have only heard conjectures, mostly plausible, but not demonstrated. I don't know what Chemtrails are, but I have heard plausible explanations. I am unwilling to base any theory that is merely plausible – for the unconstrained imagination of philosophers can come up with an infinite number of immanent thingys. So, like yourself, I look for empiricism, and theory which explains that empiricism, but which is then verifiable on predictions and experiment. i also concede that when there is black-projects and classified projects going on, as the DEW conference I sent you info on in a previous email ^[11], it can be difficult to come by that science for the public. That however, does not mean that every notion and plausible explanation fits that science. This Tim (or Tom) Bearden fellow is the main exponent of "scalor waves". And as far as I understand Maxwell's equations, we are dealing with vectors. Power flows with the Poynting vector^[12]. How can it "flow" as a scalor?

Therefore, Dr. Wood, I had, a while back, dismissed all this "scalor talk" as disinformationists laying a trail of red herrings in preparation for future "collection agencies". As of this writing, my previous limited study had indicated to me that people who keep talking "Tesla Tesla", don't really show anything beyond gibberish and hand-waiving conjectures – what has Tesla demonstrated that is not explained by Maxwell's equation? The hand-waiving spin often put on Tesla is not any different than what Steven Greer put on heat-pumps for the ignoramii who flock to him (see my article debunking his bs if you haven't already ^[13]).

But now, are you saying Judy, that you understand this "scalor physics" beyond the gibberish? I am eager to learn then. Please show me.

As noted before, if you have precisely addressed these two questions in your book, I'll just read it there. Otherwise, I would much appreciate your showing me what you know. I'll reach my own conclusion of how much to be persuaded.'

At this point, I'm a little concerned if you've been assigned to find out how much I know to determine if I need to be eliminated or if marginalizing me will be sufficient. I don't think that is the case, but the characters approaching me have gotten more sophisticated over time. If I seriously thought that, I probably wouldn't say it. Perhaps I'm merely explaining the reasons behind my cautiousness.

There are also people who have grown up in a box and feel they understand that box and may even feel in control of that box. Then, when exposed to something outside of that box, something they are not in control of, they feel threatened by it and respond in anger.

I have no interest in "persuading" others. I'm not here to perform for anyone, either. Learning is a voluntary exercise. Let me know when you are ready

Disregarding that bit of understandable but delusional paranoid quirk (one of her students was murdered in cold blood ; and perhaps she did not like a dumb ass like me to ask questions – I subsequently read some feedback about her by her Clemson students that Judy Wood didn't like students asking questions ^[14], and ignoring all Judy Wood's specious attempts at speculatively theorizing on the empirical evidence that it is Hutchison or Tesla or Free Energy etceteras, I have featured Judy Wood's book on my website's front-page (and in the article: 9/11 Revisited: 10th Year! Some American Voices ^[15] solely for its outstanding evidentiary content which would tickle any curious scientist's funny bone.

As of this writing, I am forced to accept, by the sheer force of logic and the overwhelming evidence that Judy Wood has highlighted in her work on 9/11, that perhaps an entirely new mechanism other than airplane crashing, other than jet-fuel fire, other than controlled demolition, and which is potentially of the same revolutionary order as first employed at Hiroshima, was employed at 9/11. I will tentatively use the Pentagon and the Department of Defense's own terminology to refer to its class, the Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). This is a new emerging class of technology that employs some aspects of electromagnetic fields as a weapon system the understanding of which is presently not in the public domain of knowledge.

Therefore, what is the precise nature of the instance of the "DEW" weapon system that was used on 9/11, I have no idea, and I do not wish to speculate. And I echo Judy Wood's description in my own usage of the term DEW – "Energy which is Directed" as a weapon system. That is as general a statement to identify a new blackbox weapon system as anyone can objectively make. Perhaps I ought to give it a different name to distinguish it from other laser based anti-missile systems and anti-personal electromagnetic wave systems that are actually known to exist (see DEPS conference ^[16], and which are also of the same class as “Directed Energy Weapon”. But the acronym is semantically also what I want in order to distinguish it from all other conventional weapon systems which employ Kinetic, Thermal, and Nuclear Energies (explosives, nukes). What's inside that blackbox used for 9/11 and how it works, I don't know. All I understand, based on the evidence portion of Judy's work, that it must have been such a blackbox system because nothing conventional, including solely controlled demolition, explains all the evidence.

That is not to say that those other elements of destruction may not have been present (and as I am beginning to suspect, primarily for deception and red herrings to cover tracks), but they cannot have been the sole or primary modalities of the three WTC towers demolition on that day. Controlled demolition for instance, does not explain the bizarre dip in the magnetometer readings of the earth magnetic field, nor the bizarre movement of Hurricane Erin near New York city on that very day of 9/11, nor the voluminous unburned paper flying everywhere in a debris field of fine dust, nor the bizarre disappearance of door handles from half-burnt automobiles, to cite just a few anomalies which need explaining when talking of the HOW modality of 9/11. Judy's work is persuasive in that respect of gathering all the evidence in one place, even though, she fails miserably to persuade on her theories which try to explain it. Had she not brought in a UFO freak, I might have paid more attention. (See my invitation letter of February 10, 2011 to an MIT co-alum researcher who is plugged-in with the 9/11 Truth people, revisiting 9/11 as a techie, for why I also no longer trust Jones et. al.'s narratives either. ^[17], ^[18], ^[19])

Ignoring what I don't comprehend in Judy's work, what I do comprehend is such a commonsensical realization that I am puzzled why didn't I see this earlier myself – possibly because I had never paid much attention to the HOW question, only to the WHY question, to unraveling the preeminent global narratives, and to protesting in the antiwar demonstrations as a justice activist^[21], ^[22], ^[23].

As of now, to my mind, nothing else can explain all of the evidence and bizarredoms listed by Judy Wood except a new blackbox mechanism so radical, so transforming, so clandestinely lethal and controlled in its usage, that its very existence has to be cloaked with side-shows unlike the first Hiroshima atomic display with its uncontrolled blanket destruction which was boldly proclaimed to the world. I will not speculate why it has to be cloaked, only that it has been cloaked like many other weapon systems, and must be kept cloaked for now. Intriguing.

There is no religion here. Only hard attempt at doing rational science, but not junk science. No UFO bullshit here. No secret alien science here. I am neither impressed by Nobel prizes nor by fancy titles, not by leaking state-secrets, and not by any proclamation of saintly virtue by anyone. There are no saints when “deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.” Each scientific position, and considered opinion, on every issue, has to be evaluated based on what it is, not on titles, credentials, and accolades of its exponents. Furthermore, their saying ten things which are shown to be correct, does not make their eleventh thing also automatically correct by association with previous correctness. A very crucial failing of the public given to celebrity appeals, which enables the crafty introduction of “cognitive infiltration” and “beneficial cognitive diversity” by the people's trusted heroes and lauded chiefs (see Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory ^[23]). These wonderful experts can serve the agenda for junk science as much as greedy fools and useful idiots often do, and the Global Warming scam is ample evidence of that (see Letter to Editor: Understanding the Political Science behind Global Warming February 07, 2009 ^[24], and Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire ^[25])

Such public deception in all aspects of modern statecraft, of which the high-tech and military sciences are an essential component, and without which no state can aspire to exercising “full spectrum dominance” when they deem their “democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”, is always necessary because real and complete evidence, when examined by rational, non-agendist men and women of intellect using un-emotive reasoning, always leads to the correct conclusion-space of its own accord (eventually). This is as much true in hard science, as in political science which remains engulfed 24x7 in social engineering and Machiavellian manufacturing of consent and dissent. I believe this to be true to such an extent, and evidently Dr. Judy Wood has also stated her belief in this rational science paradigm time and again “empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic; to look at the evidence and the evidence will tell you what happened”, that if there is any fault in the evidence-stream in her book, any fault in reasoning which pertains to the evidence, then I wish to be notified by those more knowledgeable than I.

Show me the inaccuracies in her evidence compilation. In the absence of such correction, the analysis based on this hard evidence gathered by Dr. Judy Wood is clearly leading to only one rational conclusion for me, and I would not like to reach that conclusion based either on crappy data, being victim of deception, or faulty logic: A New Hiroshima was used to execute the New Pearl Harbor to launch “imperial mobilization” for world government.

I suppose that before February 2011, that statement used to read: A controlled demolition with smoke-and-mirrors was used to execute the New Pearl Harbor to launch “imperial mobilization” for world government.

Dr. Judy Wood's contribution to the revised statement is the “New Hiroshima”. I thank her for that enlightenment. The smoke-and-mirrors bit is now entirely subsumed in the new terminology as its integral component. The rest are due to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carroll Quigley. The latter two have been amply written about on my website. A detailed treatment of “New Hiroshima” and the rest of this article, I hope, will be completed someday. But it seems like such a waste of time to pursue this HOW – we will never know for one thing. And second, the real power of the “New Hiroshima” was not in destroying three tall buildings – but in sewing up the fait accompli of “imperial mobilization”. ^[26] Military expenditure derives its raison d'être only from political goals – the goal of “full spectrum dominance”. Given the unsurmountable impetus toward world government which it unleashed as the hammer unto the anvil^[27], it is guaranteed that the mindless pursuit of the HOW devoid of it being rooted in the calculus of political science, only makes for a “collection agency” to gather the energies of conscionable people so that they don't expend it in pursuing something productive.

[12] See Caltech professor C. H. Papas' classic text on the subject: Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, 1965, 1988. Poynting Vector is an abstraction.

[16] Zahir Ebrahim, DEPS conference letter to Judy Wood, Feburary 04, 2011, op. cit.

[19] David Ray Griffin, the author of many famous books on 9/11 and the “Dean of 9/11 Studies” according to many of his prominent cheerleaders who claim inspiration from him, is a self-admitted globalist seeking world government in the most eloquent Newspeak of Orwellian Establishmentarians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

[21] Zahir Ebrahim, 9/11 Revisited: 10th Year! Some American Voices, 2011, op. cit.

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Zahir Ebrahim Project Humanbeingsfir May 5, 2011 9:51 am (Pacific time)

In response to the commenter "william Galison May 2, 2011 4:51 pm (Pacific time)" who noted:

'there are a lot of people far smarter and more educated than Mr Ebrahim who are spouting "UFO gibberish".',

your mileage will of course vary on the alien-ufo religion depending on the depth of penetration of your own head into the asses of these "far smarter and more educated" celebrities!

But for those who might wish to understand this new religion of aliens-ufos from a political science perspective rather than an aficionado's, check out the following Hegelian Dialectic:

1) for when the aliens are bad and will make a Super Ali Baba++ enemy for empire, see:

humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/project-humanbeingsfirsts-prediction-alien-invasion-the-next-global-threat/

2) for when the aliens are good and helping mankind against the evil forces of empire, see:

twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2011/04/alien-fail.html

winterpatriot.com/node/599

3) for when the Rockefeller monies funded a study in mass panic in 1938, see:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/wikileaks-and-ufo-zahir-to-duff.html

humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdf

books.google.com/books?id=2c2-k6AvQtQCandprintsec=frontcover#v=onepageandqandf=false

3) for understanding the "testimonies" that Steven Greer's Disclosure Project brings to the idiotic flock half a century after Hadley Cantril admitted that Orson Well's dramatic enactment on radio was a calculated study in mass behavior control, and why this alien-ufo religion appears to be foundational for corralling the different flavored fools towards the ultimate new age dogma of Secular Humanism in one-world government, see:

humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/alien-agenda.html

4) to see the role the surrogate duo Kerry/Ryan of Project Camelot/Avalon are playing in promulgating the goals of Project Disclosure as well as Wikileaks (which also threatened to reveal information on UFOs, wikileaks-and-ufo-zahir-to-duff, ibid.), see the following:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html#Project-Camelot

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/04/letter-kerry-cassidy-alien-ufo-agenda.html

An entire generation of useful idiots is being prepared to welcome the aliens-ufos when they land - even including appointing a UN Ambassador to diplomatically liason with them (sic!):

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8025832/UN-to-appoint-space-ambassador-to-greet-alien-visitors.html

And the Pope to babtise them (what the fuck!):

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens

And the scientists "far smarter and more educated than Mr Ebrahim" to vouch for their authenticity (see Stephen Hawkings, ibid) - no differently than we have already witnessed recently in their speciously promulgating Global Warming:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html

and in the not too distant a past for scuttling Cold Fusion:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/04/comment-on-judywoods-new-hiroshima.html#[18]

Like the unwelcome weeds in a fertilized lawn, once seeded, these parasites of society which feed of the crumbs of imperial dogmas and multiply their droppings to take over the soil of any nation to get them to 'United We Stand' - even if the initial seeding was with a mere handful - are the curse of any nation's health.

That's the oligarchic bet here - to have sufficient foolish peoples sucking the effluents from the celebrities' asses and to play them up so much in the newsmedia and Hollywood, to make it appear all real to the rest of the ignorant public, to eventually get them primed for acquiescing to 'United We Stand' until fait accompli. This is the enduring power of Machiavellian political science wrought by "history's actors". See "Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities":

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaandaid=18560

Just like the "history's actors" made 9/11 appear real to the ignorant public to launch their "imperial mobilization":

‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’ — Senior Bush Advisor, The New York Times, October 17, 2004

www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=2andex=1255665600anden=890a96189e162076andei=5090

Just like they made WMD appear all real to the dumb masses to launch the invasion of Iraq by parading Pentagon retired Generals on television in 2002-2003. This one was ex post facto even brazenly admitted to by the New York Times in 2008 “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand":

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2andhpandoref=sloginandoref=slogin

And could that ex post facto admission that it was all a scam, and already obvious from day one, undo the murdering and bombing of the innocent people of Iraq due to the manipulated public 'United We Stand' with it?

First we had Ali Baba:

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/binladen-keyenabler-nuclearattack.html

print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/ali-baba-in-mumbai-eid2008-reflections.html

Aliens-UFOs are the next Super Ali Baba++ now that the former Ali Baba, Dr. Osama Bin Laden on his flying carpet, has finally been laid to rest, in continuation of the same "imperial mobilization".

To launch the WMD mantra to invade Iraq they had employed retired Pentagon generals who were "far smarter and more educated than Mr Ebrahim":

prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/preface.html

To launch the alien-ufo mantra to disarm the public and cement world government, they are again employing people "far smarter and more educated than Mr Ebrahim"!!

At Nuremberg and its aftermath, the 'United We Stood' of the Third Reich had to pay a hefty price in perpetuity: from the defeated Nazi canon fodder soldiers who were killed through starvation by the millions in internment camps by the victorious Americans, to the German civilians and the nation of postwar Germany still paying restitution to Zionistan, the Jewsonly state of Israel, in billions of dollars annually, and as I am told, that is to continue for one hundred years.

If the 'lesser peoples' of today are to demand the same restitution for the monumental holocaust perpetrated upon them which is swimming in the oceans of bloody evidence, unlike the HolocaustTM which we all accept on faith and by the fiat of the verdict of law, can you imagine for how many centuries will the people of the Unites States and its Allies will have to pay in penalties to its victims of their 'Lebensraum'?

For poor Mr. Ebrahim, belonging to the 'lesser peoples' who are the primary victims of "imperial mobilization", this ain't a FUCKING game to stick one's head in even one's own ass, let alone in other "far smarter and more educated" celebrities collective asses.

And Mr. Ebrahim respectfully requests the editor to not remove, or syntactical sugar, the employment of accurate expression which hardly does justice to capturing this monumentally criminal state of affairs wrought by fools and useful idiots, themselves victims of celebrity effluents. If bombing peoples to smithereens does not seem to impact people's sensibilities, then describing that crime in accurate terms should not either. Call a spade a spade.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
May 05, 2011 9:45 AM PST

John Scrivener May 5, 2011 12:23 am (Pacific time)

If you want to see what thermite can do to a car, check this video ... http://youtu.be/cylIGRfhJQU

If you want to know why paper survived the explosions that pulverized cement floors and office furnishings, try this experiment ... place a piece of paper on the floor and hit it with a hammer, observe the damage this does to the paper - now place a brittle object like a ceramic tile or plastic phone piece on the ground and hit it with a hammer - observe the resulting damage. Now hold a piece of paper up in the air and hit it with a hammer - observe the damage ... repeat experiment with tile or brittle plastic. You will notice that brittle materials are easily shattered when struck with a hammer whereas paper is not ... this is because the paper can easily move and flex to accommodate the stresses. If you blew up a filing cabinet, the rigid metal structure would disintegrate and paper would fly everywhere.

There was nothing unique or unusual about Hurricane Erin. Every season, a dozen or so storms develop into hurricanes as they follow the Atlantic current northward along the east coast of America. In 2001, fourteen such hurricanes developed in the North Atlantic between August and November. Check this website for more details ... http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

Joey Moore May 5, 2011 12:12 am (Pacific time)

Poor, Mr. Scrivener. Relying on others to do your thinking for you will get you everywhere--everwhere except to the truth. Did you hear they found salt and sugar at Ground Zero: did salt and sugar bring down the Towers? Try again, sir. You're the one who is mystified, not Dr. Judy Wood, PHD of Materials Science Engineering.

william Galison May 2, 2011 4:51 pm (Pacific time)

anyone who talks UFO gibberish is part of the Hegelian mind-fck and I have no time for them; anyone who cites a UFO aficionado as a source of science is spinning absurdities – isn't Judy Wood aware of that, or does she too believe in UFOs? [8], [9], [10]. There are a lot of people far smarter and more educated than Mr Ebrahim who are spouting "UFO gibberish". Time Zahir him to pull his head out of his academic ass.

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsf April 30, 2011 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

This is in response to the commenter John Scrivener April 29, 2011 1:07 am (Pacific time) who wrote:

“Judy Wood's work is an attempt to mystify and mythologize the events of 9/11 ... give me an example of "evidence" from the WTC events of 9/11 that can not be readily explained by the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.” --- The magnetometer reading of the earth's magnetic field.

"have you ever seen the effect of thermite on cars?" --- No I haven't. I have neither experimental nor theoretical experience with explosives.

"How about nanothermite?" -- I never even knew such things existed. Only took Steven Jones' et. al.'s word for it based on their "peer reviewed" work. See footnotes [18] and [17] for why Steven Jones' work, including their evidence-stream, is no longer credible for me. Your mileage may vary depending on your ability to trust "authority" figures. I have zero trust factor. In fact, it is fair to say that I have a negative trust factor.

Technical and political "Experts" fed from the crumbs of empire in establishment's own institutions have to prove to me that they are not disinfo specialists putting hard science as well as political science in the service of empire, rather than me assume they are not just because they play "dissent". Manufactured chiefs are ideally situated to be controlled dissent and gate-keepers to "truth" - in fact, they create the “truths protective layers” until fait accompli when revealing the real truth is inconsequential to reversing all that was wrought while it was being masked and obfuscated. In order to understand this concept, please see footnote [25] and other citations in the footnote above. They are there for the purpose of further study – and not merely to look erudite and pedantic.

The fact that it was some form of "controlled demolition" was obvious the very day of 9/11. The words “controlled demolition” were uttered on mainstream television news channel by a well known newsman within minutes of the two World Trade Center towers' cataclysmic and sudden collapse, never to be repeated again. I am a witness to its utterance – on that very day. See footnote [26].

So there is nothing, absolutely nothing, added by Jones et. al. to that observation, except their rendition of the specifics of the HOW. But to me, the issue still remains open, provided it has any pertinence at all to unraveling and derailing “imperial mobilization”. Otherwise, in the best case, it is just the intellectual mas***bation of philosophers and glory-seekers who have nothing better to do with their time, and their befooled followers who are genuine people of conscience being taken for a hard ride on the treadmill of inefficacy. In the worst case, it is the most obvious case of “controlled opposition” to ensure that any focus on 9/11 unraveling does not accidentally unlayer any of “truths protective layers”.

HOW was the demolition of the towers actually accomplished? With explosives primarily, as is normally done with other building demolitions and to which the phrase “controlled demolition” commonly refers to in the vernacular that has been made popular, or with something different?

What are the clues and evidence which can explain the HOW. Who has brought forth those clues? What is their credibility? Hitherto, Dan Rather's of CBS statement repeated several times on the very Day of 9/11 remains unsurpassed in it stating the brazenly obvious. What more can someone add to it that is really revealing and value added? Is Jones et. al. the last and final word on it?

If anyone looks at something different, it is very interesting to me that they are immediately marginalized. In fact, that is the most interesting aspect here. It is evidently forbidden to examine evidence-stream which resides outside the purview of "truth's" established scholars. This behavior is typically observed of mainstream and how consent is manufactured to get the sheep "United we Stand". That same behavior is evidently repeated in dissentstream to get the dissenting crowd "United we Stand". This fact also underscores my own observation that almost 99% of so called "truth" activists are type-2. What is that typification? If interested, see the Preamble in Manufacturing Dissent, for Hitler's exposition of it straight from Mein Kampf but contextualized for our zeitgeist: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html

"Paper flying every where ... have you ever blown up a filing cabinet?" -- No, I haven't seen a live "controlled demolition" of an office building in which paper was blown everywhere but the concrete-steel structure and all its office contents turned to fine powder. Conduct an experiment of a 500,000 tons occupied office building to see if that's what happens. The actual crime scene is only preserved in photographs - all the rest of it was “dustified” and/or carted away in hurried removal of all evidence form the crime scene. Therefore, speculations are what are rife here for why the paper is blowing. To say "I don't know", or "I don't believe speculations", or "I don't stand with official explanations", in this case the "official" being the dissent's version of "official", is evidently to be discredited by the officialdom and their circus clowns. Is that a whole lot different than when "official" is the officialdom of the establishment? See footnote [23] for a perceptive understanding of this marginalization phenomenon being rooted in Machiavellian political science.

"And precisely what relevance has Hurricane Erin to the events of 9/11?" -- A very good question indeed. Do you have an answer? Evidently you haven't studied its controlled movements - beeline straight for Manhattan for several days, parked standstill just off shore on the very day of 9/11 without any hurricane warning on newsmedia, and in the evening making a drastic course change in another direction - or you might have wondered as well.

Those who attempt to discredit Judy Wood without addressing the evidence-stream compiled by this researcher, in my view, stand discredited in my eyes. So please let me know which of her evidence compilation is faulty, which is misconstrued, which is misleading, which is fraudulent. Explanations come later. And one can hardly do that if one is ignorant of her work, or has only second-hand knowledge of it, being entirely prejudiced by Jones et. al.'s marginalizing of her. Because I have now studied hours and hours of Jones documentaries and interviews, and have actually caught him playing both an SHM's role, and also brazenly misquoting Judy Wood not to mention marginalizing her in the most condescending manner, I am almost convinced that he is there to play the same role as he did in Cold Fusion as the establishment's science hit man. Therefore, any and all evidence presented by him is suspicious in my eyes.

If that aforementioned premise is correct, then Steven Jones will twist/spin/manage everything to achieve the same purpose as he did in Cold Fusion. 'Study history to know the present', isn't just a literary device of the savants to be quote mindlessly by the flock; it is the responsibility for preventing its re-enactment in the future. Therefore, those who draw from the Jones' evidence-stream are either tainted themselves in their advocacy/analysis, or part of the scam. I am open to being proved that the premise is wrong. Please begin by countering Judy Wood's evidence stream, and especially the fraud of fig 5 vs. fig 6 noted in footnote [17]. It singularly discredits either Steven Jones, or Judy Wood. Not much more work is required who indulges in fraud. Once ascertained, everything else from him or her or both, stand discredited.

And this is precisely that's missing – all the genuine naysayers I have come across haven't read Judy Wood's work on their own, have only second hand knowledge that is full of presumptions seeded by Jones et. al., don't have the expertise to understand matters beyond broad brushes of generalities,/ They also remain unfamiliar with Steven Jones, with some uncanny need to keep believing his “peer review” papers. I don't understand this presumptive opinion-mongering to ensure that others think the same way – and this is visible even in footnote [17] in my communication with an MIT alum who wrote me: “But, she got fired. I doubt if she could have gotten a job anywhere, at least in academia in the US.” Neither could Socrates. In fact, Socrates was given the hemlock! That gratuitous marginalization of Judy Wood by my co-alum confrere, was very surprising to me. How can my non-techie internet friend determine Judy Wood's qualifications as a mechanical engineering professor and her competence in that field? He is not even an engineer!

This osmotic diffusion of blanket prejudice against those who stand apart, some of them obviously cranks, some deliberately put there to ensure that all such people can be easily dismissed by association of standing apart, is so pervasive that I now guard against my being even subliminally tainted by it. Especially since, as a Muslim, I stand apart and alone from everyone. I challenged the FBI and Homeland Security agents when they visited my home in 2003 when empire was bombing my peoples to smithereens, rather than acquiesce to their demand (see ). I do not demonize the Jews, nor do I give carte-blanche to manufactured scholars, and nor do I accept the maxim of my antagonists that 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', nor do I accept anyone who echoes my axioms or gratuitously offers sympathy to the oppressions inflicted upon my peoples to ingratiate themselves to us as our friend. I see the white man's burden as being uniformly distributed among hectoring hegemons and their assets – and because of it, I am called many names, from “disgrace to humanity” by the specious darling of dissent, United States Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, for deconstructing his crap (see it here: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/letter-paul-craig-roberts-rebuttal.html ), to the latest being “Mossad agent” by the website which purports to embody the spirit of “rebel” but dislikes those who unconform to their exclusive Jew-bashing for challenging their crap (see it here: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/02/white-mans-burden-uniformly-distributed.html ).

More I am putatively labeled, more I know I must be doing something right as a justice activist! Because of that spirit which I feel within me, more I sense people putatively marginalizing Judy Wood, more I tend to take notice of her work. And when I do, I try to remain objective as a scientist and engineer – and I hope this is evident from my article above.

Thank you for reading the article and also this additional response comment. I hope it has been useful.

Best wishes,

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
April 30, 2011 1:50 PM PST

John Scrivener April 29, 2011 1:07 am (Pacific time)

Judy Wood's work is an attempt to mystify and mythologize the events of 9/11 ... give me an example of "evidence" from the WTC events of 9/11 that can not be readily explained by the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. Burnt cars ... have you ever seen the effect of thermite on cars? How about nanothermite? Paper flying every where ... have you ever blown up a filing cabinet? And precisely what relevance has Hurricane Erin to the events of 9/11?

Guy April 27, 2011 5:53 pm (Pacific time)

Judy Wood has some very interesting information- like the cars that were burned/ flipped over along FDR. After researching 9/11 since 2007, I am wondering why her work isn't covered more by people who really want to get to the bottom of that day. Thank you for the article.

[Return to Top]

Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima'

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News