Comment
on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima'
By
Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
April
18, 2011 | Clarifications added April 22, 2011
[
This comment is an excerpt from an article based on Judy Wood's work
which I had started but never found the time to pursue to completion.
I thought this review by Eric
Larsen might be a good place to just leave the
following passages from its lengthy Preamble as comment. The comment
has evidently still not been accepted. ]
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, sherif, 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 species 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, 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? (
http://redicecreations.com/radio/2011/01/RIR-110118.php
) 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 contains one of my letters to her complimenting her on her
stupendous courage. It was all right there in plainsight. 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, see Glossary), 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 (see:
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/hot/
). 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
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
). 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
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html
). 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
unamenable 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 small-pox, 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 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 Appendix-A. (Here is the PDF of
the letter I wrote Judy Wood 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?
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/zahirs-letter-to-dr-judy-wood-feb-06-2011-whats-wrong-with-this-picture-publishletter.pdf
).
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):
------
'Subject:
Please clarify this idea of interference
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
Date:
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM
To:
"Dr. Judy Wood" lisajudy@nctv.com
Hello
Judy.
'I
am very impressed. Excellent conversation on veritas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVXo0t7j7zk
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 [ See
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/zahirs-deps-conference-letter-to-dr-judy-wood-feb-04-2011-have-you-seen-this-directed-energy-systems-symposium-publishletter.pdf
], 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. [ See Caltech professor C. H. Papas' classic
text on the subject: Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation,
1965, 1988 ] 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:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/aliens-and-ufos-hegelian-mind-fck-pt2.html
).
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.'
------
Dr.
Judy Wood's Full reply:
'Subject:
Re: Please clarify this idea of interference
From:
Dr. Judy Wood lisajudy@nctv.com
Date:
Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:49 PM
To:
"Project Humanbeingsfirst.org" humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
Hello,
Zahir.
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.
You
are projecting issues onto me that do not belong there.
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.
Judy'
------
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 – see here:
http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285&page=4
), 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:
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/911-revisited-10th-year-some-american-voices/
) 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 employes 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 the DEPS conference
link cited in my letter to Judy Wood above), 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.
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. ( See:
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/911-revisited-10th-year-some-american-voices/
)
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
blanked destruction which was boldly proclaimed to the world. I will
not speculate why it has to be cloaked, only that it has been cloaked
and must be kept cloaked. 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:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/03/anatomy-of-conspiracy-theory.html
) These wonderful experts can serve the agenda for junk science as
much as greedy fools and useful idiots often do, and Global Warming
is ample evidence of that. (See:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html
)
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.
Dr.
Judy Wood's contribution to that statement is the “New
Hiroshima”. I thank her for that enlightenment. The rest are
due to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carroll Quigley. The latter two have
been amply written about on my website. The treatment of the former,
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”. 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 (see:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/of-ostriches-and-rebels-zahirebrahim.html
), 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.
Thank
you,
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Comment
submitted, April 18, 2011,
http://atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/04/comment-on-judywoods-new-hiroshima.html
Mirror
URL:
http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/zahir-ebrahims-comment-on-judywoods-new-hiroshima/
PDF
URL:
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/zahir-ebrahims-comment-on-judywoods-new-hiroshima-3.pdf
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.
Verbatim reproduction license at
http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
04/22/2011 15:00:05
4250
Comment
on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima' By Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org