Tuesday, February 9, 2010

ashes to ashes, steel to dust

I thought I'd seen just about every image connected with 9/11 and then I saw this. This is nuts - true bonzo-zonko territory.

Keep your eye on the spiky steel framework directly above the water tower.

Is it just me, or did that thing just vibrate itself to powder? And has anyone got an explanation for whatever-this-is that isn't science fiction?


This sequence is from Judy Wood's website, specifically this page. There's a ton of perfectly extraordinary material at the site albeit arranged in a difficult-to-follow dog's breakfast fashion. The site is clearly unloved, apparently untouched for four years. I'm still wandering around it trying to figure out what she's saying exactly. Fingers crossed I can figure it out.

Regardless, everything I'd constructed by way of a story to explain 9/11, ie. thermite and controlled demolition, now goes out the window. Whatever is going on in these photos is waaay beyond that.


Edo said...

Weird shit huh?

I read, "Wizard, The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla" wherein the author describes an experiment carried out by Tesla i think, in the twenties or thirties (when in NY they were erecting a lot of steel framed buildings). Tesla correctly identified that everything has its own resonant frequency, and that if you could amplify said frequency, weird shit would happen. (notice the lack of scientific explanation!).... anyways, he created a device, no smaller than a lunchbox and took a walk down the street from his laboratory, and attached this device to one of the upright columns of a partially built building frame. Moments later, it started to vibrate tremendously, causing a mass panic amongst the workers. He quickly disconnected it and quietly made his way back to the lab.

There's other evidence in this book that Tesla had insight into this type of technology...

Back to the towers. I don't know what it was that brought them down, but I know what it wasn't. That's good enough for me. I fully accept there are people with hands on technology that would frighten the shit out of us all. What I find harder to accept is that there's some psychos out there that will use it.

Franz said...

This is Tom Bearden territory, scalar elecromagnetic war. US, UK, Russians, others playing with Tesla's EM ideas together in 1950s.

At the start of the current Iraq war a low-powered portable (mounted on a tank I b'leve, zapped humans who became mummified then blobs of black goo. High powered units just zap you out of the world.

Rense HAD a link to a vid of that last but dammit if I can't find it now.

BTW this technology is also associated with earthquake and weather war. Haiti and New Orleans need a good looking at if it's still possible without being disappeard. (Turned to black goo?)

Penny said...

if this is the core collapsing after the exterior collpsed yes, I have seen it before.

I don't think it collapsed to dust, I think it just fell to pieces leaving behind dust.

john said...

Is it the Hutchison effect?

Drew said...

I once read an article that linked the disintegration of the steel columns seen in these photos with a space-based beam weapon that drew some of it's power from the storm system that was present (but not reported) off the coast of NY on 9/11. The article said that the storm cell likely provided energy for a Tesla-like weapon that was used to bring down the towers, instead of thermite or no-planes or any other theory currently on the table...
Check this site out, especially the 3rd and 4th pages:

A. Peasant said...

someone probably already said so (so delete this if they did nobs), but it reminds me of the Tesla story:

He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it.

Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.


Andrew Johnson said...


There is a lot of info on Dr Wood's site newer than 4 years old. You can try:




For some of the story of how this info has been covered up:


and more of what was done with it:


Anonymous said...

Judy Wood is a bit batty. I stopped listening to her a few years ago because she didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

But those pics. They've been around for a few years now, and every time I see them I'm still astonished by what I'm apparently seeing.

Are we actually seeing a case of "de-molecularisation" or is it just some smoke getting in the way? I have a sneaking feeling it isn't the smoke ... which if true would lead us into all sorts of very strange and controversial areas ie directed energy weapons, scalar weaponry etc etc etc..

Quite scary really ...

Best wishes

hprice, christchurch, nz

james said...

OK, I know I'm wasting my time here but now I'm intrigued, damn it!
Here's some photos that might explain where all the mass went.

The questions I have of them are-

who took them and from what vantage point and

why are they at the National Standards and Technology Institute and

how did the FOI filer know they had them?

I could be digging my yet to be started vegie patch or picking my toenails instead of this.

And where's AngryFuckKnuckle? I miss him.

Hei Hu Quan said...

Banner find Nobody, this need to be seen everywhere! How this has not been seen previously is amazing. The jet fuel official propaganda shite has just gone the way of the steel in those pictures. Dissipated into the atmosphere.


A Hellene said...

Ahh, at last! Someone starts to pay attention to the non-Hegelian part of the story, that is to say, the well hidden little facts, which give those events another perspective... Well hidden, by the literal and metaphorical smoke screen.
Thank you, Nobody!

Part 1 of 2

You have just depicted five consecutive frames of the video about the dustification of the steel "spire" within a few hundreds of milliseconds time. Professional video is captured in a 24fps [frames per second] rate, where each frame's duration is approximately 41.7 ms (Frame’s_period = 1/24 sec = 1000/24 ms ~ 41.7 ms). The time it took the spire to disappear was five frames time, which is merely 200ms! Just search YouTube for the WTC spire.

But, what exactly was that "spire"? I guess that the name was intentional to diminish it, because that "spire" was not some regular piece of metal; it was nothing less than the unlucky remnants of the North Tower's massive core column right after demolition, where it stood tall though it should have gone down with the rest of the building.
How massive was that piece of steel core collumn? The Twin towers had a frame made of 100% steel: At their center, each one had 47 massive rectangular steel core columns, with wall thickness of 100mm (4.0in) at the ground level, gradually reaching 7mm (0.3in) at the roof. Each tower also had 236 steel square columns running up the exterior that were spaced every one meter along the perimeter of the tower, with windows placed in between. Every floor had a complex network of steel trusses criss-crossing each other and welded to the columns to form a powerful rectangular grid, running all over the floor face; corrugated steel pans were attached to that grid and finally concrete was poured over, to form strong and fireproof floors.
Speaking of which, Penny, there is no need to upload anything because the WTC1 blueprints are still online.

The weird thing about the destruction of that gigantic steel structure is that It was clearly not liquefied; if it was, that would require extremely high temperatures applied uniformly to that enormous mass of steel, and it would look very differently: It would indolently bend over at the weak points after overheating and finally melt after becoming red-hot; but it just rapidly turned into ferric/ferrous dust in front of our eyes and "went with the wind" as any self-respecting moviegoer would say ;)

So, I am asking again: What kind of energy is able to have such results? It was not fire; it was not a blast (from gun-powder, nuclear, etc); it was not energy coming from an optical (laser-like) weapon. Was it some kind of a very high powered resonating electromagnetic field of a wavelength tuned to the intermolecular dimensions of steel that made the latter one to be disintegrated -hence the ferric dust? What was the same mysterious energy force that made that sort of damage to the cars of the site at 9/11? Additionally, what made the concrete to explode -it was not broken into pieces but also exploded into fine dust?

Would you remind me, please, what we have been taught on steel dustification? That’s right: Nothing at all! So we can safely assume it is impossible! Closing hermetically the mind is done, thank you! Since most people cannot visualize metals turned directly into dust, will not accept what their lying eyes are telling them; they will just try to interpret what they saw into something they understand and this will justify any possible oddness they witnessed.

End of Part 1

A Hellene said...

Part 2 of 2

Religions have made sure of establishing behaviors like that. For example, did not the Jesuits use to claim "give me a child until he is nine, and he is mine for life"? It actually takes a rare person to deny the beliefs instilled since childhood, especially the transfusions of the highest authority of that period, the parents; and a rarer one still to announce and change, and survive the experience...

Speaking of impossible little facts let me describe a very special kind of airplanes whose magic would rather be called, let’s say, gulpability, since they can be fully swallowed and digested by the most solid steel buildings:
- Completely swallowed, because after impact they leave absolutely nothing outside those shameless and hungry buildings, and
- Thoroughly digested because not a single bolt of them could be found at the guts of those big, bad, plane-eating buildings!
Though commercial planes were (and still are) hollow objects made of aluminum, reminding huge beer-cans with seats, engines and wheels -yet they can cut steel skyscrapers like butter... Twice... In the same day... The same exactly way... Even though nothing similar has ever happened in the whole world before or after that day...

For example, we cannot call that plane, FB kindly presented, a "gulpable" one because:
- Its tail and half of its airframe could not be swallowed by the hungry building it crashed into,
- Its engine could not be digested, since it was found intact in the next room of the same building, and most importantly,
- The plane did not really go through the building’s walls but it entered the building through its glass window! It did not have to go through concrete, steel and walls using its own aluminum fragile body.

Yes, I believe that anyone can break an ordinary building’s window, throwing a fresh 330ml soda aluminum can (full of its liquid contents, and at room temperature) at it, even at hand’s speed! Try breaking a building’s wall with the aforementioned aluminum can...

Just scroll down to "Figure 24" and see what happens to a plane when confronted face-to-face with a bird made of flesh and bones. Now, try to imagine the damage that very plane would sustain if that little bird was an immovable steel structure, designed with the strength be able to take direct hits of a 747 commercial airplane -just exactly what WTC1 and WTC2 were...

Another one of the impossible little facts are the fires! The alleged hell-fires that were allegedly caused by the alleged planes' fuel supply, which is nothing but aviation-grade (= highly refined) kerosene and not some sort of special fuel for (alleged) UFOs(!) or any other absurdity of that kind; not is it distilled and enriched to melt steel, or the engines or the appliances that use it as a fuel!

But, though those "kerosene fires" were said to be able to "melt" those huge steel structures, they were incapable of burning the flammable paper inside those buildings! In the aftermath, all had been left of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were incredible quantities of unburned paper and inconceivable amounts of all kinds of fine dust spread all over Lower Manhattan.

So, once more, what exactly was used during that day to have so unusual results?

End of Part 2

Anonymous said...

your link appears to be nonfunctional

Anonymous said...

that link doesn't work

slozo said...

Judy Woods already did here job - muddy the waters, and create conflict among people who know that the towers were brought down and people murdered by complicit gov't and corporate powers (same thing).

She got loads of airtime, Nobody, at a time when lots of other disinfo people were brought on (Fetzer, Chomsky, etc). The corporate powers don't spend ANY time or effort trying to discredit her, or trying to blacklist her - this is one of the biggest clues as to 'who's who'.

On 'her' website, it all starts off very well, with lots of good info on the obviousness of the operation that took the towers down, and how clearly it wasn't just a couple of planes that obliterated the towers into its own footprint. Then, the disinfo starts to be sprinkled within, and then all kinds of slippery slope arguments are brought in that can only make a logical person realise that her logic leaves at points.


From her website, after she goes through diagrams of the "bathtub" around the two towers, goes through the richter scale data, examines the amount of rubble the towers were reduced to, and then compares the towers destruction with the destruction of the Kingdome via demolition:

"Although these data seem to be corrupted by unknown filters and a complicit Lamont-Doherty will not release the raw data, a reading similar to the Kingdome would be impossible if the twin towers were destroyed by conventional means (bottom up) because much greater weight would have slammed into a much smaller chunk of land and therefore would have shaken the ground far more than the Kingdome did. Each tower’s collapse should have registered at least four on the Richter scale given two orders of magnitude difference between the twin towers and Kingdome dimensions. The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures. And where are the data from the other recording stations shown in Figure 35? Are they being withheld?"

(cont'd below)

slozo said...

So . . . a stadium compared with two tall towers, and any and all differences between the two events point to a weapon that until now has never been seen or used, with no explanation as to WHY it supposes so. Oh, and Judy - being such a smart scientific cookie about facts and figures - she gets some of her data on the seismic readings from such noted non-biased publications as the NY Times Library, which doesn't even mention the collapse of the third tower nor mentions that it too would have left a seismic imprint.

Actually, wouldn't it have been better to examine the third building, WT7, and its collapse?


Judy Woods never really mentions WT7, and only then in the very briefest of contexts in regards to pictures. And even then, she lies about how high the rubble was for it (saying it is 7 stories, showing an overhead picture where it is even there easy to see that t's below two or three stories), never examines its collapse, and never mentions it in the context of HOW it collapsed.

So . . . here we have a supposedly logical, science-driven person, smart as a whip, making ludicrous leaps of logic that have zero scientific reasoning, using totally unscientific (and compromised!) sources, and you are saying to me Nobody that because of a few pictures that your whole take on her and how 9/11 went down has been rearranged?

I would have thought you could read through the bullshit.

Who needs laser beams that have never been tried out before for a massive psychological and war operation, when you can use explosives very effectively that have been tried and tested and are a known quantity to the PTB?

Oh, and to answer your question, Nobody (the one about whether anyone has an explanation for whatever-this-is that isn't science fiction?):


Laser beams from space, never before seen and unknown?

THAT'S science fiction.

slozo said...

Also, as an addendum to my last posts, here is a good website that can take you through the disinfo that is Judy Woods and her crowd, and they have many other good links to take you through their logic and reasoning (ie. they have done the hard work for you):


Peter said...

Slozo, I'd like to querie you on this post from Alex Jones web site
Specifically, on the TruTV video part 2 o 5 at the 3:00 minute point, there is mention of HAARP WEAPONS being used in IRAQ WAR I. Symptoms described by Iraq soldiers are familiar to me. Intensely familiar. I KNOW those symptoms personally.
These high energy beams are real man!

nobody said...

Sorry about the dodgy link folks. Did everyone guess my name? Yes, it's 'Desktop', ha ha. Sprung!

And spooky prescience AP - we did get that story twice! I left your comment in because you're the best looking commenter here. Until Gallier turns up anyway. Ha!

I've always been intrigued by Tesla but barely know anything about him. For instance: Did he really look like David Bowie? Anyway, I'll hunt that book down. No one has a pdf copy do they?

Thanks to everyone who piled in with links. I'll off and check them out. John didn't give us a link but his mention of the Hutchison Effect is what I'm going to hit google with.

And thanks Slozo, ya bloody party pooper! All I know mate is that I missed all the hoopla. Perhaps it was because I was hanging at WRH? Who knows? None of it got much of a guernsey there.

But, I have been googling and yes it seems that various discussions of Judy Woods' gear have been held in various forums and I'm off to check them out. That being said, you wouldn't want me to roll over on your mere say-so alone would you mate? And you think those pix are photoshopped? I don't quite understand the purpose of this as a disinfo campaign. The no-planers I get: I've been in a couple of forums that they barged into and kicked up a stink.

Also the appeal of this new angle (for me anyway) is that it addresses concrete into talcum powder, which thermite/thermate doesn't. It also covers all those weirdly toasted cars which everyone else just flat out ignores. And I wouldn't be writing off her comparison of that sports dome neither. Her figures are suspect because they're from the NY Times? I have a feeling we're on a bridge too far there mate - the NY Times produced anomalous seismic figures in order to lead people to the idea that directed energy weapons were used? Whoo-ee, that's a long bow. And seismic figures don't originate at the NY Times, they're easily checkable at the source, surely? Not by me sure, since I live in a bullshit tourist town and don't even have a full internet connection, ha ha.

Otherwise how many pictures of collapsed buildings have we seen? In Gaza etc? From what I can tell a ten storey building seems to collapse to a height of one or two storeys. Okay so how did a 100 storey building collapse into half of fuck-all? The debris doesn't even go to the height of the foyer ceiling. Woods saying that it turned to powder and blew away sounds far fetched, but isn't it what we see in the footage of the collapse?

But don't worry Slozo I'll check out your links and see if anything comes of it one way or the other.

Peter said...

***Beam Weapons, Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):

We have used the terms "beam weapons" and "directed energy weapons" to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. We broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so we make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, we have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.***
above quote from here

nobody said...

And M. Savant, the ticket is to stick your email address in one of those comments. As things stand I read your comment but it then tends to get lost in the mix. It exists in gmail but not as its own entry - it's merely one in a single tab comprised of dozens of comments if you can dig it. Then, whatever link you've sent me, I'm unable to find it.

Otherwise, is it Slozo's turn to be Gallier? Remember don't take it personal mate. If you look at Gallier's thumbnail pic through that whole Apollo gag he never quit smiling!

slozo said...

Ha ha . . . unlike Gallier, I won't put up a picture. And frankly, I am not always smiling, because to me, it's not a bullshit thing, this dissemination of reams of propaganda to find an inch of truth. It's important, and more than that, the way we should all look into things, examine things, to figure out whether its bullshit or not, is important.

See Nobody, I can tell you are sold on this Woods, because of the language you use . . . and the way you dodge big questions that I posed.

If Woods wasn't anything other than a disinfo artist, why did she get so much airtime (along with Fetzer) on FOX and CNN? And why did they always launch into the beams right away, and why did they never mention gov't complicity, NORAD standdown, WTC7, etc etc etc? And to Peter, they DID most definitely mention sattelites from space, I remember one FOX broadcast I saw in particular with the cartoon drawings depicting exactly that as the Woods/Fetzer got a tonne of airtime to explain . . . laser beams from space.

Could these kind of energy beams exist and be used by the US gov't and CIA for their own nefarious means? Hell yeah, I am sure it could be one of a thousand horrible devices to maim, control and kill that we don't know about. But is there any evidence that a device like this was used here? I don't see it.

And Nobody, I gave the NYTimes reference as a small example of Woods' work, go and do all the digging yourself - I am on vacation, btw. The NY Times and all of the MSM fronts will all reflect the same thing as you can see with them - they largely ignore WTC7, and they try to muddy waters by having all sorts of conflicting information. In short, totally unreliable. Woods jumps to totally unsupported conclusions only to support her own theory and disprove others, and she does it constantly.

As to Peter's question about Jones - who I count as partial/compromised disinfo as well, as he turns a total blind eye to Israeli connections/jewish banking/american-jewish traitors within gov't - HAARP is real, yes. I think they have been playing with the weather for a long time now, and doing it very effectively (see earthquakes in Sichuan, Haiti). But that is just a very strong suspicion by me, nothing more than that for now. Read up on www.globalresearch.ca for the many well written articles by Michel Chossudovsky to see opinions on that stuff and more that I am in full agreement with.

At any rate, I discarded Alex Jones a long time ago in my 9/11 research back in the day, and just because he sprinkles in some truth alongside his real agenda of steering some in a particular way doesn't change him as a disinfo artist.

So, explain please:
Woods is on our side, yet . . .
- she got a lion's share of airtime after 9/11 while Steven E Jones got zilch with a better resume (he was an active professor)
- she ignores WTC#7, and never explains its collapse
- she avoids all talk of gov't people who had to be complicit
- she compares a "hollow inside" huge stadium demolition with a very tall tower probable demolition and thinks that the stadium's impact should be twice as much . . . with no scientific reason for doing so

Ok, gotta go - no time. Crying baby in background and I'm off to dinner.

Do the research people!

jack said...

Jesus Nobody, calm down and look at it again. It's falling, not vibrating. Your a clever writer, but prone to paranoid fantasy.

kikz said...

i hate ta thread jump.. but i ran across an link on wrh this am...

the spy who nudged me..
i know you'll enjoy it..:)


it's kind of germane.. to the whole orwellian theme of post 9/11...
maybe good fodder for another rant :)

Kosta said...

I posted this topic at 911oz.com
and got a plausible explanation for the series of pics suggesting the steel beams turn to dust...
Check out this short vid from a different angle....
youtube Spire

"From the video above, it looks to me that the steel "spire" falls down leaving small dust particles to float in the air for a little while after.

Looks like the frames on the Judy Wood website have been carefully selected from a video to give the impression that the steel just dissolved.

I think she is pretty much all disinfo - although I have never been through her site carefully to check to see if there are any good bits on it."

Anonymous said...


Dean Warwick is the guy who was taken out on stage whilst giving a lecture to a packed auditorium. Roughly a week before, he gave a telephone interview with Dave Starbuck in which he speculates that the twin towers were brought down using infrasound in a way similar to which he experienced in the late 50’s early 60’s. The interview is over an hour long and the interesting bit comes between 3 and 8 minutes in.


I neither support nor disclaim this argument but put it forward as an additional viewpoint.

nobody said...

Okay I just jammed it in photoshop, did a quasi-animation-track, and yep, it could just be falling.

I throw my hands up and declare that maybe Jack is right and I am in fact prone to paranoid fantasy. As for Slozo framing his argument in terms who got the most MSM airtime, well... that's always been my crunch argument, so what am I going to do? Argue with myself?

That being said, there's still a lot of weirdness going on here. It seems that Judy Wood is in diametric opposition to Stephen Jones, David Ray Griffin, and Alex Jones - disinfo, says she. And so do we. Which is dandy but if everyone is disinfo why would we choose one story over another?

I wonder if it's permissable to reject the either/or nature of the choice? What if I said it could be one, or it could be the other, or it could be both?

The only thing we know for sure is that the buildings came down at freefall speed. For mine there are shortcomings with both stories. Previously, my problems with controlled-demolition/thermite I'd just sat on, what with there being no third option. But now the questions are obvious - by what mechanism did the concrete turn to powder? "Explosive something, something..." How did that girder get turned into a paper clip? "Tremendous heat, something, something..."

I can dig explosives smashing the WTC to pieces and removing anything as resistance to the above debris but how does that explain all the concrete turning to powder? That's just too goddamn thorough for me. There should have been some/a-lot-of blocks of concrete with reo sticking out of it piled up on the ground. Surely?

Also an explanation of 'tremendous heat' doesn't quite cut it for me in terms of the worlds biggest paper clip. Tremendous heat, how? Everything I've seen of thermite consists of it coming into contact with steel and liquifying it. The paper clip has not been liquified. Clearly thermite didn't touch it anywhere near the parts that were 'bent'. Instead, it was 'softened'. Massively. Imagine if we wanted to do that. Okay, how do we do it? Do we build an oven? Make a giant blowtorch? Seriously.

(maxed out the characters - part two below)

nobody said...

Further - having checked out the debunking of Judy Wood I found a lot of it to be pretty ordinary. Hats off to a car burning from the fuel that leaks from the one next to it, but the FDR freeway is, what? a klick away? ten city blocks? And what was it in that pyroclastic cloud that fired up those cars in that nearby carpark to begin with? If it was spontaneous-combustion-hot why didn't it ignite the people who failed to outrun it? Why weren't the streets littered with carbonised corpses? Or at least with their eyebrows missing? And then there's all that unburnt paper...

Otherwise I read an interview with a guy who discounted the barely there pile of debris from the two towers saying that if it was all melted down it would only be six feet thick. What? And if it was jammed into a black hole it'd fit on the head of a pin. So? It wasn't in a black hole and it wasn't melted down and as far as I can see there's fuck all of it there. I plug this into the pulverisation of the concrete (that I never understood) and now I'm really wondering.

Another argument against her unknown-to-science dustification is that science says that to shatter all that steel and concrete would require more energy than there is in the whole world. Therefore she's wrong. It's a bit like saying Unknown Flying Objects can't exist because Known Flying Objects can't behave in that fashion. Can you dig it? In terms of her theory it's a non-argument.

I'm thinking it all comes down to a single crux. Is Hutchison and his Hutchison effect bullshit or not? Are his stories of US and Canadian military and spook interest and interference with his work bullshit or not? If they're not bullshit, then Wood is really onto something, the arguments against her come to naught, and the description of her as disinfo comes as a well-what-else-could-they-say no surprise.

As things stand I'm going to leave this one as that old standby a thing about which I hold no opinion. Meanwhile I'll keep reading and see if the whole gluggy mass doesn't ferment into something a bit more drinkable. If anyone here wants to condemn anyone for choosing an explanation for 9/11 that differs from their own, they can do that. Meanwhile, I'm off to check out the very strange and super unlikely story of the Bankers Trust/Deutsche Bank building. My favourite bit - a mafia front organisation that named itself after a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Ha ha ha, yeah right! (Thanks John!)

slozo said...

No worries, Nobody - no condemnation from me, just wish you had looked into Judy Wood's (sorry, realised I kept misspelling her name) resume a lot more. Look into Fetzer first, then see how Judy and him are an inseperable disinfo duo on many tv broadcasts after the 9/11 event. You will have a lot of u-tubing to go through, but most of it is there . . . and there will be many bits where once you see how she frames discussions and says things, it will be utterly clear.

If a guy like Steven Jones is disinfo, then he is one of the best they got, otherwise, I think he is firmly on the side of the good guys (us, of course!). I had been initially leery of his Mormon background and him trying to prove Jesus visited the americas with fudged carbon dating methods . . . but other than that, he's clean, and a PHD physicist if I remember correctly. And he specifically and pedantically is a scientist first, and proves/disproves things in a scientific manner. His primary research started on WTC#7, which is of course the weak link to the whole caper, and a spot of trouble that almost any disinfo artist (with the exception of Alex Jones) avoided like the plague.

And if Hutchison is/is not bullshit . . . what does that have to do with Wood being disinfo or not? It's like saying Icke isn't disinfo because he talks a lot of truth about power structure, symbolism and oppression/slavery, only he includes the reptile overlords in there, so that must be true too then? That is the whole key to successful disinfo . . . include some good stuff in there to substantiate the crap.

Lastly, I ask you all to do what I do as an investigator when trying to suss out someone's motivations: pretend you are them, and see if it sounds logical and plausible that you would come up with the same theories as they have.

All of us, we who have researched 9/11, did it because things didn't look right. Most of us did when we learned things like there was a third tower; some of us, after we saw the third tower go down; some were immediately suspcious because of the standdown . . . and the list goes on and on. But something looked 'off', and we gave it further investigation.

I ask you to put yourself into Wood's position, and tell me what physical evidence makes you disclaim what looks to be obvious demolition, and makes you think it was an energy beam instead - one that remained totally invisible, had no flash of light, and didn't give off the incredible amount of heat consistent with something that could incinerate a large building. Oh, and it also still alloed the building to fall and react as if it was still a demolition.

'nuff said.

Penny said...

nobody, the first comment I left here I mentioned that, the core did not fall to dust in collapse.
It just looks that way.

I had seen your pics previously and others like them.

9/11 truth has all it needs.
explosions, planes, stand-downs.
government complicity
who benefits

it doesn't need "no Planes" and laser beam weapons.

Peter said...

Below is an excerpt found here.The HAARP revelations from Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones and this Judy Wood material could be just psychological warfare. The murder of our spirits!!!

***It is risky to reveal to the people what has been done to them by the gangster class that lords it over them. Patently, in the wake of the revelation, the risk is one of reprisal, retribution and rage by the people. But where there is little or none of that, then the Cryptocracy has tripled its hold on the minds and hearts of Americans: it has strongly hinted about the mass murder it committed on Sept. 11 and yet, there are few significant repercussions. This non-reaction tends to demonstrate that the people of the US accept, at the subliminal level of their consciousness, that their own leaders are mass murderers of their fellow citizens, and mostly what they do in return is shake it off and head to the mall.

If the Federal government succeeds in another big attack on America by means of its Islamic patsies, it could well tip our country over into military rule. Bringing the behind-the-scenes perpetrators of the first 9/11 attacks to justice, prevents the state's orchestration of a second attack, the one that most likely would lead to martial law tyranny and the eclipse of the American dream of liberty. But even after revelations in the June 5 New York Times - - replete with directions to web pages that give strong evidence of an official role in the terror attacks - - Atlas shrugs.

This is a less-than-human response, a result of the alchemical processing of humanity, the devolution from angel to beast.

There you have it, a page from the real-time psychological warfare manual of the Cryptocracy.

Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org ***

james said...

I remember seeing a clip somewhere of a guy talking about how he went to "The Book Depository". It had become a tourist attraction and at the time you could go up to the window that Oswald was supposed to have shot JFK from. Anyway, he went to the window and leaned out and found himself exclaiming, " . . no . . fuck . .ing . . WAY"!! It seems it is far from a clear shot when viewed from the only angle that counts.

So this is Slozo's point and a good one. Everyone who gets serious about investigating this thing called 9/11 has a 'WTF moment' or a 'NFW moment' and if Judy Wood doesn't elucidate on what was hers, then Slozo has a very powerful point, in my view.

And I'd like to add to Peter's point about the psychological warfare against the citizenry. I think we'd all be hip to the ploy of multiple theories being put forward to confuse the issue to lead away from the truth. But I think there is a deeper agenda, as Peter suggests.

One angle that occurs to me is 'free will' and 'learned helplessness'
Free will is expressed as making choices, but not just any choices. Many choices are made out of habit and they are not necessarily an expression of free will. New choices certainly are. Old choices are made from what someone already knows and most people (especially regular teevee viewers) don't make new choices. If they do it is in response to new material that is tied to the new choice such as we see in advertising. It's a package deal. No thinking and no free will needed. The average person also has a very short attention span in part thanks to teevee, again. Old choices don't need any sort of attention span but new ones do.

So these people are unused to using their frontal lobe, the part of the brain that evaluates new information and exercises new choices. It's the repository of our free will, (if you will!).
So if someone wants to look into 'this weird 9/11 shit' they quickly find a lot of new and conflicting material that they have to think about with a part of the brain they haven't used in years probably and pretty soon their 'brain hurts'. So what do they do? They go back to using the part of their brains that they are used to using, making old choices out of habit. Only trouble is they have now lost their security and they know it but don't want to look at it because it literally makes their brain hurt.

All this leads to "Learned Helplessness" which is exactly where the shitheads want them. These people are far more likely to follow orders even when they don't like them. All the arguing about planes/no planes etc helps the shitheads with their agenda of mentally torturing and conditioning the masses out there in teeveeland.

Not that I think we, in particular, here are aiding and abetting the 'enemy' because their target audience is very unlikely to hang around here for any length of time for the above reasons.

nobody said...

No, Hutchison is the pivot mate. If Hutchison's movies of steel bursting into flame at cold temperatures are factual then Wood's discussions of 'dustification', 'jellification' and other such neologisms are perfectly sound. And then we're in ipso-facto-not-disinfo territory.

Otherwise the function of Wood's disinfo is to couch the conversation in far-out, whacky, pseudo-scientific jibber jabber that's easy to ridicule, yeah? But if Hutchison is the real deal then not a single word of the above hyperbole applies, except perhaps for 'scientific'. Then the 'disinfo' title would be shot to hell and instead she'd be the bravest truth-teller going. It's one or the other and it all pivots on Hutchison.

And if the US government had weapons that subverted all known laws of physics, the existence of which meant that nothing would ever be the same again with a resulting secrecy above and beyond anything, wouldn't a controlled demolition MIHOP qualify as an appropriately intense limited hangout? Dig it, it's like copping to a manslaughter to avoid going down for a multiple slaying.

As for disinfo, didn't you say Stephen Jones was disinfo? My head is spinning. Either way, I read New Pearl Harbour and thought it was huge and lent it to friends. Mind you, written in the cover were the words, "Hey Presto! No Israelis here!"

Between Jones and Wood it seems we have to choose. Hmm... let's not ask who received the most publicity because it'll be Jones first and daylight second. You tell me she got lots of coverage but I just have to take your word for it. Like I said, I'd barely heard of her until just lately. Otherwise, between the two of them, which one does Alex Jones support? Would that tell us something?

I don't know that any of this is really rebut-worthy but you can if you want. Why don't I just say I'm keeping an open mind. Waaay too much whacky shit that I'd otherwise dismissed turned out to be true and now I no longer dismiss anything.

What if it was controlled demolition and Hutchison effect weaponry? For every argument here about not using some Hutchison thing on account of untestedness or whatever, I could put up something similar in terms of CD. Has anyone here not seen CD flops on youtube? Okay fine, 911 was a big gig, the biggest ever: It must work -nothing can be left to chance Okay, so how about CD as the mainstay and Hutchison as a supercharged back-up doubling as an opportunistic experiment. In terms of the latter can you imagine the Pavlovian response of the DARPA crowd?

But whatever... why don't I leave that all there: roll it around, look at it, nothing else. Besides I've got a half done piece of the usual purple prose on the desktop and I'll see if it gets up tomorrow. Not sure what it's about... the death cult I expect...

Edo said...

Hey James, the "no fucking way" quote came from Bill Hicks.

Can I ask you guys a question?

Does it bother you so much to know how a magic trick was done? You 'know' its a trick, and it frustrates the hell out of you, but at the end of the day, you go to bed knowing it was a trick.

That's how I feel about how the towers came down. It's the magician(s) and stage managers that need to be discussed.

Namely, the MSM, NIST, DoD etc.

I'd largely given up on looking at NPT, but yesterday revisted some of SImon Shack's clips.

Here's a fairly recent one I think is very telling....


Franz said...

Hey nobes --

BEFORE you leave this one to the flush and gurgle bin, make sure to mark it up as one of your GREATEST HITS because it is.

I didn't want to "spray" or whatever but understand that awareness of these things are more common and getting MORE so every day.

There's a war going on that covers all these horrors: It's radioactive according to Dr Victorian (his book, MIND CONTROL, explained some of my Navy days quite chillingly). It's radioactive according to the best guess about 911 too. Maybe it's the fact that radiation accounts for 90 percent of all psyops that's fooled us into thinking the more mundane stuff like making war is DIFFERENT. It ain't.

Warfare is all mind. They want us to be afraid, so jittery batshit that we'll also be at each others' throats. Even disinfo is info. Everything's right in front of us. The bad guys have to, HAVE TO, make us see something else. Tough job.

You made it tougher by refusing the bait. You kept an even head. Victories like this are the ones that count, whether you're keeping count or not.

No kidding.

nobody said...

Yay! I love it when a thing that would otherwise be summed up with a shrug of the shoulders and a declaration of 'Fucked if I know!' is called a victory. Excellent. James you get the gig as my official biographer.

Waitaminute... "I love the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... thermite." Ha ha ha. Who says Charlie don't surf? He should get down to Bondi, there's tons of them and they've all got million dollar wetsuits.

Oh! 2.30pm! Off to yoga school open day and a bit of the old garudasana. Ciao ciao.

PS Thanks for the link Edo. I'll check it out later.

Anonymous said...


This is all good and relevant stuff and we can go on grinding the info down into finer and finer dust, sifting it and then grinding some more – and then what? A couple of things have come out of this for me, James’ learned helplessness. And to address Edo’s question, we all know it was a magic trick and the magician has given us a bloody nose but instead of taking the magician’s knee caps out we are all scurrying around like ants trying to deride each others version of how the trick was done and disinfo has won the day. But are the ones Edo has identified the real perps? Again it is layers of an onion mate. It seems to me that the real perps are the ones who put the legal system in place and now own it, be they Jewish bankers (probably in this case) or Pilgrim ones. And once you have put the finger on them, who’s Feds are you going to send around to put the jewellery on them and bring them in?
Are any of you out there old enough to remember the series ‘The Four Just Men’? Second amendment cell phone size beam weapons for the masses, now there is a (terrifying) thought.

Doug Plumb said...

Wood is unique and she is the most credible 9/11 researcher because she focuses in on the strangeness so that we may more easily apply the scientific method to explanations blindly accepted by the masses of truthers. (IMO)

Nothing makes sense yet. Its far to early to accept an explanation.

james said...

"Nothing makes sense yet."

I'm glad you said that, Doug, because I was struggling to understand of your comment

Edo said...

OK, just to clarify something Anon mentioned. I did say the magicians and stage managers were the MSM, DoD and NIST, but that does not imply I think they were the producers of the show. Merely players.

I linked to that Simon Shack video because I'm of the opinion some of these 2 bit players would be easier to corner/expose than some of the better known actors.

gallier2 said...

Hey Nicole a french conspiracy bloggist (which doesn't have any link to here afaik) just posted an ontopic slideshow

What strikes me odd is on some pictures the burning vehicles that are near trees, which have lost their leaves but are not scorched or ablaze, very strange.

kikz said...

noby, you still there?

ribero, WHR news today..

I tried traceroute to WRH from several traceroute servers in Australia and New Zealand. They all end at a server asw-gb181.ord03.singlehop.net ( . This must be the machine that prevents Australians from seeing what the government doe snot wish them to see, sort of a "Silicon Curtain" not unlike the Iron Curtain of the USSR!

Anonymous said...


After complaining that there was hardly an investigative reporter prepared to raise the subject of paedophilia, David Icke has gone postal with accusations on the subject.


nobody said...

Hey Kikz, yeah I'm here. I don't know about the government internet clampdown thing. Mind you I'd have a hard time telling it apart from the censorhip that comes with using a public library.

Heaps of sites give me a page with a message from "MessageLabs® Now part of Symantec" saying "Web Page Blocked Access to the web page you were attempting to access, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/..., has been blocked by the Web Filtering Service, because it contravenes the web acceptable use policy. No further action is required on your part."

The most annoying thing is that it now seems to be affecting blogger. This results in random pix that refuse to display. My own blog included. On the front page the first of those four latest pix is deemed worthy of censorship but not the other four. Over at John's latest posting I can't see two of his pix. Same same over at Sue's. It seems perfectly random as far as I can tell. Hmm... I'll try reposting and see what happens.

Not that that's a useful answer to the problem...

Um, it is just me isn't it? Everyone can still see those five pix on the front page yeah?

nobody said...

Now I see it again. But otherwise it seems that nearly every story on the front page is missing at least one pic. tedious, tedious, tedious.

Anonymous said...


I have five pickies of the disappearing steel structure on your latest front page. I wasn’t going to mention this because it didn’t seem important but in the second picture, as the main structure falls towards the left the smaller spike on the right hand side bends to the right. I don’t know why this should be significant but it is interesting.

slozo said...

Just wanted to add, Nobody:

It was Alex Jones that I think is disinfo (the loud american incarnate, constantly seen with a loudspeaker), and not Steven E Jones (PHD physicist), who I personally think is the most credible of the 9/11 researchers.

Doug - I usually agree with you and respect your commentary a lot . . . but I think you went off the grid here. How is Wood unique? And how does she frame her contentions in any kind of organised, scientific manner?

Does anyone remember that a scientist is supposed to propose a theory, and then perform various tests and examinations of evidence to either confirm or deny, through careful analysis?

I see no such thing done by Wood . . . only jumping to conclusions, obfuscation by obscure technology and terminology, and zero organisation of any argument into a coherent point, provable by previous tests.

Anonymous said...


Edo - point taken - reading problems again, sigh.

kikz said...

sorry bout the typo... glad you're still on air..
just wanted ta chk in...

Anonymous said...

It's 12:05 Wed.17th. Feb. and I have been trying all evening to get onto WRH - still can't.
Your site is OK.
Something is on the go.

Penny said...

just put up a story about military laser beams, it may interest the laser beam theorists surround 9/11, but then again maybe it doesn't?

me, I'll stick with controlled demolition

nobody said...

Hey Tony, I get WRH no problems. The censorship I get via the library seems completely unfocused/random as far as I can tell. It's more silly than anything else.

Unknown said...

Alas! It's so shocking I don't have words.
Steel buildings

Anonymous said...

"No, Hutchison is the pivot mate. If Hutchison's movies of steel bursting into flame at cold temperatures are factual then Wood's discussions of 'dustification', 'jellification' and other such neologisms are perfectly sound. And then we're in ipso-facto-not-disinfo territory."


nobody said...

Thanks for that, very cool. You've reminded me of a nice angle that I otherwise didn't mention here and that is: what's up with technology seeming to freeze? When I was a kid the F-16, the F-15, and the F-18 were the new fighters. So, in the 70 years between WWI and my boyhood we went from the Sopwith Camel to the F-18 - a spectacular leap. And here we are now forty years later and still flying the same old F-16's, F-15's, F-18's. In spite of technology otherwise accelerating we're using the same planes as existed forty years ago. It's almost like we ground to a halt.

And yeah, yeah, stealth. Pah! Unimpressed, me. It's still a regular jet engine with intakes and exhaust, etc etc. Big deal. Not forgetting if it flies through heavy rain it's stealth ability washes off. Pathetic.

The question is: Are we meant to believe that with all that money expended in research by the greatest military power the world has ever seen that they got nothing for their money apart from an ability to hide from radar provided it's not raining? Is that right? You'd have to wonder wouldn't you?

gallier2 said...

Hello noby, funny that you address this subject as one of the most fascinating French writers, scientist had a series of articles on that subject.

Jean-Pierre Petit is a real scientist as we knew it, touching everything, explaining complex themes in simple terms without losing the mathematical rigor. He's unafraid to touch unpopular subject, which cost him a comfy career. I follow his works since 2002 and was a bit sceptic at the beginning because of his mainstream views about israel and zionism, but his recent writings show that he was only uninformed because of lack of interest, now he is fully lucid on that subject too.
So he posited that indeed conventional plane technology kind of stagnated, but that there is unconventional technology, which is known since the 70s, called MHD, that allows to do things that seem incredible (Mach 8 silent planes (Aurora), Mach 2 torpedos (shqval), earthquake machines (Russian Pamir system). When one searches for details of these things, one discovers a whole technology area with nearly 0 media coverage. This technology links also to the skunk works of US military.
This is an area that conspiracy loons should explore and look into and not the Apollo hoax red herring (wink at Dave).

nobody said...


Never mind you as RSS weirdo (um... nothing wrong with that, it's just that you're the only one who does it) that link you gave me absolutely rocks. I've saved a bunch of it to desktop to read later. It looks very cool. And his wikipedia page. An interesting guy, huh?

The only complaint I'd make is: Bloody Frenchmen! Why can't they speak English? Don't they know French is a dead language and no one speaks it anymore? Oh wait, that's Italian. Still, there's a bunch of stuff I wanted to read there and couldn't.

Honestly mate, when you're a native English speaker you expect the world to fall at your feet and here he is lève droit! Zut!

gallier2 said...

I rss the blog's that are essential, you're the best writer on your side of the world.
As for JPP, the funny part is that I discovered his name in 2002 on teh Internet, but knew some of his eclectic work from my youth. He was at one time quite well published. He wrote a lot of fascinating articles for Science & Vie the oldest french scientific vulgarisatiobn publication in France (sidenote, I have some issues from the 30s and 40s and it's incredibly fascinating). He also published some programs for l'Ordinateur Individuel a computer magazine from the 80s that got me started as a computer programmer.
He fell out of grace, when he started to seriously talk about UFOs (I don't follow him on that subject but it's interesting anyhow) and to question authority in France CNRS hierarchy, military and so on. His cosmology and UFO work were then the rope with which to hang him.