9/11 Directed Energy Part 2

A weapon of war

Advocates of Judy Wood’s theory argue that she is the only person to bring a lawsuit against the government for the crimes of 9/11 but there have been many attempts at legal redress since four WTC widows known as the Jersey Girls first lobbied the US government to investigate the event. Ongoing cases include a demand for a Grand Jury to hear the evidence in the US, and the bereaved Campbell family’s request for new coroner’s report in the UK.

Wood’s lawsuit provoked concerns that it was, “designed to fail,” and that any future cases, “could be tainted by junk science and ideas that have no way of being tested, and thus, no way of being a viable hypothesis.” When her case was dismissed, 911blogger observed that a number of defendants, “now…have this dismissal to point to the next time some 9/11 Truth activists come calling in a New York District Court with a legal complaint alleging that something other than airplanes took down the Towers.”

Along with the misinterpretation of evidence that was considered in Part 1 of this essay, the suggested energy weapon was never specified, “resulting in a speculative theory devoid of substance.”

“Energy comes in a huge variety of forms: plasmas, nuclear, electric current, electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves, microwaves, laser beams, x-rays, etc.), ion & neutral particle beams, electron & proton beams, chemical reactions, kinetic energy weapons, etc.”

Clearly some form of weaponised energy was required to bring down the WTC.

Greg Jenkins finds that there are only two known types of directed energy beams, particle and photon. Both of these are ruled out for a variety of reasons, the simplest of which would be their accompanying optical effects, with particle beams necessitating driving dust and smoke particles out of the way, “like a gigantic wind,” that would have been seen and experienced outside the buildings. Proton beams would have to have been used in a low wavelength that was smaller than the cross section of the steel, but this would allow scattering from reflective surfaces such as aluminium and steel, resulting in severe heat damage in the area around the WTC, where, “Many people would have been vaporized, and others farther away from ground zero would have suffered severe burns. The tar in the streets would have melted. The stone façade in some of the surrounding buildings would have cracked and crumbled from the stress generated by the heat. The effects of large amounts of microwave energy randomly scattered about lower Manhattan would undoubtedly have been unambiguously observable in a variety of ways.”

Instead explosions sent body parts all over Ground Zero.

Jenkins finds that the notion of a photon beam being reflected from earth off a satellite “in orbit,” is not feasible as the momentum imparted would have sent that satellite spinning off into space at 60,000 mph, if the heat generated did not first destroy it. Heated air in the path of the beam would cause “optical distortions,” and, “a phenomenon in which the air becomes ionized along the path of a very intense laser beam…would most likely cause serious electrostatic discharge (resembling lightning bolts).” Needless to say, none of this was observed on 9/11.

Also problematic is that,

“the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.”

“The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power.”

When Jenkins asked what kind of energy weapon might have been used, Wood replied,

“Well let’s see… you put something in your microwave oven and leave it on there extra long and see what happens to it.”

Jenkins answered: “If you put metal in a microwave it will reflect off of it.”

Woods countered, “Hey! I’ve been trying a fork in there. I know you’re not supposed to, but I wanted someone else to do it, to see what happens.”

There is no known weapon capable of reducing the WTC to dust.

In support of her theory, Wood also cites the so-called “Miracle of Ladder 6,” the story of a group of fourteen people including twelve firefighters who survived the demolitions in Stairwell B of the North Tower, which was destroyed around them. Although seemingly miraculous this could be explained by explosives. If the demolition of the towers had ceased at any point part way through the process, the section beneath the exploded portion would have remained largely undamaged as the concrete above was pulverised and the steel beams were observably ejected laterally. A fortuitous combination of the factors of distance, direction and cover from the final explosions could allow for the possibility of survival. Stairwell B provides strong evidence that what occurred was not a gravitational collapse.

A similarly unlikely occurrence was observed prior to the demolitions, when a woman identified as Edna Cintron appeared in the cavity left by the plane in the North Tower. She, and others, were close enough to be trapped by the effects of the impact, explosion, and fire, but had somehow survived.

Another apparent anomaly to which Wood draws attention is the fall of a large steel beam that initially remained standing. In low quality footage this so-called ‘spire,’ appears to disintegrate, but in reality it fell leaving a trail of dust momentarily suspended in the air.

If the towers had been attacked by an energy beam what might we expect to have seen? We have a concept of the rapier-like effect of a laser beam but if there was another weapon capable of reducing the towers to dust, why then did they not fall as pillars of dust? Aside from the fact that they did not turn to dust, why instead did they explode outwards with such force that huge steel sections became impaled in neighbouring buildings?

How, if an energy beam was applied from orbit did the destruction begin part way down the towers without the beam first damaging higher floors? If the beam was fired from a lower elevation how did damage commence internally to permit the huge antenna to fall first? Why were explosions experienced and reported by at least 156 witnesses including 121 firefighters, of whom 32 used the term bombs?

Why does Wood disregard these accounts along with the loud explosions that were recorded on video?

Supposed advocates for 9/11 Truth given a high profile by the media, such as former wrestling actor Jesse Ventura and the Bush administration’s Morgan Reynolds, gained attention before discrediting the movement by propagating Wood’s contentions. James Fetzer, who had proved himself an agent of discord among researchers of JFK’s assassination, went on to smear and divide 9/11 scholars by adopting Wood’s ideas and then rejecting them. Wood and her theory’s proponents denigrate the work of Stephen Jones, a former, “professor of physics at Brigham Young University with a specialization in metal-catalyzed fusion,” who wrote evidence based papers with, “admirable clarity,” on the evidence for controlled demolition including extremely high temperatures. Jones also contributed to an unchallenged paper detailing evidence for thermitic material in the WTC dust.

Analysis did not reveal the WTC steel had turned to dust. Instead it found iron microspheres whose nano scale composition strongly indicated the presence of military nanothermite. These were discovered to amount to 5.87% of the dust in the RJ Lee study. Nanotubes were later found in the lung tissue of Ground Zero workers that were consistent with nanothermite. The first analysis by FEMA had uncovered evidence that a liquid eutectic was used to 'liquefy' the steel.

These findings can be added to other features of explosive demolition that were evident on 9/11. The fall of the towers look like known controlled demolitions. In a series of videos the explosions are clearly visible sequentially descending the towers.

Visibility 9/11 concluded that, “The DEW concept was not born out of scientific need. It was born out of an intent to discredit the thermite-based hypothesis, to date, the only hypothesis to exhibit any hard evidence to back it up.”

Jim Hoffman, one of the forefathers of 9/11 Truth, noted that,

“The single greatest strategy for keeping the truth of 9/11 concealed and propping up the official story, is to place false counter myths against it, have false theories that are identified with the entire body of work to the public about 9/11 Truth and therefore discredit that entire body of truth and prevent a genuine investigation into the crime.”

In describing the features of 9/11, Wood says the towers “went poof,” or “poof-y,” refers to the debris cloud as a “snowball,” molten iron as a “cheeto,” and uses the words, "fuzzyblobs," "fuzzball," "Jellification," "transmutation," "dustification," and, “ray beam." She may argue that she is comunicating with the layman but the layman is not a child and will be made to appear ridiculous by repeating these unscientific and frivolous terms.

The contentions Wood raises can be dismissed by careful consideration of the evidence. She has never corrected any of her claims and continues as though such evidence does not exist. It is notable that she also lent her support to the erroneous idea that no plane hit the WTC. A look into her background reveals that she was a teacher who received poor online reviews from students who also observed that she had been in a coma for six years. Set against her output of untruths, questions arise. Incompetence that tends in the favour of murderous tyranny is an excuse that has worn thin.

Given the wealth of considered study that disproves Wood’s beam weapon theory, the scholarship or intentions of those who continue to expound her unfounded theories are called into question.

We are schooled to be largely scientifically and historically illiterate, innumerate and naive, and this is exploited by those with malicious intent. There is a Directed Energy Weapon at work, but the weapon is nonsense and the energy being directed is ours.

Part 1 is here.