What’s Dr. Judy Wood Doing On My List?

Dr. Judy Wood (multiple PH.ds) caused a major stir amongst those investigating 9/11 back in the late 2000s and continues to do so today. Her book, Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 is an in-depth forensic analysis of the events of that day and in my opinion exposes a relevant truth about how the WTC was destroyed. (The importance of that truth in the ‘big picture’ is another matter…)

However, Dr. Wood is on my list of likely limited hangouts and the more I look, the more certain I am that something is ‘very wrong’ with her. I should say right up front that this concept – of something being very wrong with someone – applies to one extent or another to everyone on my list (and others not mentioned). What I mean here is that either the person is a limited hangout (LH) or is severely ‘challenged,’ in some deep psychological sense. One or the other. Or both.

What I’m saying in the case of Dr. Wood and others — and in this post I refer especially to Andrew Johnson (of checktheevidence.com), who has supported everything Dr. Wood has come up with, ever, no matter how nonsensical – is that if I’m wrong about their LH status then the only other explanation for their behavior is a profound irrationality.

Inherent in this is a connection between ‘nonsense’ and the likelihood that the progenitor of the nonsense is either a LH or mentally challenged. Further, the nature of the nonsense will imply which category – ‘LH’ or ‘challenged’ – we are dealing with.

(To put it another way: When someone of above average intelligence spouts pure nonsense – stuff he/she should know better about – the most fruitful question one can ask in getting to the motive is cui bono, ‘Who benefits?’ This is especially true when the nonsense is somehow related to a crime or hoax of historical importance.)

I realize that the above may sound contradictory: Dr. Wood has exposed a truth about 9/11 yet I’m accusing her of being an agent of the state or nuts, one or the other. Or both. How could that be? And what’s with my preoccupation with ‘nonsense’? Hang in.

As I’ve said before, one of my methods of getting to an underlying truth amidst the ‘noise’ of mis-disinformation is to put myself in the place of the PTB and ‘plan’ for the future. An aspect of this is a summation of the results of any given ‘op,’ staged event, or propaganda program. When I say ‘summation’ I mean exactly that: what is the real result of some bit of business (big or small), once you’ve gotten past the ‘surface’ crapola? And is this real result good for my agenda as a psychopathic PTB planner?

So I asked myself, ‘What has been the real result of Dr. Judy Wood’s work (with the sycophantic support of Andrew Johnson)?

I read Dr. Wood’s book back in 2011, studied it, even; no small task given its technical aspects. I corresponded with her on her findings, and with Andrew Johnson too. There is no doubt about it: Any reasonable person would come away from the book agreeing that an advanced weapon, almost by definition of the ‘directed energy’ variety (whatever did it used energy that was ‘directed’), was used to destroy the WTC. But, according to Dr. Wood, that’s it.

That she insists that she has no theory at all is not only another example of utter nonsense, but proven so by the subtitle of her book, which in effect says, ‘Free-energy technology destroyed the WTC.’ These words do not delineate evidence but rather an explanation for the evidence, i.e., a theory. The theory is probably correct, but it’s still a theory. How could someone with all her Phd.s not know this?

But back to the important question: What do we… no, what does the world take away from Dr. Wood’s book? This:

Someone – call them the PTB – have a weapon that is capable of destruction on a mass scale, and at their will. (The likelihood that it’s space-based makes it even more intimidating.)

I put the above in italics and bold because it’s so important. Even if Dr. Wood is somehow incorrect about details – for example, how would she know that the weapon used free energy, as opposed to some other sort? – she has proven beyond doubt that some sort of advanced weapon ‘dustified’ some 80% of the millions of tons of steel, concrete, glass, and other materials that seemed to disappear that morning.

This might be a good time for you to view the video I made on an exchange between Dr. Wood and Prof. Jim Fetzer (another on my list), on a radio show a few years ago. One thing it does is demonstrate Dr. Wood’s refusal (after over a decade since the crime of 9/11) to even have an opinion on who perpetrated the crime – this in spite of the mountain of evidence unrelated to hers, which in fact points directly at 9/11 being ‘an inside job.’ (And as Prof Fetzer points out, if Dr. Wood has proven that a directed energy weapon (DEW) was used on 9/11, she’s all but proven U.S. government (and/or PTB) guilt. Yet she refuses to make this obvious – and tiny – leap of logic.)

The other reason for my subjecting you to the video is as an assessment of the degree and nature of the nonsense that Dr. Wood spouts. This is partially to show a peripheral result of Dr. Wood’s behavior: The creation of conflict among those who are (or who would seem to be) in pursuit of the truth behind 9/11. Please keep this in mind. Oh, and I’ll try to embed the video here:

So: All Dr. Wood has done (in the practical sense) is to do what (other?) limited hangouts, like, say, Edward Snowden, have done: Warn us (and everyone else) that we’re under even more dire threats than we thought. Snowden told us that everything we say or write is being monitored (which we already knew from Binney, Tice, and others). Dr. Wood is telling us of the possible consequences if we have ‘inappropriate’ thoughts, i.e., our asses can be dustified at the will of the PTB.

If someone can come up with other information gleaned from Dr. Wood’s book, I’m all ears.

The question, also, remains: Why would Dr. Wood spout the nonsense that she has no theory. (And why would Andrew Johnson agree with it, and continue to do so for a decade?) And what about the other piece of nonsense Prof. Fetzer mentioned, i.e., Dr. Wood’s claim that ‘Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic’? This chunk of balderdash is not only repeated in italics twice in her book, but is stamped on the hardback before you even get to the contents. (As Prof Fetzer points out, the last word here should be explain, not ‘mimic’ — quite a difference!)

This is a scientist who has observed an aspect of 9/11, i.e., that advanced technology was used that day. Yet according to her own oft-repeated words she has no theory and apparently has no idea what the terms ‘empirical evidence’ and ‘theory’ even mean. And of course, in 18 years she has never pointed a finger at anyone.

And she’s not finished. On page 8 right at the top: ‘We cannot determine who did it (9/11) until we determine what was even done and how it was done.’

Let’s think about this. Dr. Wood quite correctly labels 9/11 a crime, and as such treats the solving of it as one would with any crime, yet she makes this nonsensical claim (and repeats it elsewhere in the book). In point of fact: In solving a crime, murder, say, and convicting the perpetrator, not only is it not necessary to produce the murder weapon (or define, say, the make and caliber, if it’s a gun), but it’s not even necessary to provide a corpse. (Go here for a list of murder convictions with no corpse.) Sorry, Dr. Wood, but the above is still more nonsense.

For Doctor Judy Wood, the means by which the WTC were destroyed trumps all other matters in degree of importance, and will not even posit a hypothesis as who was behind the atrocity. Am I unreasonable in beginning to wonder just whose side she is on?

As mentioned, another result of Dr. Wood’s book (and many interviews) is the conflict over the possible use of thermite in the destruction of the WTC. This smacks of a concocted conflict, meant to distract ‘researchers’ (most of whom are LH, IMO) from the primary concern of who did it. Speaking of which, Prof Fetzer – after his initial support of Dr. Wood’s DEW theory – changed his mind and decided that ‘mini’ or ‘micro’-nukes were used to destroy the WTC. More yelling, name calling, and assorted crapola.

Between this irrelevant conflict and the Steven Jones & Co.’s nonsensical insistence that thermite alone was used, we have a real ‘9/11 Truth Shit Storm,’ i.e., a total misdirection from the single important point of the whole mess: WHO DID IT?

Do you know what the term ‘misdirection’ means, kids?

Maybe you’re getting the idea of why I’m claiming that virtually all the alt media are working for the other side?

But I digress…

Those of you who have watched Dr. Wood’s nonsensical performance in the above video, be advised that I myself was subjected to a similarly irrational rant by the good doctor on this very subject, when I wrote to her back in 2011. For space/attention span reasons I will try to sum it up succinctly.

One of the problems I had with Dr. Wood’s book was her absolute adamancy that no conventional explosives – and most emphatically, no thermite or nano-thermite (cutting charges) – were used in the destruction of the WTC. None whatsoever. This is repeated several times in the book and by Dr. Wood many times in subsequent interviews (available on Youtube).

This is still more nonsense and another eyebrow raiser. When I contacted Dr. Wood in 2011 the first thing I did was congratulate her for her spectacular work in proving that an advanced ‘directed energy’ weapon had destroyed the WTC. If you scan my emails you’ll find phrases like, ‘(your book is a) great work, a worldview changer’ and ‘thank you! i love it when someone forces me to re-evaluate my view of things’ and ‘again, thank you for your insight, courage and hard, hard work. as a book writer myself, i appreciate what went into producing WDTTG’ and ‘God bless you, kiddo’ and ‘keep up the good work’ and finally, ‘the more I study your work the more impressed I am at your insight and courage.’ (At that time I was less concerned with the nonsense I point out in this essay. The truth is that Dr. Wood had me fooled as well. Over the years, though, other possible agendas occurred to me.)

After my accolades I suggested she might be mistaken in her insistence that no thermite whatsoever was used on 9/11. I reminded her that active thermite particles were found in the dust – not just ‘thermitic materials’. (There was even a peer-reviewed physics paper saying this.) I was quick to point out that the destruction itself was not thermite-driven – in that she is 100% correct – but she had neglected to think of the bigger picture and how the operation would likely have been planned. In my email to her I wrote:

By initiating a collapse using thermite… and, possibly, some conventional explosives [such as the jet fuel explosions], the perps affected the misdirection needed… Once the towers began to ‘fall’, the dustification could commence; the destruction could then be blamed on the ‘structural failure’ of the infrastructure.

Again, please picture how the dustification would have appeared to take place, absent the initiation of a (thermite-caused) structural failure as misdirection. (end quote)

I also reminded her that since no planes had struck the towers (a conclusion she comes to in the book), the airplane-shaped holes had to have been cut somehow, and thermite would make sense here too. (Again, in saying that ‘no explosives’ at all were used that day she had apparently forgotten about the initial ‘jet fuel’ explosions.)

Aside from this thermite-caveat, which seemed quite reasonable, I had nothing but praise for Where Did the Towers Go? Yet here’s the bottom line of her reply:

It seems your goal is to find something wrong with my book — but you have continued to fail.  I can only question your motivation for this obsession.  At least you are not still trying to convince me that welding materials (thermite) cause dustification or that rivers of hot molten metal were flowing underwater without causing a steam explosion.  So maybe there may be hope for you yet. (end quote) [Note: I never said a word about thermite causing ‘dustification’ or rivers of molten metal causing a steam explosion. In fact, I said the reverse, i.e., that she was correct in her DEW ‘theory.’]

Talk about nonsense! And this nonsense had the added effect of pissing me off. But more importantly, I began to worry that something was… wrong… with Dr. Wood (I hadn’t thought of LH at that time).

It now occurs to me that Dr. Wood’s irrational response to my reasonable suggestions was part of her agenda of creating conflict/confusion among those looking for the real truth behind 9/11. Why else behave this way?

Here’s where Andrew Johnson comes in and how we re-connect with the MSF. But back in 2011 I wrote AJ to voice my concern over Dr. Wood. Why would she in effect insult me for pointing out a few details about thermite, in an otherwise rave review of her book? Here’s his response:

 I would say, it is impossible to prove thermite was NOT used in the destruction of the WTC. However, when this point is raised again, again and… again (by different people) it becomes rather tiresome to have to repeat the same points/observations over and over again.

If thermite was used, what does it have to do with Hurricane Erin being steered and cars being inverted near the WTC? Why is the discussion of the use of thermite “more important” than discussion of these 2 things for example? (end quote)

Still more nonsense. The first paragraph has nothing to do with me, and is inaccurate in that Dr. Wood has never (in her book nor in the many videos I’ve seen), dealt with thermite-as-misdirection and hole-cutting. She just denies it was used at all. And Andrew Johnson backs up this nonsense every time — as in this video from his website, which evades the issue of active thermite chips and the peer reviewed paper as well (see the accompanying image). And what do hurricanes and inverted cars have to do with anything I said?

It’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that – whatever is going on with Judy Wood – Andrew Johnson is eyeballs-deep in it.

To list all the nonsense in Dr. Wood’s book – and which I admit I didn’t notice upon my first read — would be tiresome in the extreme (to those who already find this essay tiresome, I apologize, but getting to the truth is often a laborious task). But one more example jumps out at me as I thumb through her tome: Her interest in the term conspiracy theory (as often as not, she italicizes it in her book). Like this beaut (page xxxiii):

‘By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.’ (her emphasis)

This bit of nonsense comes in the ‘Author’s Preface’ only a page or two after she leads off with her assurance that she doesn’t believe our government perpetrated 9/11. Now she’s in effect blackwashing any sort of conspiracy theory. Strange for someone doing a forensic investigation into a crime, no? I mean, obviously, it took more than one person to pull off 9/11 and obviously the crime was planned ahead… Right? Two or more people planning a crime is the fucking definition of ‘conspiracy’!

Ah, but I have forgotten something: Dr. Wood doesn’t know what a ‘theory’ is! So no wonder she waxed a bit confused of the definition of ‘conspiracy’ as well… One thing she did do though, in the first couple pages of her book, is make sure we all know that our government had nothing to do with 9/11, let alone via a conspiracy theory!

Anyway, soon after February 6th I emailed Johnson about the MSF (Musk Space Fraud), including my video links showing that the ‘car in space’ imagery was shot on earth in a studio. I did remind him of our previous communication, how I’d merely suggested that thermite might have been used in addition to the DEW Dr. Wood ‘theorizes’ (remember, she has no ‘theory’). His reply was, in its way, humorous in its consistency, starting with…

…I’d forgotten our previous exchange. There are so many folks who seem more interested in bombs and thermite and the possibility that they were used in the destruction of the WTC than they are interested in (a) weather control and (b) free energy tech that has been weaponised… If you respect my critical thinking skills, you have now, perhaps, worked out the significance of what Dr Wood and myself started talking about 10 years ago – and that it is true and it isn’t a theory or anything like that. [my emphasis] (end quote)

You gotta love the way Johnson assumes that I’ve smartened up over the years (his last sentence) and I must now know that suggesting Dr. Wood was wrong about thermite was… just plain foolish. And after all these years and in the face of pure logic and the meanings of words, he still insists that he and Dr. Wood have no theory – what he means by ‘or anything like that’ is up for grabs. You wanna talk about nonsense?

And how did it go with Johnson once we ‘straightened out’ my foolishness from 2011 and got down to the business of the MSF? Keep in mind that one of the reasons I contacted Johnson with my evidence of the MSF was the range of PTB frauds he covers on his website checktheevidence.com. You name it, he covers it. (Click the link and scan the page!) Yet when I finally asked him outright if he would deal with it on his site, this is his reply:

Thanks – the Musk fakery, or amount of same, is not something that is in the forefront of my mind really – for reasons already explained. [Meaning the use of a DEW on 9/11. After going on two decades, this is still number one on his list, notwithstanding how many other frauds he exposes just a click away from his front page.]

I agree with you that it’s relatively easy to fake – and they have an interest in doing this.

My main comment would be that however much of the launch is real/fake, it provides yet more convenient distraction from the “secret stuff..”

Andrew

Bottom line: Like the other 29 alt media ‘names’ on my list, Andrew Johnson wants nothing to do with exposing the MSF. He may be correct in his labeling it a distraction from the ‘secret stuff…’ but isn’t this in itself enough reason to raise a red flag, maybe alert the public? Nope.

And of course I got no reply whatsoever from Dr. Wood.

By the way, to those of you who demanded to know why Dr. Wood is on my Limited Hangout List: Be careful what you wish for…

I gotta tell you: This was not fun to write, and I cannot picture it being fun to read. (I’ll try to lighten up in future blogs.) Plus, try to find an alt media figure who would have something pleasant to say about my sorry ass. Good luck with that.

Good thing old Gus and I live on the road. A moving target and so forth…

Allan