Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sun

17

Apr

2011

Where Did The Towers Go? - Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11 – Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D.
Sunday, 17 April 2011 05:32
by Eric Larsen Ph.D.

What a complete, unmitigated disaster 9/11 and the ten awful years following it have been—ten years of murder, crime, lawlessness, deceit, stupidity, and blindness that are only now meliorated, at long last, by the publication of Dr. Judy Wood’s unique, revelatory, and unequivocally welcome book, Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.

Allow me to make full disclosure now, so that those (and, believe me, there are many) who will choose not to read further can quit right away and save time.

I, me, Eric Larsen, wrote the Foreword to Dr. Wood’s book. I wrote it partly because I have known for many years about Dr. Wood’s research; partly because I have followed the website that Dr. Wood has maintained (http://www.drjudywood.com/); and partly because I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to write that Foreword.

It wasn’t just an opportunity but a high honor. To give an idea of how great an honor it was, here is the first line of what I wrote:

The book you now hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-first century.

Let me go further and quote the two sentences also , since the same obligation pertains now as did when I wrote themthe obligation for me to explain why I said so unqualified a thing and what I meant by it. Here’s what I meant, and still do:

Where Did the Towers Go? is a work, assuming that its content and message are properly and fairly heeded, that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.

As everyone knows, 9/11 has been “the justification and starting point” for all manner of destruction, loss, crime, and horror. Without 9/11, there would have been no “Patriot Act,” no abuse of FISA and stripping away of privacy rights, no Military Commissions Act of 2006 with its setting aside of Habeas Corpus, no implementation of Northcom and deployment of our own military forces on domestic American soil (for use against who, you might ask?), and no trashing of Bill of Rights and Constitutional guarantees, no programmatic and precedent-setting weakening and eliminating of right and guarantees so that the very concepts of “citizenship” and “freedom” have been emptied out to the point where setting up concentration camps inside the U.S. is now legal and not a one of us would have any recourse whatsoever if it were decided that we should be thrown into a cell in one of them and forgotten forever.[1]

Without 9/11, there would never have been any fake and opportunistic “Global War on Terror,” would never have been Guantanamo as we know it now, never have been official programs of torture or fake demonizing of Islam in order to justify wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, or to justify overt plans for the murder of U.S. citizens living in places like, say, Yemen.

There’s more, much more. The complete list of atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities triggered by or justified by 9/11 could fill whole chapters, even books. By using 9/11 as propaganda—by using it as trigger, excuse, justification, or catalyst—the U.S. has betrayed itself, its principles, and its people, and has made itself the world’s most dangerous enemy of all mankind and also of Earth herself.

How can it conceivably be, given these facts, that we, a nation of people who presumably have minds of our own—how can it be that we have done nothing to stop this hideous parade of monstrosities and horrors? In the Foreword to Dr. Wood’s book, I wrote:

It is now almost a decade since 9/11 took place, and in all that time no unassailable, permanent, or, in pragmatic terms, politically influential progress has been made in determining exactly and irrefutably what took place on that day—or what did not take place.

We—that is, we the potential resistance or opposition to U.S. criminal policy—have been spinning our wheels for a complete decade. There are a lot of reasons for this wheel-spinning, including various programs of very skillful and extraordinarily devious cover-up after cover-up after cover-up of the central question of what did happen on 9/11. For, as long as that central question remains unanswered, or for as long as that question can be caused to remain obfuscated, blurred, muddled-up, in doubt—as long as that situation continues, the wheels will continue to spin and people won’t quite know what to do. Dr. Wood is very well aware of this fact. Her own way of putting it is that before accusing someone of a crime, you’ve got to know what crime they committed. In her Author’s Preface, she writes:

You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it.

 
That kind of clear, cool, commonsense logic is rare among the many who for ten years have talked a very great deal about 9/11, although it’s obvious that in Dr. Wood such good sense resides in abundance. Here’s the opening of her Author’s Preface:

For the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01—nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of belief [Dr. Wood’s emphasis]. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.

Yes. To say that George did not do X hardly means that Al did do X. Even worse is to imagine that someone’s belief that George did or didn’t do X has any necessary relationship to the truth or the fact of the matter at all. Dr. Wood will have none of this substitution of “belief” for “thinking.” She is a scientist, and a very highly educated one, with “a B.S. in Civil Engineering, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science” (again from my Foreword). Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.
 

This means also that in undertaking a “forensic study of the evidence” left behind after the 9/11 disaster, if that study is to be scientifically valid, the researcher must analyze and study not some of the available evidence, not most of the available evidence, but all of the available evidence.

To my knowledge, no one other than Dr. Wood has done this. She alone has persisted unflaggingly in her study of all available concrete, empirical evidence, has assiduously avoided any and all argument about 9/11 that may be based on politics, desire, belief, emotion, or pre-set theory but instead has stuck indefatigably, solely—and, I must say, courageously—with the gathering of and the forensic analysis of all the evidence left behind after the 9/11 events.

No wonder it has taken Dr. Wood a considerable time to complete her enormous task of, first, finding and gathering every last shred of available evidence, then of organizing her findings, and after that preparing the entirety in book form—in a volume of 500 pages that contains not just the exhaustive primary text itself but many, many hundreds of photographs, maps, drawings, graphs, charts, illustrations, explanatory passages, not to mention powerfully relevant—and revelatory—historical scientific background material (chapter 17, “the Tesla-Hutchison effect”) and even a “Glossary and Supplemental Information” section that includes, among much else, the terms Dr. Wood has invented or adapted in order to describe in as connotation-free a way as possible the unusual and unfamiliar phenomena she has observed—words like “Cheetos,” “Donuts,” “Lather,” “Fuzzballs,” “Sillystring,” “Toasted Cars,” “Weird Fires”—but that also includes highly technical plates and charts such as “Melting and Boiling Temperatures for Selected Elements” and “Tritium Values,” these being relevant to Dr. Wood’s discussion of the molecular dissociation of materials that, as she proves, took place during the apparently chaotic but in actuality diabolically precise destruction that took place on 9/11.

What emerges, for the reader, from all of this? What emerges is a lucid, clear, riveting, thorough, spell-binding, page-turning, eye-opening description and analysis of that terrible day—Dr. Wood has referred to it as the “new Hiroshima”—when the fearsomely destructive power of directed-energy in weaponized form was demonstrated to the world, and when, at the same time and however bitterly and ironically, the liberating promise of free energy as a means by which both Earth and all humanity might be saved from certain destruction was also demonstrated for everyone in the world to see.

2

And just what, then, will readers find upon buying, opening, and reading Where Did the Towers Go? They will find an immensely informative, engaging, detailed, thorough, and humane portrayal of the events of 9/11. They will find the telling of a calamitous, hideous, and horrifying story that, thanks to the clear eye and conscientious mind (and enormous heart) of the teller, is made a testament of homage to all those who suffered and died while at the same time remaining a scientific and forensic descriptive analysis of what actually happened that day: That day when directed-energy weaponry was brought to bear on the World Trade Center buildings, destroying them completely while at the same time leaving almost no rubble, producing no high temperatures of the kind conventionally associated with explosives on the one hand or molten materials on the other, and leaving behind a surreal aftermath of tumbled and overturned firetrucks, scorched cars, missing engine blocks, hundreds of thousands of sheets of unburned office paper floating down to rest, still unburned, amidst flames that have little or no heat of the kind that is produced by oxidization, and an absence of the seismic shock that would be expected from “collapse” at free-fall speed of buildings weighing many hundreds of thousands of tons, including the North Tower, South Tower, World Trade Center Seven, and other WTC buildings that underwent destruction.

In the story of 9/11 as told by Dr. Wood, everything is observed, analyzed, and evaluated for exactly what it is, and therefore almost nothing is the way we have been told it was. Readers will find for themselves Dr. Wood’s proof that the extremely minimal amount of rubble (the hurried shipping of mass amounts of steel to China is a falsehood and red herring) left behind after the disappearance of the towers indicates that the vast tonnage of these enormous buildings never did reach the ground but instead, through a process of molecular dissociation (Glossary: “Molecules separate or even repel each other”), the buildings’ mass was turned to dust in a shorter time than would have been required for that same mass, in solid form, to have reached earth.

The seismic evidence, fastidiously laid out for the reader in prose, charts, graphs, and maps, shows the same reality: Even were WTC1 and WTC2 actually to have “collapsed” at free-fall speed (a speed that physics proves unattainable but that’s used by Dr. Wood for argument’s sake), they would have required a minimum of ten seconds for that process to be completed, whereas no seismic signal from weight hitting the ground exists for more than eight seconds, while in the case of the 47-story WTC7, which disappeared with equivalent speed, there is even less seismic disturbance recorded, bordering on none.

Dr. Wood is a highly gifted observer of multitudinous varieties of evidence—manifestations of evidence that she looks at for what they are, not for what others may have suggested, said, hinted, or believed they are. Here are the opening five sentences of Dr. Wood’s Introduction:

On 9/11, I realized that what was being seen and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. I remember watching the TV in the faculty conference room. The TV kept playing the same film over and over, showing what appeared to be a building unraveling like a sweater. I had never seen a building unravel like a sweater, and I tried to imagine what was going on that might make it look that way. Certainly the time it took the building to go away did not make sense.

This is the same independent, thoughtful observer who has studied literally thousands upon thousands of images from 9/11, noticing things that others might miss entirely. On the broad expanse of ground zero, for example, “believed” to have had a lake of molten steel underneath it, Dr. Wood notices rubber hoses lying around, and puddles of water, the hoses not melting, the water not boiling or even steaming. Workers are seen walking around on this same expanse—and they are not being cooked like fricassees.

Again and again, Dr. Wood looks at images and finds in them revelatory and notable details. In “Weird Fires” (Chapter 13), most of us see flaming vehicles, but Dr. Wood notices, just above the “fire,” a tree with green leaves that are un-burnt, unaffected, un-scorched, and unseared, another indication that this “fire” or these “flames” were without high heat. In “Toasted Cars” (Chapter 11), most of us see only the dreadfully scorched interior of an automobile, but Dr. Wood notices the un-“burnt” window-trim. Or most of us see only the “toasted interior of car 2723,” not noticing the curious fact of the many small circular holes that have been created in the metal floor of the car, almost like holes caused by birdshot, but similar in shape to the curiously circular holes in the broken window-glass of buildings across the street from WTC1 And WTC2.

Time and time and time again Dr. Wood sees things for us that are right in front of our eyes but unnoticed. Among the most moving examples of this gifted vision may be Dr. Wood’s seeing more than the rest of us do in the images of “jumpers” from WTC1 and WTC2 before those buildings “went away.” This is in the book’s third chapter, called “The ‘Jumpers’” and sub-titled “It Was Like Raining People.” It opens this way:

Among the most horrific images from 9/11 is that of “The Falling Man,” who came to represent the many people who fell to their death that day. These people are often referred to as “jumpers,” but did they all, in fact, jump? And if they did, why did they do it? Once again, the question requires a closer look and examination.

Dr. Wood continues:

Looking at these images can be difficult. It was too difficult for me until I realized that these people are communicating to us. They want us to hear them and they want their stories told. Once I realized this, I could not look away, for I had made them a promise to look at what they were trying to tell us. In this chapter I attempt to fulfill my promise to them.

And fulfill that promise indeed she does. This chapter of Where Did the Towers Go? should be reprinted in every journal, magazine, and newspaper across the country and throughout the world, so immense is its sensitivity, so humane its sympathy, and so extraordinary its descriptive power. Many of the “jumpers,” Dr. Wood observes, seem to be trying to take off their clothes, sometimes even as they are already in free-fall toward the street below. It may be, she suggests, that they are in a reflexive reaction against a pain comparable to that experienced by inadvertently placing one’s hand on a hot burner. One’s response in that case is instinctive and wholly involuntary, like people’s responses when they are hit by “active denial” micro-wave weaponry, which may quite possibly have been akin to the “directed energy” force those in the towers were being subjected to when they became what we now call “jumpers.”

Dr. Wood, however, never does and never will make any conclusion regarding the “jumpers” or anything else that’s in excess of what the empirical evidence simultaneously causes and allows her to make. A prominent motif in the book is the statement that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic,” said by Dr. Wood to have been “A powerful statement by someone who has taught me well.”

Certainly so. Dr. Wood makes no assertion beyond what the available evidence can cause or allow her to make—and yet her observations about the jumpers are among the most intensely fascinating and moving sections of a book that, throughout, will surprise readers by its poignancy and emotional power, all the while impeccably honoring the strictness and necessity of its scientific, forensic, empirical method.

3

It’s not easy to close a discussion of a book as rich, broad, significant, timely, and revelatory as Where Did the Towers Go? The range of research reflected in the book is immense, the power of its conclusions equally so. Dr. Wood does nothing less than show us that a source of power—power reaped from energy already existing in the world around us, what is called “free energy”—does indeed exist, has a long scientific history, and can be used either for monumentally destructive purposes, as it was on 9/11, or for peaceful, non-polluting, life-enhancing and earth-preserving purposes of the kind envisioned by one of its earliest interpreters, Nikola Tesla (1856-1943).

Probably nothing has resulted in more calumny, derision, misrepresentation, and programmatic smearing of Dr. Wood than this central element of her research. Even the ever-dubious Wikipedia gets in on the act, declaring that “in pseudoscience” the term “free energy,” as in the phrase “free energy suppression,” refers to “a conspiracy theory that advanced energy technologies are being suppressed by special interest groups.”

Every intelligent, attentive, and open-minded reader of Dr. Wood’s paradigm-changing book, however, will quickly discover that Wikipedia and those akin to it are the tendentious and devious pretenders, while Dr. Wood brings to this part of her subject the open eyes and mind, the objectivity and steadiness of view, not to mention the courage, that mark her here as being, once again, the true, observing scientist.

One of the most commanding sections of Where Did the Towers Go? is its seventeenth chapter, “The Tesla-Hutchison Effect.” The thoroughness and clarity of that chapter, the immense detail of it, not to mention its close analysis of enormous numbers of pieces of evidence—these characteristics, along with the historical background that the chapter provides, make it the foundation stone for every other part of Where Did the Towers Go?

I won’t duplicate the entire argument of the Tesla-Hutchison chapter, or summarize it, or even try to. The case is there for all who are interested—for everyone—to see. The observable evidence is there, examples both of the curious results achieved by the Canadian experimenter and researcher himself—John Hutchison, for whom the effect is named—and examples of the great number of parallel results that are observable in materials left behind after the destruction of 9/11. Dr. Wood assembles and organizes these examples, and then she guides the reader through descriptive explanations of what her eye saw but that the reader’s eye may have missed: The close detail, for example, of fissured metal, peeled beams, or materials ruptured from the inside.

In Table 15, on page 349, Dr. Wood provides a list of “Characteristics of the Hutchison Effect and the WTC remains.” I won’t re-create the whole list, but, among others, it contains the following:

Slow Bending of Metals, Shredded Metal Structures, Fractured Metal Structures, Peeling appearance, Fusion of Dissimilar Materials, Thinning and Rapid Aging, Lift or Disruption, Toasted-Looking Metal, Circular holes in material, Rounded Holes in Glass, Lather, Fuming, Transmutation, Weird Fires, Melting Without Heat, Metal Luminance Without Heat

For reasons doubtless best known to them, those who have placed themselves in opposition to Dr. Wood’s research and work—and now in some cases in opposition to the unmolested public circulation of Where Did the Towers Go?—have often chosen this segment aspect of her studies as a target for smear and calumniation. John Hutchison, perhaps because he holds no academic affiliation, has been attacked as a quack and showman, although if such were really the case I find it curious why the military both of Canada and the U.S. would have shown such interest in his work as they have or why researchers would have attempted—sometimes successfully—to repeat his experiments.

The suppression of breakthroughs in the exploration and mastery of free energy has a long history, beginning with Nikola Tesla himself, whose transmitting tower in Shoreham, New York, built (1901-1905) with financial support from J. P. Morgan, “was planned to be the first broadcast system, transmitting both signals and power without wires to any point on the globe” (http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm). The effort ended poorly. “Because of a dispute between Morgan and Tesla as to the final use of the tower. . . Morgan withdrew his funds. The financier’s classic comment was, ‘If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?’” (same source)

Near the same time as the construction of Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Laboratory and transmitting tower on Long Island, George Piggott, in his own laboratory, achieved the levitation of small silver balls (Where Did the Towers Go? p. 352), while Edward Leedskalnin, “a Latvian emigrant. . . known for his unusual understanding of the interaction between magnetism and gravity,”

single-handedly built the home he called Coral Castle, in Florida City, cutting and moving limestone pieces weighing up to 35 tons using simple tools and a chain hoist that could not in “real” terms support such a load. (Where Did the Towers Go? .p. 352)

In 1953, another inventor and experimenter, Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985), proposed that a consortium of major universities and research institutes join together in what was to be called “Project Winterhaven,” the purpose being to continue “Research on the Control of Gravitation.” “In exploring the ‘electro-gravitic couple,’ Brown had already brought about the levitation of materials in his own experimentation, but he was convinced there was much more to be learned about the process he had begun to control,” a process that he “felt certain. . . would make possible enormous advances not only in communication but also and more notably in propulsion.” In his proposal for the project, he wrote:

It is believed by the sponsors of Project WINTERHAVEN that the technical development of the electrogravitic reaction would usher in a new age of speed and power and of revolutionary new methods of transportation and communication. Theoretical considerations would predict that. . . top limits of speed may be raised far beyond those of jet propulsion or rocket drive, with possibilities eventually of approaching the speed of light in “free space.” The motor which may be forthcoming will be essentially soundless, vibrationless and heatless. (Where Did the Towers Go?, pp. 355-356)

It is impossible for any reader today, especially one who was also alive in 1953, in the time of the newly-accelerating and ever-accelerating corporatizing of America, to be surprised that so promising an exploration of a non-polluting and renewable energy source as Project Winterhaven represented would in fact have come to no fruition, or that Thomas Townsend Brown would have ended his life in relative obscurity.

Oil-for-profit interests ruled and reigned in 1953, just as we all know they still do—providing reason for scientists, writers, and researchers like Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison to be maligned, sidelined, and made ignorable by smokescreen, trickery, and deceit. And yet at the same time as the Earth-rapists’ do all they can to kill off public awareness of free energy and to smear and tamp down socially-conscious research into it, there are others who are ever so eager to find out everything they can about it and to carry on secret programs of research into it. Who? Well, the militaries of the world, for one.

And so we have the schizoid situation of seeing, on the one hand, organized calumniation and programs of deceit aimed at figures like Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison for exploring the free-energy tradition of Nikola Tesla, while, on the other hand, we have the demonstration, on 9/11, for all the world to see, of just exactly how horrendously destructive weaponized forms of directed free-energy can be.

The inescapable conclusion is that those who are dictators and controllers of the world have galloped ahead in their work of weaponizing free energy while those seeking, in the tradition of Tesla, to explore the benefits of free energy for humanity are ridiculed, silenced, and persecuted.

It is time to bring this piece of writing to an end. It is time for a conclusion. And I conclude that any intelligent, interested, and open-minded reader of Where Did the Towers Go? will come away from the experience of that reading with something of extraordinary value. Another passage from my Foreword:

Those who read Dr. Wood’s book fairly, openly, and thoroughly will take away with them the gift of knowing once and for all what happened on 9/11. They will take away the gift of knowing that they have at last been shown the truth clearly and plainly, no matter how different this truth may be from what they have been told for many years by supposedly higher authorities, from the government itself on through newspapers, journalists, progressive radio programs and commentators, even figures from the “9/11 truth movement.” Dr. Wood’s book will give all those who read it carefully a solid foundation for the courage to believe not what they may have been told by one authority or another on any level and for many years, but to believe instead what their own minds, their own eyes, and their own reason tell them: That is, scientific truth as revealed through close forensic study of all of the evidence that has been left behind. As Dr. Wood says again and again, she arrives at truth through the study of evidence. The truth is not what anyone, no matter who they are, might say it is. To the place where the evidence leads, and to that place alone—that is where the truth is.

Readers of Dr. Wood’s book will see for themselves evidence of levitation (overturned firetrucks and automobiles, testimony from people again and again that they were lifted up, transported thirty feet or sixty feet, then let down again); will see for themselves evidence of the absence of heat on 9/11 (unburned paper; the EMS worker whose coat, sneakers, and hair caught on fire as she ran but who had no injuries beyond bumps and bruises the next morning); evidence of molecular dissociation (automobile engine blocks simply missing); evidence of the alteration, including the liquification, of materials without the heating of materials (writes Dr. Wood: “Things that are hot glow, but not everything that glows is hot”); and evidence again and again that the weight of the WTC buildings never did hit the ground (the reinforced cement “bathtub” that ringed the below-water-level WTC complex remained almost entirely unharmed—and yet after 9/11 the mere rolling over it of heavy machinery endangered the integrity of the cement ring, this while the unimaginable “weight” of all the great towers had not harmed it).

The examples are immense in number and in impact, as readers will find. Again, from my Foreword:

Let us make a list of the things that Dr. Wood proves in Where Did the Towers Go?—proves not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever:

1) That the “official” or “government” explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is, scientifically, false through and through.

2) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by heat generated from burning jet fuel or from the conventional “burning” of any other substance or substances.

3) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by mini-nuclear weaponry.

4) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by conventional explosives of any kind, be they TNT, C4 or RDX, nor were they destroyed by welding materials such as thermite, thermate, or “nano-thermite.”

5) That there was in fact no high heat at all involved either in bringing about the destruction of the buildings or generated by the destruction of them.

And yet once more:

And now let us turn to what Dr. Wood proves beyond any reasonable doubt.

She proves that the kinds of evidence left behind after the destruction—including “fires” that emit no heat and have no apparent source (“Weird Fires”); glowing steel beams and molten metal, neither of them emitting high heat; the levitation and flipping of extremely heavy objects, including automobiles and other vehicles; patterns of scorching that cannothave been caused by conventional “fire” (“Toasted Cars”); the sudden exploding of objects, people, vehicles, and steel tanks; the near-complete absence of rubble after the towers’ destruction, but instead the presence of entire buildings’-worth of dust, both airborne and heavier-than-air (“Dustification”)—Dr. Wood proves that these and other kinds of evidence cannot have been created by conventional oxygen-fed fire, by conventional explosives, or by nuclear fission. At the same time, however, she shows that all of them are in keeping with the patterns and traits of directed-energy power, of force-fields directed into interference with one another in ways following the scientific logic of Nikola Tesla’s thought and experimentation—and in ways also paralleling the work of contemporary Canadian scientist and experimenter John Hutchison, who, following Tesla’s lead, has for many years produced again and again and again “the Hutchison effect,” creating results that include weird fires (having no apparent fuel); the bending, splintering, or fissuring of bars and rods of heavy metal; the coring-out, from inside, of thick metal rods; and the repeated levitationof objects.

4

There are important things that I haven’t mentioned—the presence and bizarre behavior of Hurricane Erin offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in the days preceding 9/11 and on the day itself (why didn’t news and weather reports so much as mention the presence of this massive, Category 3 hurricane just offshore?); the recording of thunder at all three of the major NYC airports on 9/11, a clear-blue-skied day of “perfect” weather; the presence of an enormous high-pressure cell approaching the New York City area from the west; the dramatic fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field at key moments in the destruction of the WTC buildings, as recorded by six Alaskan magnetometer data sites.

Dr. Wood’s book is of an almost indescribable importance. Her research has been denigrated and accused as incomplete, and now her book is being denigrated and accused as incomplete, for failure to identify (and, as Dr. Wood says, “give the serial number of”) the precise, specific, exact “weapon” that was used on 9/11 “as well as the social security numbers of all who were involved.” But as Dr. Wood writes,

Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic. I have repeated this statement several times in this book because its importance cannot be over emphasized. In today’s culture of over simplification and standardized multiple-choice testing, many have an impulse to name a known technology (e.g. thermite, TNT, RDX, nukes, progressive collapse, HAARP, scalar weapons, torsion physics, Nazi Bell, etc.) instead of looking at the evidence that the use of one technology or another has left behind. …

Some people feel they are being more scientificwhen they use the name of a known technology to describe unknown phenomena, but the opposite is true. Such an approach omits evidence that does not fit any known technology. For some people, the term “HAARP” or the term “scalar weapons” or the term “Nazi Bell” is used as a catch-all weapon that can be blamed for whatever evidence needs to be explained, like the ultimate “boogieman,” and without their even knowing what these weapons can do. Furthermore, if the full capabilities are classified information, they would not be publicly known. And a weapon that could produce all of the effects we saw on 9/11 would certainly not be in the public domain, no matter whose weapon it was. For these reasons, I have tried to focus on the phenomena, not on a trendy name of a particular technology. The evidence must come before the theory. It is understanding what the technology can do that matters, not the name of it. For these reasons, I have resisted the impulse to name a known technology and instead have focused on the physical evidence. There will likely be those who will not be as successful in resisting the impulse to put a name of a known technology on the producer of this evidence. This naming, however, will only serve to pull a veil of mystery over it.

Clearly, we have been lied to for an entire decade in regard to the truth of 9/11. Just as clearly, the “9/11 truth movement” has revealed itself to be as much a part of the cover-up as it is of anything else. At the same time, knowing what really did happen on 9/11 is the only way—is the essential first step—toward any significant taking of positions or any significant political action.

9/11 was an enormity—an event greater in its importance and in the vastness of its result than was the sinking of the Maine, than were the manipulations that brought about Pearl Harbor, or than were the falsifications that led to the Tonkin Bay Resolution. 9/11 was the faked “attack” that “justified” the “Global War on Terror,” that “justified” the demonization of Islam, that “justified” war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere, and that “justified” the reduction of the United States from a free republic into a police state, albeit, perhaps, not yet an entirely realized one.

I wrote that “Where Did the Towers Go? is a work, assuming that its content and message are properly and fairly heeded, that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.”

In our world, science and politics may be inextricable from one another. Dr. Judy Wood has shown us, scientifically, the full extent and the obscene measure of the enormous lie that was 9/11. It is now up to all of us to study the lesson she has offered us, since without having learned that lesson, it will not be possible to know how to take the next steps toward the freeing of humanity from the half-visible tyranny that now marches it toward its destruction.

Emeritus professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, Eric Larsen is founding Publisher and Editor of The Oliver Arts & Open Press. His most recent book is The Skull of Yorick: The Emptiness of American Thinking at a Time of Grave Peril—Studies in the Cover-up of 9/11.



[1] “Consider where we’ve come. Torture is legal. The stripping of habeas corpus is legal, not just for outlanders but for citizens. With the Bushiscti’s change of the Insurrection Act, and with that change’s attendant weakening of Posse Comitatus—Treblinka would now be legal in America. Treblinka is now legal in America.” From my book, The Skull of Yorick, chapter 4, “The Aftermath of the Great Crime of 9/11: America Aids in the Staging of its Own Murder,” page 24 (from The Oliver Arts & Open Press).

 
More from this author:
Full Disclosure or A Memoir by Reed Whittemore (8269 Hits)
by Eric Larsen Someone in authority should probably pass a law immediately prohibiting a person like me — or not like me, but me — from...
How The English Language, The President Of Princeton University, And “Victimology Studies” Are Related To The New American Police State (7886 Hits)
by Dr. Eric Larsen The lively press disappeared along with its independence in the media concentration engineered during the Clinton ...
What Would it be Like to be Amy Goodman? Food for Thought 12, Part I (10202 Hits)
by Eric Larsen FOOD FOR THOUGHT Number 12, Part I (NEW SERIES—2007) WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE TO BE AMY GOODMAN? Dear Eric, Please ...
Food For Thought - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (6726 Hits)
by Eric Larsen Food For Thought - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (Number 13, Part 1) Today the US media...
FOOD FOR THOUGHT Number 13, Part 2 - The Pernicious Hypocrisy Of Frank Rich Of The New York Times (7848 Hits)
by Eric Larsen The corporate media today have become, collectively, less a vehicle of information than of mind control. —Peter Dale Scott,...
Related Articles:
War in Heaven: Woodward's Book and the Establishment Insurgency (13209 Hits)
Bob Woodward has long been the voice of the American Establishment – or of certain quadrants of it, at any rate. When Richard Nixon's...
James Petras' New Book: The Power of Israel in the United States - Book Review by Stephen Lendman (24366 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman James Petras is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He's a noted academic figure on the US...
It's Election Eve, Do You Know Where Your Country Is? (8009 Hits)
by Frank Lindorff When you go into the voting booth tomorrow, here are a few things you need to think about. First of all, this is not a...
Eva Golinger - Bush vs. Chavez - Book Review by Stephen Lendman (14343 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Eva Golinger's eagerly awaited new book is now out - but only for those able to read and understand Spanish as it's not ...
Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar's New Book: Perilous Power - Book Review by Stephen Lendman (12175 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Noam Chomsky needs no introduction. He's MIT Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics and a leading anti-war critic and...
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

Andrew Johnson said:

0
At last, a review is posted!
Thanks to Eric Larsen for this excellent review - I do hope people will explore the evidence for themselves in Dr Wood's unparalleled collection of amazing detailed research. If you've heard bad things about any of this, please just look at the evidence and decide for yourself what is there. It's extremely important.
 
April 17, 2011
Votes: +1

Kenneth MacQueen said:

0
past-president of various educational organizations, mostly degree-granting
"Clearly, we have been lied to for an entire decade in regard to the truth of 9/11. Just as clearly, the “9/11 truth movement” has revealed itself to be as much a part of the cover-up as it is of anything else." The first sentence is obviously true. The second obviously inane. Like any movement it will be uneven, but it attempts to do exactly what Wood does (and they use her research along with much, much more) to try to get behind the superficial and the false. This kind of trite comment leads to mutual undermining of seroius people.
 
December 25, 2011
Votes: +1

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top