The Strange, Empty Void of 9/11 Victim Remains

by
Morgan Reynolds

September 11, 2016

 

Today is the 15th anniversary of 9/11 and guess what: our incurious media continue to ignore a forensic investigation about what really happened on that murderous morning in favor of implicitly defending the government’s totally false conspiracy fable.  Therefore the insight offered by mainstream media into 9/11 every year at this time is close to nil.  Their unwillingness to “cross the line” leaves the media little to talk about on each anniversary, so they offer us sentimental stories about the surviving family members of the victims of the 9/11 savagery.

WTC1 turns to dust on 9/11

WTC1 turns to dust on 9/11

Well, even cowardly coverage can be modestly useful if combined with some thought.  Take this piece by NPR: “Sept. 11 Families Face ‘Strange, Empty Void’ Without Victims’ Remains.”  Sally Regenhard whose son Christian was a firefighter who disappeared at the twin towers on 9/11 is quoted as saying: “You feel that it’s not real.  Your mind can’t accept the fact that this person died because there’s no evidence of it.”  According to the NPR account, death certificates for 1,113 victims have been issued without any remains received by their loved ones.

OK, why not check out other remains discovered after 9/11?  How many toilets would you guess were recovered from the twin towers?  It should have been a couple thousand from 220 floors of nearly an acre each.  And the correct answer is … none!  Zero.  Nada.  How many computers were recovered from these massive office buildings?  Once again, none.  Zero.  Nada.  How many file cabinets?  Answer: one steel case file cabinet.  Where did all the desks, chairs, carpet, phones and other building contents go?  “A strange, empty void” is right.  Human remains were just a part of all that was missing.

Why was so little recovered?  Answer: because most of the twin towers and their contents were “turned into a volcano of dust”  (p. 3 WDTTG).  And it was fine dust, an incredible turn of events, as fine as DNA.  The buildings did not “fall” or “collapse,” they dissolved into dust, including most of the twin tower steel.   Hence, the rubble pile was hardly higher than the lobby level.  The amount of steel barely covered the ground.  In truth, there was no “pile” as Dr. Judy Wood points out (p. 176 WDTTG).  Ask yourself, where were the 110 stories that should have been stacked up from each tower if they had just  “collapsed.”  Did not happen.  Not in evidence.  The towers basically dissolved into enormous dust clouds.

Why can’t people trust the evidence of their senses?  Why can’t they think for themselves?  Why trust authority figures and their lies that openly contradict facts right in front of our faces?  Lots of possibilities here but government schools pop into mind first.  Looks like we need to think like a child to see that the emperor has no clothes.  Still, it boggles my mind that so many adults accept political lies from politicians and media.  Superb perception management defeats common sense again I guess.  To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, “It is not a matter of what is true but what is perceived as true that matters.”

You want more on this issue?  Read some of my other articles about 9/11 on this site.  But most of all read Dr. Judy Wood’s exhaustive treatise, Where Did the Towers Go?

 

 

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Strange, Empty Void of 9/11 Victim Remains

  1. onebornfree says:

    pharenheit451 said :”If you don’t know what forensic science is, then there is no hope for you to understand how this crime or any other crime is solved.”

    And if _you_ know what forensic science actually is, as you appear to be claiming, then, for the second time of asking, [and assuming you _have_ read her book], please kindly list/detail all of the specific photo-forensic methodologies Wood has used to determine the authenticity of even one of the tower demolition photos she has used in her book to reach her conclusions to date.

    “Go ahead, make my day.” I’m “all ears” 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

    • http://s191.photobucket.com/user/AmandaReconwith/media/Groupthink-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=46

      Some individuals that post here seem to be victims of the “dumbing down” of our culture and why it’s so easy for “the crew” to pull off a psyop of this magnitude. A hallmark characteristic of the dumbed down is a confusion between “evidence” and “theory.”

      Another characteristic of the dumbed down is the belief they can evaluate a book they have never read. They also fail to question why they have been convinced by someone else not to read it. Instead, they just memorize the list of talking points they were given and strongly urged not to think independently. So of course they don’t realize just how easy it is to control and entire population by discouraging independent thought. When belief is preferred over fact, anything can be covered up. And all that is needed is a community organizer to issue people their opinions and a conditioned response. Another name for this is brainwashing. How else can someone be so convinced that “the answer is 27” when they don’t even know what the question is?

      onebornfree clearly demonstrates that problem solving abilities are almost non-existent. The powers of suggestion have made this individual a believer, not a thinker. I wonder why onebornfree thinks that the 14+ people emerging from Stairway B forgot they were crushed and forgot they were blown up and forgot they were cooked to death. I wonder why he thinks that Bible artifact doesn’t have burned pages even though it has solidified former “molten metal” on it? That is, the molten metal that flowed across the pages of the Bible artifact had to be cold (cold liquid) or else the pages would have burned or had burn marks!🙂 ?

      ♥The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11♥

      https://redice.tv/news/the-miracle-of-directed-energy-technology-on-9-11

      “When life gives you cold leftover mashed potatoes, you make potato pancakes!”😉

      • onebornfree says:

        phahrenheit451 said : [loosely translated] : “yaddah yaddah, yaddah, blah, blah, blah..”

        And so, for the _THIRD_ time of asking [ of _any_ J. Wood acolyte here] 🙂 :

        please kindly list/detail all of the specific photo-forensic methodologies Wood has used to determine the authenticity of even _one_ of the tower demolition photos she has used in her book to reach her conclusions to date. [For example, the one used on the cover of her book; i.e. the exact same one reproduced above in this particular blog post.]

        ….and phahrenheit451, please, either “put up or shut up” . You got nuthin’ kiddo, [ not even the brain you were born with apparently]

        And so it goes…. 🙂

        Regards, onebornfree.

  2. onebornfree says:

    E. Goldstein said : “Jason Erb reminds me of Jeremy Rys, a 34-year-old two time felon living at home with mommy and daddy whose opinion is meaningless and irrelevant….how sad.”

    Pardon me for asking, but WTF has Jason Erb got to do with anything?

    I appeared twice on his show a couple of years ago, but so what?

    Is this an attempted character smear via association?

    But I’ve also been on the racist john Friend’s radio show. [Again, so what?]

    Or am I missing your point entirely? If you even have one , apart from: ” J. Wood] is a real forensic scientist” – when in reality she is nothing of the sort.

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

    • Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? and get back to me. Life is too short to deal with the likes of people who wish to wallow in ignorance. If you know so much, and you know how it was done, and whodunit… You must also certainly know the ties that the perpetrators have with each other, as well as their ties to the handful of men who have been running this country covertly since its inception. Which would also mean that you have a pretty good idea about the power these people wield, how much of the nation and its resources and governance they own, how many atrocities they have engaged in, how many millions (perhaps billions) they have murdered… Which in turn would mean that you have a pretty darn good understanding of how the American Empire functions, and how 9/11 was not, and will not be the first and last atrocious act of murder and deception it has engaged in…So, what exactly are you doing here, spending hours quibbling with people and calling them names over some trivial bits of irrelevant technical specs of the way the towers were turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground? What are you trying to achieve?

      • onebornfree says:

        pharenheit451 said: “Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? and get back to me” .

        Sorry, ain’t gonna happen, Wood [like S.Jones, Fetzer, Hall etc. ] is either a deliberate fraud or a nincompoop, as far as I can see.

        If you have read it, why don’t you describe for me/us all here the _exact_ commonly used forensic science procedure[s] she used to “authenticate” all of the photos she has relied on to support her D.E.W. demo theory, including the spectacular shot used for the cover of her book?

        If not you, someone else please, who has read her book.

        Thanks in advance🙂 .
        Regards, onebornfree

        • If you don’t know what forensic science is, then there is no hope for you to understand how this crime or any other crime is solved. Should you be found dead and your death is ruled a homicide by gunshot, the forensic pathologist better find a bullet hole in your corpse.

          Here are ways to cover up Dr. Wood’s research:

          1.) Create and promote unscientific alternate forms of destruction.

          2.) Promote her research and then find fault with it.

          3.) Make personal attacks against her character.

          4.) Marginalize her research and call it “voodoo science”.

          5.) Promote her research but misquote her and run it into the ditch.

          6.) Ignore her research and evidence then call it a “theory”.

          7.) Say that you have read her book and find fault with it when you never did read her book.

          8.) Create other faux groups like the “Sandy Hook Hoaxers” to keep people from asking the right questions and looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This also creates distrust in our government and people that ask questions. If our government was responsible for 9/11, our government is the only way to reverse the damage it has caused. Anarchy is not the answer.

  3. draco says:

    Also recall that, minimally, “hundreds of human body parts and remains” were contained within the debris carted off to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island. Not all of it was ‘vaporized’; visible chunks of bone flesh still remained, yet this material was immediately used to create filler for potholes and other construction work around the city:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/nyregion/24remains.html?_r=0

    In 2006, 74 human bone chunks were found in the rooftop gravel of condemned Deutsche Bank, which once sat right next to and some 800 ft below the Towers. The chief medical examiner’s office claims 9,000 unidentified fragments were recovered from the attack site:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/pieces-of-bone-are-found-on-building-at-911-site.html

    Although 9,000+ small bone fragments might only represent a handful of individual skeletons it could also stem from a huge amount. It is clear that minimal effort was put into effectively sifting through the debris to find all possible human remains. This, rather than complete pulverization of the towers, is more to blame. Remember how 50,000 tons of “mangled” steel were still in good enough shape to sell to China: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-01-27/news/0201270268_1_metal-management-world-trade-center-shanghai-baosteel

    • Thank you draco for bringing up this point. This evidence helps confirm that people were ejected from the building by some energy field within the building and were not “dustified” completely. You must consider all of the evidence, not some of the evidence.

  4. onebornfree says:

    Janice said: “My conclusion is that none of these groups is a psyop. They cannot agree on some aspects of 9/11 due to some intellectual errors, lack of technical expertise, pride, fallacious thinking, etc., not because some of them are government shills….”

    Janice, the ongoing entirely childish squabble argument over nuclear demolition versus energy weapons, is irrelevant – a distraction, and complete waste of everyone’s time.

    Fact: both sides ceaselessly argue over imagery that neither side has ever even attempted to closely, seriously analyze!

    Ironically the fact of the matter is that if they knew _what_ to analyze [big hint: the original on-line archived “live”footage of the 5 US MSM networks] , and they knew _how_ to analyze it, and _what_ specifically to look for; and assuming they were also mentally capable of putting aside their own pre-biases, they would almost inevitably discover that the “live” collapse footage that nearly all of their conclusions to date depend on so heavily is 100% fake, and was therefor created [that is, prefabricated on computer], _before_ 9/11, and then falsely broadcast as “live footage on 9/11.

    _All_ of it [ i.e _all “plane into tower” sequences, all tower “collapse” sequences , + all post strike Pentagon footage].

    Regardless, WTF difference does it make whether it’s one demolition method or the other? The WTC complex [ 7 buildings in all] was entirely demolished on 9/11, and “that’s all she wrote”.

    The fact that the two largest main groups of 9/11 er, “truthers” are engaged in this never ending, mindless, childish, pointless little squabble points to two distinct possibilities:

    1] The main spokes-persons for these groups are paid for “controlled opposition” devoted to “muddying the waters” and ongoing distraction. [ Luckily for them most 9/11 “truthers” are extremely gullible, and very easy to lead/distract🙂 ].

    2] They are just innocent persons ignorant of fundamental scientific methodology and choose to ignore it almost completely . [apart from it’s occasional half-hearted implementation to make them look good, perhaps.]

    I personally have no idea which of these two choices represents the truth of the matter.

    Most of the members of http://www.septemberclues.info appear to believe that the two squabbling groups belong to choice [1] above, and I sympathize with their conclusion, although I cannot at this time prove to my own standards that that is in fact the case, although I do unashamedly lean that way at this point in time.

    Regards, your resident “nihilist”🙂 onebornfreeatyahoo.

    • “My conclusion is that none of these groups is a psyop. They cannot agree on some aspects of 9/11 due to some intellectual errors, lack of technical expertise, pride, fallacious thinking, etc., not because some of them are government shills….”

      Jason Erb, who is speaking from the prison of his mind, does not recognize THE ONLY QUALIFIED SCIENTIST WHO HAS PUBLISHED THE ONLY FORENSIC STUDY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DEALING WITH THE EVENTS OF 9/11 at the WTC complex. He wants us to be believers and not thinkers. Anyone who has read Dr. Wood’s book already knows that she is presenting the evidence and leaving it up to the reader to decide. The evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and indisputable. Dr. Wood is not calling for a new investigation because she has done it already from a collection of ALL THE EVIDENCE to reach a conclusion that rules out all other forms of destruction. Dr. Wood does not have a pet “theory” and then cherry pick the evidence to support it and ignore the rest that doesn’t. Richard Gage is admitting that he and his group are not qualified to perform an investigation because they are calling for a new investigation into the destruction.

      • onebornfree says:

        Emmanuel Goldstein said : “THE ONLY QUALIFIED SCIENTIST WHO HAS PUBLISHED THE ONLY FORENSIC STUDY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DEALING WITH THE EVENTS OF 9/11 at the WTC complex. He wants us to be believers and not thinkers. Anyone who has read Dr. Wood’s book ……”

        Wood is no scientist, and certainly no forensic scientist, as you attempt to imply.

        I guess I should not be surprised that so many here, as elsewhere, are so intent on entirely and willfully ignoring _the_ fundamental tenet of all forensic science , to whit: to try to establish beyond a reasonable doubt, that alleged, or so-called, evidence of a crime , [e.g. videos and photos] is genuine or not , _before_ ever attempting to hypothesize what probably did , and did not, happen on 9/11.

        Wood has never done this [like practically all other 9/11 researchers] because :

        1] She thinks it is not necessary to closely analyze/compare the original broadcast footage . Meaning : she is methodologically inept.

        2] She does not have a clue what to look for in the first place [[like most other researchers]. 🙂

        The _only_ researcher to date who has ever gone to the trouble of closely, thoroughly analyzing ALL of the ORIGINAL “LIVE” BROADCAST FOOTAGE is Simon Shack:

        See: 1] “The “Plane Crash” Animation Sequences” :
        http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.shtml

        2] “The “WTC Collapse” Animation Sequences” :
        http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

        3] “Pentagon & Shanksville ” :
        http://www.septemberclues.info/pentagon_shanksville.shtml

        And so it goes……..Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

        • Jason Erb reminds me of Jeremy Rys, a 34-year-old two time felon living at home with mommy and daddy whose opinion is meaningless and irrelevant….how sad.

          At 10:23 p.m., Jeremy Rys, 1 Cherry St., was put in custody on an arrest warrant. Police went to his home at 9:15 p.m., and his family said he was not home. Police received a call from Rys who said he forgot his phone charger when he went to work, and will call his probation officer in the morning. Dispatch called probation who asked for Rys to be picked up by police.

          And the seasons they go round and round
          And the painted ponies go up and down
          We’re captive on the carousel of time
          We can’t return we can only look
          Behind from where we came
          And go round and round and round
          In the circle game
          ~Roberta Joan “Joni” Mitchell

    • janice says:

      Onebornfree, I appreciate the response, but you did not tell me anything I did not already know about you and September Cluers🙂

    • onebornfree says:

      onebornfree said : “Ironically the fact of the matter is that if they knew _what_ to analyze [big hint: the original on-line archived “live”footage of the 5 US MSM networks] , and they knew _how_ to analyze it, and _what_ specifically to look for; and assuming they were also mentally capable of putting aside their own pre-biases, they would almost inevitably discover that the “live” collapse footage that nearly all of their conclusions to date depend on so heavily, is 100% fake, and was therefor created [that is, prefabricated on computer], _before_ 9/11, and then falsely broadcast as “live footage on 9/11. _All_ of it [ i.e _all “plane into tower” sequences, all tower “collapse” sequences , + all post strike Pentagon footage].”

      If interested in my above provocative assertions, please see:

      1] “The “Plane Crash” Animation Sequences” :
      http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.shtml

      2] “The “WTC Collapse” Animation Sequences” :
      http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

      3] “Pentagon & Shanksville ” :
      http://www.septemberclues.info/pentagon_shanksville.shtml

      Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

  5. janice says:

    As someone who has read Judy Wood’s book and studied the September Clues movies and forum, not to mention nuclear hypothesis and controlled demolition evidence, I can say the following. (I also have read articles on Onebornfree’s website.) None of these groups offers complete 100% error-free truth of the events. I will list advantages and disadvantages of each group, as I see them (I have a Ph.D. and a background in biomedical sciences).

    First and foremost, at least some members of each group accuse the other groups of being government’s disinformation agents. Thus, we have four large groups (nanothermite, directed energy weapons [DEWs], Fetzer/mininukes, and September Clues), and each of them accuses the other three of being psyops. This is ridiculous, IMO, and doesn’t make sense. The Pentagon, CIA, etc., are not going to create a psyop that blames the U.S. military for staging 9/11 in order to cover up some minute detail of the event, such as whether broadcast videos were partially faked or completely faked or what kind of weapon was used to destroy WTC1 and WTC2. My conclusion is that none of these groups is a psyop. They cannot agree on some aspects of 9/11 due to some intellectual errors, lack of technical expertise, pride, fallacious thinking, etc., not because some of them are government shills.
    Each of the four groups offers some good information and some bad information.

    1) Drs. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds seem to be closer to the truth regarding the planes and the mechanism of destruction, and they use the most scientific approach. They also took legal action. Kudos. But, they ignore or reject valid evidence that does not fit their version of events. Judy Wood chooses to ignore all evidence of explosions in WTC1 and WTC2, because it contradicts her preferred almost silent mode of destruction, dustification. It should be noted that there are numerous witness accounts and audio recordings where loud explosions can be heard at the start of each collapse. Judy Wood completely rejects any involvement of conventional explosives and nanothermite on 9/11 as a so-called “kitchen sink” argument. Yet there is hard evidence of both. Her position is unjustified, for example, nanothermite could have been used to create the airplane impact holes, and conventional explosives could have been employed to knock out the sprinkler system before the destruction. Judy Wood’s book presenting the case for directed energy weapons “Where did the towers go?” (WDTTG) is expensive: approximately $50.
    Dr. Reynolds seems to reject video fakery of planes and prefers holograms, despite rock-solid evidence of video fakery. IMO, both holograms and video fakery could have been used. Alternatively, there were no holograms, only a missile resembling a small plane, with subsequent abundant video and audio fakery by the perps. Richard Hall’s video analysis of supposedly “all” Flight 175 videos is incomplete and provides incorrect conclusions.

    Richard Hall’s conclusion that all videos of flight 175 crash are probably authentic and agree on the trajectory, and therefore show some kind of hologram or other visual trick created by a missile SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT, as demonstrated by Onebornfree’s analysis of the Hezarkhani video:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.ru/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html
    and Simon Shack’s analysis of trajectories of the last 7 seconds of Flight 175 in different videos (dive bomber in some videos, and a straight almost horizontal line in others)
    and this excellent 2-minute video by a less known researcher demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Hezarkhani video is fake:

    To sum up, the weight of evidence suggests that the majority or perhaps all known videos of Flight 175 crash are fakes, i.e., they are not authentic videos of a magic trick such as a hologram. There is perhaps only one authentic video of the South Tower explosion, which shows an approaching round object much smaller than a plane; or it could be fake too. Regardless of the details of the no-plane theory, Dr. Reynolds was the first to provide a logical and science-based explanation to the effect that no planes were used on 911, period. In addition, thanks to his website, I stopped believing in the Apollo Moon landings.

    2) Nanothermite (Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth). This group talks about Building 7 a lot and is a good introduction into the reality of 9/11. I would not have given up my belief in the official version of 9/11 if I had started with any other 911 truth group. Why? Because the truth of no planes and exotic directed energy weapons is too extreme compared to the official lies, which constitute “common-sense” reality for most people. The leap of faith from the official version to no planes is too big and would not work for me (and perhaps for many others). Building 7, however, is easy to see and understand. This 911 truth group also explains convincingly that WTC1 and WTC2 could not have collapsed at free-fall speed and could not have collapsed completely. This group also features the work of David Ray Griffin, the grandfather of 9/11 truth. The disadvantages of A&E911 is that they reject DEWs, they believe in 9/11 planes, and they push nanothermite, which has no explosive capacity and could not blow a building apart. Some of them believe that certain conventional explosives perhaps were used to destroy WTC, but the problem is that conventional explosives (or nukes or thermite) cannot turn a building into fine dust. On the positive side, they have valid evidence of loud explosions during and before collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. Some of these people also talk about perpetrators and blame the CIA and DOD for staging 911.

    3) James Fetzer and nukes. On the positive side, he agrees *at present* that videos of the 9/11 planes were faked or perhaps holograms were videotaped. No planes were used on 911 at all. Good. This group talks about possible perpetrators, DOD, CIA, Mossad (not sure about the last one). Dr. Fetzer had a falling out with Drs. Reynolds and Wood and decided to come up with own theory of WTC destruction: mini- or micronuclear bombs. This theory is supported by even less evidence than nanothermite. Here are the arguments against nukes’ being used for destruction of WTC:
    a) Nukes turn solid objects into hot plasma (ionized gas) at the temperature of millions of degrees Celsius.
    b) Nukes do not turn solid objects into cold dust.
    c) Nukes generate a lot of light; thousands of times more light than the blindingly bright thermite; no flashes of light were seen during the destruction of WTC.
    d) The electromagnetic pulse produced by one nuke would disable all the other nukes if they are to be used in a sequence (as mentioned in the book WDTTG).
    e) Nukes would have produced a lot more radiation as compared to the negligible traces that were reported by the USGS at ground zero (as mentioned in the book WDTTG).
    f) Nukes cannot be directed upward as James Fetzer claims; nukes would have destroyed the WTC “bathtub” because they produce a spherical shockwave, causing destruction in all directions.
    In other words, mininuclear bombs could not have been used to destroy WTC; the nuclear theory is wrong. The traces of radiation agree well with a DEW not a nuclear weapon. On the plus side, James Fetzer provides good convincing evidence of other hoaxes, such as Boston Marathon Bombing, Moon Landing, Zapruder film, and Sandy Hook. To sum up, this 9/11 truth group offers some good and logical explanations, but also some bad theories.

    4) Simon Shack, Onebornfree and September Clues fans. I will list advantages first. Solid evidence that videos and audio recordings of 9/11 planes are fake. Good evidence that all the so-called corporate media are controlled by the military-industrial complex or are in cahoots with the government. Excellent evidence that many if not most of 9/11 victims are unreal, the most staggering finding being that the ~3000 deaths are not supported by the Social Security Death Index. It is possible that the real number of victims was 10-fold smaller. The 9/11 perps had every possible motive to exaggerate the number of victims.
    Disadvantages of the September Clues group: their attempts to explain WTC collapse videos as fake are not convincing. Some proof that they invoke regarding video and photo fakery is simply incorrect and is the result of lack of technical expertise in this area or fallacious thinking. The propensity to accuse other 911 groups and truthers of being paid government disinfo agents and shills is probably most pronounced in this group. This behavior looks immature at best. The September Clues group also rejects all solid physical and scientific evidence presented by Judy Wood as faked by the government, and they consider Dr. Wood a fraud and a shill. This attitude seems to be the result of a lack of formal education in hard sciences. Ace Baker is not in this group, but expanded some of the work from September Clues on video compositing. His movie, “911 – The Great American Psy-Opera,” presents some solid well-explained evidence of video fakery of 9/11 planes. Unfortunately, Ace Baker is an advocate of the nuclear hypothesis of WTC destruction (see above).

    • “Wood chooses to ignore all evidence of explosions in WTC1 and WTC2” Everything that goes “boom” is not a bomb. Dr. Wood does address this in her book so maybe you need to go back and study the evidence, or lack of evidence for any destruction attributed to KEW. You are steering her research into the mud and making up confusing issues where none exist. How sad ;-(

  6. onebornfree says:

    Again, nice job with the 100% fake photo that adorns this article, I must say, Mr Reynolds [not that you were responsible for creating it].

    Whoever manufactured this work of art on their computer did a pretty impressive job, even leaving [as always] some subtle clues as to it being a digitally created fake [e.g. sunlight/shadows in opposite directions in some areas, faces in the smoke etc. etc.].

    I guess he/she [its composer] innately understood that the vast majority would never ever even question its authenticity, despite the visual clues they had left, and would instead just swallow it “hook line and sinker” as genuine and move on to their own particular grand 9/11 theory :

    ” oooh look, vewwy big explosion! must be [gasp!] noooowkler!” , or: ” ” oooh look, vewwy big explosion! must be [tah-dah!] DIRECT ENERGI WEPPONZ – Christ am I intelligent or wot?”

    Question for everyone:

    so what will be the next grand 9/11 demolition theory that is [unscientifically] based on the presumed genuineness of what is in fact, an entirely prefabricated imagery pool of those days events?

    I can’t wait for the fights to begin – so pass the popcorn.

    regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

    • Prove it’s fake. Prove anything in Dr. Wood’s book is fake. You got nuthin’. In fact, you’re all about nihilism. More on that in a moment.
      We have a multitude of photos from many individuals showing the transformation of each 500,000 ton tower turning to fine powder, plus satellite photos, plus live TV coverage, plus videos, plus the testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses in lower Manhattan at the scene, most running for their lives at the time. Dr. Wood interviewed some of the photographers. Then we have the seismic data, undamaged bathtub, Aerosol studies of the micron-sized particles, the 14 survivors from stairwell B right in the center of WTC1, the north wall of WTC1 still standing yet it would have been crushed in a “collapse,” the virtual absence of the sound of “collapsing” steel and other materials, an “impossibly” light debris field, etc., etc. It’s all in WDTTG. Evidence.
      To quote philosopher Leonard Peikoff, bornfree is one of the modernist intellectuals who are “comparable to a psychopath who murders for kicks. They seek the thrill of the new; and the new, to them, is the negative. The new is obliteration, obliteration of the essential in every field; they have no interest in anything to take its place…indeterminacy as the new physics, incompleteness as the revelation in mathematics–a void everywhere that was acclaimed by the avant-garde with a metaphysical chuckle…the unknowable, the unreachable, the unendurable.” Reality? What is that? Existence doesn’t exist, it’s all fake. The evidence of our senses? Reason? All humbug in the “born free” universe.

      • onebornfree says:

        M. Reynolds said :”Prove it’s fake. Prove anything in Dr. Wood’s book is fake”

        Mr Reynolds, a video sequence or photo is either genuine or fake. One or t’other. Correct?

        Therefor, it/they cannot be immediately elevated to the status of reliable evidence and then used to formulate a “what really happened” hypothesis _until_ it/they have first been thoroughly tested and compared to other videos/photos to see if it is in fact genuine [or fake]. At least not by any genuine, honest scientist.

        Surely?

        The scientific method demands [ at least in the case of _serious_ 9/11 research🙂 ], that any/all alleged evidence [e.g. videos/photos] must first be confirmed to be genuine, that is, _before_ any tentative hypothesis is made, or conclusions reached about what did/did not happen.

        Does Ms Wood and yourself really, seriously believe that interviewing a few photographers who claimed to have taken a certain photo series or video is in any way sufficient testing/screening of any particular 9/11 video or photo ? Surely you jest!

        As tennis pro John McEnroe used to yell at line judges: “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!”

        Neither yourself, nor herself, appears to have _ANY_ skill in detailed imagery analysis.

        Why don’t you both just admit it and then perhaps try to learn about the types of visual clues to fakery that are literally littered all over the 9/11 visual record?

        Why is it that 99% of the 9/11 “truth movement”, including _all_ those claiming a scientific background, entirely ignore the crucial, first , image verification process, as do 99% of their followers, including apparently, yourself and others here, and instead move on to issue their super grandiose 9/11 theory as “fact”?

        Beats me.

        To throw your own words back at you “You got nuthin’” . Same applies to Ms Wood. All you have is a highly speculative tower collapse theory based almost entirely on 100% faked imagery.

        Regards , onebornfreeatyahoo

        p.s. I’m _very_ familiar with with the state-loving, warmongering , Israel-supporting psuedo -philosopher scumbag Peikoff. I was reading his B.S. 25-30 years ago in “The Intellectual Activist”. Only a loser would now quote him with a straight face, “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!”🙂 ]

        See:”Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video “: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html

  7. onebornfree says:

    @ Emmanuel Goldstein :

    Oh, fer gawds sake, the J. Wood fraud and the A. Johnson fraud both being seriously promoted in the same post as serious 9/11 researchers?

    What a loser you are !! [good name though- I’ll give you that] .
    Highly entertaining- keep it up🙂 [Where’s my popcorn?]

    Regards, onebornfree

  8. onebornfree says:

    Dear Mr Reynolds, most , if not all of the alleged 9/11 victims appear to be fakes, that is, wholly fake persons with fake bios and faked [Photoshopped] portrait photos who never existed in the real world.

    To this day, the vast majority of them have never even been listed in the US Social Security death index.

    See : http://www.dailyrepublic.com/usworld/why-are-3000-victims-of-911-missing-from-social-security-death-list/

    The most complete and thorough research to date on the fabricated 9/11 victim list can be downloaded here:
    http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.shtml

    See also: “Were Real Persons Murdered on 9/11?”:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/29/were-real-persons-murdered-on-911/

    But not only were the victims faked. So were the all of the videos/photos of the plane crashes, and of the tower collapses themselves, which means that the famous, dramatic photo you use to head this article is also a fake [despite “scientist”J. Wood’s use of it].

    But seeing as how all of the to-this-day released imagery of those events is fake, you didn’t really have any choice if you wanted to use a nice, dramatic 9/11 photo for your article, now did you ?🙂

    And so it goes.

    Regards, onebornfree.

  9. Ab Irato says:

    Google search “vicsims report”.

  10. Anthony Calagna says:

    Once again you just throw out some dumb statement hoping it will stick. There is a reason no one listens to Mr. Reynolds and his website—it is his lack of critical thinking. I am sure that with computer simulation any computer wiz could reenact the forces involved in what transpired when those towers collapsed. And then the results would be analysed. I am sure that experiment has been done and guess what??? I would BET that all the toilets would be totally destroyed in that computer model too—except of course the one Mr. Reynolds sits on which is his desk.

    • “Once again you just throw out some dumb statement hoping it will stick.”

      Oh really? By your dumb statement I can tell that you have never read the ONLY scientific forensic report dealing with the events of 9/11 at the WTC complex.

      ” There is a reason no one listens to Mr. Reynolds and his website—it is his lack of critical thinking.”

      On the contrary, Mr. Calagna has demonstrated that he is a believer and not a thinker.

      “I am sure that with computer simulation any computer wiz could reenact the forces involved in what transpired when those towers collapsed.”

      The is nothing to calculate in forensic science. Either the evidence is there or it isn’t. The towers did not collapse, they turned into fine dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.

      “I would BET that all the toilets would be totally destroyed in that computer model too—except of course the one Mr. Reynolds sits on which is his desk.”

      Too bad you are not interested in the truth and would rather defame someones character. How sad. ;-(

      • Anthony Calagna says:

        The NIST REport was not the only scientific study on how and why those towers collapsed. Have you read Bazant: “What Did and Did NOT cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in NYC” Which was a study—performed by the Dept of Civil & Environmental Engineering of Northwestern University—published in the “Journal of Engineering and Mechanics” 2008. I have read BOTH NIST and BAZANT. BOTH are scientific and detailed. Where is your study? Where is your evidence to back the claims you make? No where to be found. All you have is some silly non sense about toilets and towers turning into fine dust in mid-air. That is the difference between SCIENCE and FOOLISHNESS.

    • Lack of critical thinking? Gee, so I embarrassed myself? Guess I should quit, embrace the official 9/11 story and stop pretending I can successfully exercise my brain. Before that happens though I want you to model the following facts with any kind of conventional method of destruction you like: “With a pancake ‘collapse’ or with an explosion, as we’ve said, a building is reduced to chunks that for the most part remain recognizable–items, for example, such as toilet fixtures. In the case of the WTC, however, not a single toilet fixture or even a recognizable portion of one was found anywhere in the buildings’ remains. The two towers alone in all likelihood contained something near the number of 3,000 toilet fixtures. Not a single trace of any of them was found. The truth is that WTC1 was gone.” WDTTG, pp. 174-5. As I wrote about toilets, computers, etc.: None! Zero. Nada.

      • Anthony Calagna says:

        Here is the difference between “blindly embracing a theory” AND “critical thinking” No one is asking you to “park your brain” and blindly follow a theory. You claim that with a pancake collapse or explosion, items are recognizable in the debris. Have we ever had such a collapse as we had on 9/11? That is the difference. We are not talking about a car crash or house fire where we can reasonably determine the EXPECTED outcome. I can explain the lack of recognizable debris at the towers after 9/11 but I feel I would be wasting my time. You are the one who is blindly following a template and refusing to exercise your brain. Maybe you can give me your reasons why no toilets were found. You seem to think that the only way this is possible is that the entire core of the building would have to be eliminated? Your “science” does not add up

        • It appears that Mr. Calagna is not interested in the truth and finds the distortion of truth more comforting. Mr. Calagna is a believer and not a thinker. How sad😦

          “Wherever a man commits a crime, God finds a witness. Every secret crime has its reporter.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

          9/11 Finding The Truth by Andrew Johnson – Audiobook

          THE DIRECTED ENERGY COVER-UP TEAM

          Other examples of Directed Energy (not necessarily used as a weapon) are radio waves, cell phone signals, TV remote control signals, wireless internet signals…etc.

          Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave in California (available in the internet archives*), telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

          At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

          In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

          Early on, Dr. Steven Jones created a website he called “The Journal of Nine Eleven Studies” or J.O.N.E.S. It is referred to as a “peer-reviewed journal” but the only peer-reviewing was to screen out true scientific work and post what he wanted his followers to believe. For the first two years, it was primarily used to promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work. For example, Jones recruited a patent attorney for the oil and gas industry (James Gourley**) to write hit pieces on Dr. Wood, refuting “ray beams from outer space.” This convinced his readers that “Judy Woods” must be talking about “ray beams from outer space” and that “such nonsense has been refuted.” Refuting false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work does not refute Dr. Wood’s work — yet it creates the belief in the average person that Dr. Wood’s work has been refuted.

          Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL Steven Jones used to ridicule Dr. Wood during his talks saying that “Judy Woods needs to make calculations to see if it is even possible to turn the buildings to dust”. But any reputable scientist knows that calculations are not a part of observing empirical evidence. What are the calculations for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence.

          The bottom line is that no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book nor can they. They only refute their own false propaganda about her book, not her book. Other detractors claim that “she hasn’t identified the weapon that was used so she’s got nothing.” To the contrary. The evidence is PROOF that there exists a technology that can do what was done. It happened. That is, the fact that the buildings mostly turned to dust in mid-air shows that there exists a weapon that can turn buildings into dust in mid-air. It happened.

          The sub-title of the book, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” indicates that the book contains evidence of what happened on 9/11 and it is indeed evidence that a technology exists that can do what was done. But this technology does not have to be used for evil purposes. It can be used to provide free-energy to the world much to the demise of the oil and gas industry. That is, Dr. Wood is noting that the same technology that was used for evil can also be used for good. It’s a silver lining in the dark cloud… while also trying to stimulate thought about “what are we doing here? learning new ways to kill or to live”?

          If you are worthy and willing to know the truth Mr. Calagna, read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? as I have over 5½ years ago. ♥

          A TODDLERS GUIDE TO 9/11 PART ONE

          A TODDLERS GUIDE TO 9/11 PART TWO

          IRREFUTABLE

          “When fascism came to America, Liberty was wrapped in the flag now carrying a cross”.

        • Thanks for your contribution Emmanuel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s