What Alternative Knowledge Researchers and Figures have said Have Said About 9/11

I collated this set of audio links into an e-mail for someone recently. I thought it may make an interesting posting. Here are what some prominent 9/11 and “Alternative Researchers” have said about 9/11. What they haven’t said, typically, is anything about the evidence presented in this video tinyurl.com/911key

I find this most enlightening.

[Edit:] Of those people below who make disparaging remarks about Dr Judy Wood or the evidence she has collected (see www.wheredidthetower…), consider why those people, generally do not “attack” or disparage Richard Gage (AE911), Kevin Barrett or Steven E Jones. Many seem quite comfortable to talk about Thermite, Nukes or whatever in relation to 9-11, but apparently they can’t find Dr Judy Wood’s email address!)

 
You may find these clips interesting (all are pretty short – seconds long in some cases):
 
 
This is also interesting:

Also this page:

Remember Griffin’s friend, Richard Falk – a CFR member – wrote the foreword to one of Griffin’s books.

The other audio clips I mentioned re Begich, Hoagland and Wilcock are below

Mr Begich supported the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001! Mr Begich and I were both speakers at the BEM 2012 conference in Hilversum, Netherlands. He was present during Dr Judy Wood’s presentation about the destruction of the WTC at this same conference. Therefore, when an opportunity arose for me to ask him about his support of the bombing of Afghanistan in 2006, I needed to ask him if he had changed his mind about what happened on 911. He agreed that “a lot of information had been brought forward.” The rest of his response is below.

I have a very different viewpoint of warfare, alright, and a lot of people find it very objectionable probably in this room. But this is my view of it. I didn’t support either one of those wars as a way of solving the problem. But if a country is going to go to war – and we just spent trillions of dollars going into debt over these two wars –  my view is, if you go to war and you really feel justified and that’s the  decision that’s made  – annihilate them, but don’t rebuild them. I believe that  and I know a lot of people find that objectionable, but if we really feel that’s justified teach them a lesson and don’t do it twice. We’re in debt up to my eyeballs we’re about to destroy the entire world’s economy over two wars we probably shouldn’t have been in in the first place.  Because we spent trillions and trillions and way too much time interfering with people’s sovereignty. [If] people want a theocracy, let them have it. If they want a democracy, let them have it. If they want socialism let em have it. Stay in your own boundaries self-determine your own government and let’s all have enough respect to let people do that. And that’s our problem we interfere with everybody’s government and the right to self-determination and that’s really what it’s about. I may not agree with somebody doing something next door but if they’re within their boundaries, let them have their own revolution. We had one – everybody else has too. But it’s self determination 

Kerry Cassidy does not want to talk about Dr Judy Wood’s research 1 & 2

 

 

Kerry Cassidy – Mel Fabrigas – Project-Camelot-04 April 12 Edited Extract re Dr Judy Wood

William Rodriguez 

 


 Hi,

 
Someone else was asking a similar question, so I have pasted info below – after the Gage info:
 
 
 
“There are dozens of nuts out there with PhDs…”
“…now when Judy Wood is not going to acknowledge any of that evidence and just hand wave it away, then she’s not practicing science, she’s practicing witchcraft. Go ahead…”
 
 
 
(also see below for further stuff related to Corbett)

 

In 2007, Webster Tarpley appeared in Bradford UK, asked a question about Dr Wood’s Qui Tam case against NIST, he responded and said:

www.youtube.com/watc…

I believe that research should be carried out – you cannot ban any research a priori. I’ve always argued for a research sphere separated from a political sphere – and what I think of as the political sphere is what we’ve seen [in his presentation] it has to with for example using 9/11 and the Rogue B52 to get impeachment going – because without 9/11 truth, you cannot defeat Bush politically. So I am always in favour of a political sphere which is separate from a research sphere. For a lot of people in the United States, the research sphere is all there is…

What do you think of the Directed Energy Weapons scenario?

Hang on I am getting to it, but the political sphere for me is indispensable. Now, I would never say I won’t co-operate with someone because they have a theoretical difference from me. I don’t think it’s possible to talk about “men from mars”. I don’t recommend blaming it on the action of the holy spirit – much as I like the Holy Spirit -but short of this, I would not have any preclusion. Concerning her theory, I think her theory is something she has failed to prove. I don’t see her successfully proving the “beam” theory and I like Fetzer very much and I try to co-operate with Fetzer on political matters, but I have not been convinced by the Space Laser or Beam Weapons or new Physical Principles argument. So, I think it’s fine for them to continue with this but you have to realise that this is an unproven hypothesis. I think it is not wise if they get a chance to be on television to make that the leading edge. I would not do that….

 

 

Prob. makes things clearer. Here’s some additional material:

James Corbett and Mark Gaffney:
In this recent interview with James Corbett he remarks that Building 6 had a “huge creator right in the centre of it” (17.32)
 
He states that (time ref 17:50)“early on the were photos” and that there was “very little debris of any kind”
 
He states that there was another explosion in there and that it may have “been demolished during the collapse of building one or two and the dust cloud concealed it.”
This makes me ask, how could a conventional demolition leave very little debris? When was the building wired for this demolition? For what purpose was building 6 demolished?
 

I was disappointed to hear James  Corbett dismiss Dr Judy’s work using the term “Space Beams” in a recent edition of the  Corbett Report www.corbettreport.co…episode-190-listener-feedback/ (about 20 mins in) I wrote to James questioning the accuracy of the term “Space Beam” given that its not a term that Dr  Wood has used in her book, website or many lectures and radio interviews:

 
 
James Corbett in 2013
 
Skip to 33 mins:
 

Roger G and this is another question I get quite a lot this one reads “Have you read Dr Judy Wood’s book “Where Did the Towers Go?” What caused steel steel reinforced concrete office furniture filing cabinets can toilets basins and people to turn to dust why were so many cars so strangely toasted.”  All right thank you for that, Roger and to all the others who have written in on this subject. Of course I am familiar with dr. Judy wood and her work.

I am NOT a proponent of it or an adherent to it I think she’s made basic flaws in physics, for example with her billiard ball analysis which provided examples of flagrant violations of conservation of energy and momentum which wouldn’t get you past the high school physics course let alone anything approaching of resemblance of reality in scientific analysis. I think that if anyone who watches for example Dr. Greg Jenkins interview with Dr. Judy Wood, sees that she certainly did not come out the better of the two in that interview and can’t he can’t even really seem to provide a coherent view of what she’s talking about or the physical principles thereof and that for example Hutchinson effect has been debunked over and over and over. So I absolutely do not think that there’s any valid reason for believing that dr. Judy wood is right on any of the things that she’s talking about. And also I should mention the toasted cars for example have been repeatedly shown to have, for example two toasted cars on FDR Drive, which people have gone to absurd lengths to try to to explain away. All of this is by way of background of saying that there’s absolutely nothing convincing that I’ve seen in her arguments. However, having said that I’m also very skeptical about the for example the thermic materials paper that was produced by dr. Neil Harrit at all I think there are some scientific questions that have been raised in the last year or two about that paper that I have not seen properly addressed. So I’m going to be keeping my eye out on that. But as I said over and over and over again on my podcast I am perfectly happy to let all of the  people who want to continue their internecine squabbles over the demolitions of the buildings and to concentrate on that 100% as if 9/11 truth equals the building’s. People who want to do that are absolutely I’m happy to let them do that and I will continue to concentrate on all of the other aspects of 911 which no one else ever talks about anymore, for some reason no one talks about air defences, no one talks about the money trail no one talks about the so-called alleged hijackers where they came from their connections etc etc.  No one talks about all of the background information that makes 911 911. They only talk about the buildings I don’t talk about the buildings as much anymore because for one I’m not a physicist I don’t claim to be one I’m not a scientific… I’m not an engineer I’m not an architect, so I’ll leave that to other people to squabble over I will talk about the issues that I’m more interested in and Dr. Judy Wood is not one of them let’s move on finally.

Update – 2020: Go to about 45 seconds into this video:
Why is Corbett putting this in a video about the COVID Scam?
 
 
 

Ian R Crane

www.youtube.com/watc… [Unavailable Now]

 

youtu.be/1G__luSGw_A…

 

“Building 7 was indeed a perfect – perfectly executed controlled demolition – the building came down in it’s own footprint and the pile of rubble was 12.5% the original height of the building – exactly as per the controlled demolition textbooks. Buildings 1 & 2 which are more than twice the height of building 7.

 

Just to put it in perspective, building 7 was roughly the height of the tower at canary wharf… just to put it into perspective.

 

27:42: Buildings 1 & 2 collapsed into dust. The buildings totally disintegrated. There is no explanation as to what has caused that – it’s a big question that’s left open. Take a look at this for a second…

 


Jan Irvin – Correspondence with Menna

www.gnosticmedia.com…

He was asked…

Have you seen Dr Judy Wood’s work? It undoubtedly has merit. The thermite theory seems likely a disinformation effort – I recommend all to suspend judgement until you have spent some time looking at the evidence presented by Dr Wood. I am sure you will be interested and I would love to hear your opinion.

His reply in part

This isn’t the 9/11 discussion forum, this is the place to study fallacies. However, when I studied Woods, there were too many fallacies. The one I find most interesting is Dimitri Kalezav. ” 

 

 


 

Mark Gaffney
 
 
 
 
 
(From this show: www.redicecreations….}

 


James Easton

 
 
 
Is this a rational person….?
 
Steve Bassett (Paradigm Research Group)
 
www.checktheevidence…

 
 

 
 Confused as to why this has been posted? The watch the videos below

Part 1:

YouTube: 

 

 

Part 2:

YouTube: 

 

 

Order DVD

 

and read this free book.

9-11 - Finding the Truth

9-11 – Finding the Truth

What really happened on 9/11? What can the evidence tell us? Who is covering up the evidence, and why are they covering it up? This book attempts to give some answers to these questions and has been written by someone who has become deeply involved in research into what happened on 9/11. A study of the available evidence will challenge you and much of what you assumed to be true. “Now we are discovering that there is a highly-sophisticated black-ops weaponization of free energy technology and it was responsible for the bizarre, low-temperature pulverization of the Twin Towers. Dr. Judy Wood has pieced together the physical evidence and Andrew Johnson has highlighted who is working to silence or smear whom, as the powers that be rush to impede or at least contain the dissemination of these startling findings.” – Conrado Salas Cano, M.S. in Physics. Free Download of the text is also available from the page linked above.

 

Paperback Book is no longer available on Amazon – Lulu have not been able to include Free Amazon listings any more. However, the Kindle Version IS and it is also available through the iTunes/I books store

 

 
New documentary series featuring whistleblower Dr. Judy Wood, showing irrefutable and remarkably simple evidence of weaponized free-energy technology on 9/11.
More episodes:
Youtube: irrefutable
Facebook: irrefutabletv
Twitter: irrefutabletv
 
Buy the book:
 
 

Related articles...

Comments are closed.