summary:
. I was recently made aware of Kevin Ryan
a 911truther concerned with who did 9/11,
introducing a deepstate operation theory .
. this would fit in perfectly with
Dr. Judy Wood's beam weapons theory
as who else but a deepstate operator
could expose New York to beam weapons?
however, back in 2011 he appears to be
distancing himself from Dr.Wood's theory;
nevertheless,
it is interesting that he would use the term "energetics"
to describe conventional explosives
when the Russians used that term for beam weapons .
youtube#GlobalResearchTV`Another Nineteen
- Kevin Ryan on the Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
-- he's talking about his new book:
Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
Kevin Ryan on rt.com:
Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studiesquestions for Ryan about who to finger .
and author of 'Another 19', a book that explores
19 alternative suspects that he alleges had the
real means and motive to pull of the 9/11 attacks.
-- wtcdemolition.com
Although we know that nanothermiteDr.Fetzer on Kevin Ryan 2011:
has been found in the WTC dust,
we do not know what purpose it served
in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings.
Kevin R. Ryan, et al,
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center:
evidence for energetic materials,
The Environmentalist, Vol29 #1 March 2009
Kevin claims, for example, that, less than"Dr. Neil Austin" about Kevin Ryan:
one year after founding the society,
"just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks"
when media attention was at its peak,
"Fetzer began speaking publicly about
space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense".
[ Dr.Judy Wood now prefers the the term "beam weapons"
since there is no evidence the beams came from space .
]
He also faults me for a radio interview with Judy Wood, Ph.D.,
which occurred on 11 November 2006
when I was about to speak in Tucson.
With her degrees in structural engineering,
applied physics, and materials engineering science,
I regard Judy as among the best qualified
students of 9/11 in the world today.
A former professor of mechanical engineering,
she introduced her theory that
directed energy weapons may have been employed on 9/11
during during our conversation on the radio.
I found her conjecture fascinating because it opens an
unconventional approach toward understanding
the events of 9/11.
... I do not know to this day whether Wood is right,
but her web site (at http://drjudywood.com) sets a high standard
in accumulating evidence about the data that an
adequate theory would have to explain, including
the conversion of the Twin Towers into
millions of cubic yards of very fine dust,
the peculiar kinds of damage that were sustained by
WTC-3, -4, -5, and -6,
and the oddity of the “toasted cars”.
While I have advocated the study of DEWs
[directed energy weapons] -- along with
nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids --
I have not endorsed them because we
still do not know how it was done.
And I should add that Kevin and his colleagues
are certainly not in the position
to know that Judy Wood is wrong.
...
On the basis of a gross misunderstanding of my position,
Kevin contends,
"Facts and evidence indicate that the use of false information
to derail the 9/11 truth movement is a reality
despite the inability of leading 9/11 researchers
to admit such a possibility.
With unsubstantiated claims of space beams,
video fakery and holograms,
Fetzer and his colleagues
have taken advantage of the fact that
many Americans are scientifically illiterate.
These evil parlor games give influential professionals like
Robert Parry, who are already psychologically challenged
and fearful of the topic,
additional reasons to ignore all the evidence and
spout off about the issues with little or no understanding."
No,no,no!! This will not do!! This is anotherJim Fetzer 2011:
ad hominem attack of the type designed to
prevent the truth from coming to light.
Kevin Ryan asserts in his blog that
Dr. Fetzer made assertions that space beams were involved.
Dr. Fetzer merely made observations that
Dr. Wood's observations were consistent with
the data displayed in her photographic data.
Dr. Wood's website, although having made reference to
'Star Wars Beams', does not assert this as being proof.
She DOES however provide photographic and testimonial data
that demonstrates the presence of field effects
and wave phenomena at ground zero.
....
In my opinion, the 911 truth movement is
deliberately being segregated.
Straw-men will be established and the
real perps will have a field day (no pun intended)
as the AE911 truthers and those allied with them
will fall while the controlled media flick the switch.
We MUST stick to our guns and look only at the
EVIDENCE and ALL of the EVIDENCE
no matter how awkward it may appear.
In my opinion that includes Hurricane Erin
and why it has been studiously ignored.
Dr. Neil Austin
The differences between us were exacerbated when IKevin Ryan 2011.1`details of the Fetzer-Wood meeting:
interviewed Dr. Judy Wood,
a former professor of mechanical engineering,
who was promoting the alternative theory that
directed energy weapons
might have been used to destroy the buildings
rather than thermite in any of its guises,
which took place on November 11, 2006.
What I liked the most about Judy’s work was that
it offered a fresh perspective about how it could have been done,
where she asked me to guess where a directed energy device
could have been located
and, when I offered WTC-7 as a guess,
she corrected me and said, "In space!"
I would bet that this interview caused
more division in the 9/11 Truth community
than any other event before or after.
Judy began being attacked for advocating
"space beams" and "death rays",
while I was castigated for supporting her.
Fetzer suddenly appeared on the 9/11 truth scene"chemist Kevin Ryan" @ drjudywood.com:
in late 2005, immediately after the publication of
a paper by physicist Steven Jones.
At that time, Fetzer wrote to many prominent truth advocates,
saying –
"Steve Jones and I would like to invite you to join us
as members of a new society."
Having been known for some dubious contributions to the
JFK assassination research community,
Fetzer used this new association with Jones
to thrust himself into a position of
superficial leadership in the truth movement.
. Less than one year later,
just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks
when mainstream media attention was at its peak,
Fetzer began speaking publicly about
space beams destroying the WTC
and other such nonsense. He continued with
grandiose claims about theories which had
no evidentiary support,
as this excerpt from one of his radio shows indicates:
Jim Fetzer:
"I must say I think we’re finding out Judy,
what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work.
This is the most fascinating development
in the history of the study of 9/11
... I’m going to make a wild guess Judy;
I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams
had to be located in Building 7?”
Judy Wood: "Nope. I don’t think so."
Fetzer: "Planes?"
Judy Wood: "No ... I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit."
Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy.
Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge ... this is huge Judy."
. [Kevin Ryan continues about Dr.Fetzer: ]
. What would cause a PhD to say that an
unsubstantiated claim of space beams destroying the WTC
was "the most fascinating development
in the history of the study of 9/11"
and that it was "huge?"
Why was this claim more fascinating or huge
than all the research previously published
by the likes of Michael Ruppert, Daniel Hopsicker,
David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones, Nafeez Ahmed,
and Michel Chossudovsky? Was it because there was
overwhelming evidence to support the space beams claim,
and the use of space beams at the WTC
would make a huge impact in achieving justice for the victims?
No, none of that was true.
There was no evidence for space beams at the WTC.
Moreover, we soon found out that Fetzer's colleagues
could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.
[ search "Dr.Judy Wood", "Hutchison effect" ]
False information like these claims did,
however, turn many serious people away from 9/11 truth.
[ quite the contrary:
most people want to believe the official story
simply because it is the official story;
when you look at the quiet Tower dustifications
it's obviously some unknown technology;
but all that doesn't matter:
you want to trust the usa, the CIA, the dark .]
Dr.Judy Wood explains: "Professor Jones has
withdrawn from Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
and explains why below in an email he sent on Dec 7th, 2006."
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
. This is to inform you that I (along with
chemist Kevin Ryan and many others)
have withdrawn from association with Jim Fetzer (JF)
and "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
and to provide reasons for this action.
1.
On the Scholars web site he manages ( www.st911.org),
Jim Fetzer casts aspersions on my research regarding the use of
thermates at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001
-- which is fine as long as he provides
serious technical objections, which he has not done.
At the same time, JF is promoting on the web site
notions that energy-beams from WTC 7 or from space
knocked the Towers down. I have invited Jim repeatedly
to view the video of my talk given 11/11/06
at the University of California at Berkeley
which provides the latest physical evidences for thermate use,
reinforcing the data in my published paper.
He admitted this week that he has not done so.
My UC-Berkeley talk is here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622
. In fairness, I list Jim's talk in Tucson (Nov. 13) also,
which you may wish to compare: [youtube unavailable]
. Here you will find Jim's assertion that
energy beams directed from WTC 7, or from space,
may be the "fascinating" explanation for what caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
He also here discusses "falling grand pianos."
My sincere efforts to correct his evident errors/misinformation
have been twisted and distorted until I want
no more to do with such "tar-baby" discussions.
2.
I support this statement made recently by Dr. Frank Legge,
Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other (previous)
members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
"Further, on the Scholars' web site,
positions are being promoted which are disputed by the
scientists specializing in physical sciences
from Scholars For 9/11 Truth.
Attempts to correct this situation have failed.
As of this date the web site continues to promote
assertions which many unsupported by the evidence
(ray-beams from space caused the demolitions,
mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers,
real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.).
We feel that the promotion of these ideas
functions to distract from and discredit
much of the other basic strong material
challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists
- the stand down, the war games, the insider trading,
the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."
.... .
No comments:
Post a Comment