Monday, June 4, 2012

Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review

2012-06-04

The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.

When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn't happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being "crazy, loony, nutty" and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.

Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as "crazy, loony, nutty" and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood's work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood's research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for "separation and containment" [e.g., under this very article.]

Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?". It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.

Paraphrased from Hamlet: "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."

Last year in a pay-it-forward fashion to get various 9/11 leaders or worthy debate opponents over "kooky, loony, nutty" mental obstacles that otherwise prevented them from acquiring Dr. Wood's textbook, Señor El Once offered to purchase them a copy in exchange for a fair and objective reading and "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Little did he know that the very act of accepting or declining such an offer would prove to be an early test of their objectivity and a hint of their agenda.

- Mr. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll Forums: "I decline your gracious offer... It's a moral thing. And based on principles."

- Mr. Simon Shack of September Clues: "I will respectfully decline your offer - out of intellectual honesty."

- Mr. LeftWright of 9/11 Blogger was sent the book, but after confirming receipt has communicated to the gift-giver not a single word, let alone a good, bad, and ugly assessment, despite pings every other month for about half a year: "How's the book report coming?"

- Mr. David Chandler upon receiving the book gave these first impressions: "Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." He goes on to say: "There's not a whole lot I agree with. I haven't gotten that far yet." Six months later when prodded for a more detailed good, bad, and ugly review, he admits that he started but didn't finish the book because he had "better things to do with his time" [e.g., the anti-CIT paper co-authored with Frank Legge.]

- Mr. Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth wrote FAQ #3: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? that did not reference anything from Dr. Wood's textbook [which the authors probably don't have], misrepresents and misframes her work, and consumes half its space promoting nano-thermite [that has its own crippling issues.] The closest Señor El Once was able to come to contacting these authors directly was Mr. Cole relaying through his gatekeeper (Mr. Chandler): "Don't even waste time responding." Mr. Chandler elaborated: "Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further."

For the sake of brevity, many other data points clustering around the above trend line are not provided. The trend line is, however, that Dr. Wood and her work should be avoided and need to be marginalized before and to prevent others from objectively reviewing its content and from judging independently what is applicable and what is not.

Do not let the tenor of the article give you the wrong impression. Dr. Wood's work (website and textbook) are not without error and most assuredly do contain disinformation. The damning question for her detractors is: "Specifically where?" The reason it is so damning is the remainder, that portion that can't be definitely pegged as disinfo and is in fact true or simply evidence that no other conspiracy-theory-du-jour has addressed.

[Disclaimer: Neither Mr. McKee nor Señor El Once have any association with Dr. Wood or her textbook, and receive no financial benefit.]

What is Señor El Once's assessment of Dr. Wood's textbook?

The text and analysis of the first half are solid. Great new ways to debunk the official govt conspiracy theory with physics. Throughout the book, its 500 color images in the larger (7"x10") format with tables and maps to correlate the views of destruction alone secure the value of this book in your 9/11 library even before reading the text. They put into perspective the totality of the destruction for those of us who have never been to NYC.

Before I was half way through, I was recommending the book reasoning that if the second half unraveled into sweet-as-honey distracting disinformation, we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandchildren how our generation was manipulated and played.

The books strengths are also its weaknesses: each chapter stands (or falls) pretty much on its own. The book presents concepts and very few hypotheses regarding applicability of concepts to 9/11. No concluding or summary chapters tie the individual chapters together or define a definitive hypothesis about "This was how they pulled off 9/11."

After my first reading, other than a few tiny errors carried over from her website and many broken URL references [that she has no control over], I found no major issues or disinfo flags except my own disappointment that this crafty work had no definitive 9/11 conclusions.

Having had a year to digest Dr. Wood's textbook, I can more readily see the major hurdles for both supporters and detractors. Hurdle one is validity of a concept, which is a high one for detractors to overcome and to prove invalid or bogus science. Hurdle two is applicability of a concept to 9/11, which ends up being a high one for supporters.

[Unfounded speculation:] The inclusion of one or two of the concepts have more the appearance of a "get out of assassination free" card, ala "include these chapters that make you look bat-shit crazy, or else." So life-loving Dr. Wood's publishes them, but in a crafty trick (a) doesn't draw conclusions and (b) emphasizes the true importance of her book: evidence.

If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
~ Dr. Judy Wood

Indeed, much of her evidence is under-represented and largely unexplained by other 9/11 theories including the official one. In addition, before dismissing a concept as being scientifically valid but likely inapplicable to 9/11, remember to consider the totality of the WTC destruction and that what might seem inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7 might not be so farfetched as contributing to the demise of other individual WTC buildings.


Should a prerequisite for the discussion be that the participant has the "Where Did The Towers Go?" textbook from Dr. Wood? Many reasons could be cited for considering this requirement, such as:

- If we're going to evaluate Dr. Wood's work, it should be her latest efforts.

- Dr. Wood's textbook pulls in the essential points from her website, presents it more clearly, and also has concepts that are not on her website.

- The pictures, maps, and tables that correlate pictures to views marked on the maps is worth the $44 price of the textbook by itself; it is not a wasted purchase for any serious researcher of 9/11.

- Nothing is more obnoxious than the book report by the wanna-be book reviewer who has never even peered into the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook.

Acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook (purchasing or borrowing from your public library) could thus be considered a test of your objectivity.

It is not being made a requirement but with this caveat: those attempting to give dismissive book reviews without having read the book and/or by using material pre-dating her book (e.g., Dr. Jenkins) can expect Señor El Once's copy to come thunking down upon their heads ruthlessly.

Three of the reasons for not making possession of the book a requirement are that:

(1) The truly relevant information (e.g., pictorial evidence, massive energy requirements of pulverization, other mechanisms of destruction) is available from her website.

(2) Objective reviewers will see aspects of her work that can be built upon and taken new directions, as well as aspects of her work that may be an irrelevant distraction (e.g., Hutchison Effect, free energy from space.)

(3) The book and website will have served their purpose by getting readers to consider how her evidence might better fit into other theories and think outside the "consensus" box on what caused the destruction of the WTC complex.

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : blackout on Hurricane Erin

2012-06-04


Señor El Once : focus your ire like a laser beam on Dr. Wood

2012-06-04


Señor El Once : Tainted imagery of 9/11 -- even satellite imagery -- exists

2012-06-04


Señor El Once : more easily combustible materials than paint on cars did not ignite

2012-06-04


Señor El Once : hurricane was plan B

2012-06-04


Señor El Once : specific photos of WTC-7 and West Broadway

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : the spire is indeed falling

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : Some of criticisms of Señor Rogue have merit

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : going off half-cocked

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : spinning wheels chasing a wild goose

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : writings by Dr. Gregory Jenkins

2012-06-05


Señor El Once : when the other shoe dropped in Mr. Richard D. Hall's videos

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : inate obstinance to "see" the source

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : AngelDust's analysis

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : Clues Forum have proven precious little of the 9/11 imagery to be fake

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : Legal loop-holes got the case thrown out

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : make your arguments from the latest efforts of Dr. Wood

2012-06-06


Señor El Once : The book is not irrefutable

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : her work isn't quite impeccable

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : Rich Hall may end up eating humble pie on holograms

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : defend those sloppy niggly errors

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : Señor Autodidact Polymath

2012-06-07


Señor El Once : errors in her analysis from her book

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : 98% of the Towers had turned to dust?

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : target the imagery used by Dr. Wood

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : EMT Cooke and the Seaport "explosion"

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : Your failure to comprehend this is not her error

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : trim that bad fat in an objective fashion

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : defend her work as a non-questioning religious zealot

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : Stats on the Dr. Judy Wood Thread

2012-06-08


Señor El Once : cite in Dr. Wood’s book where she states this vehicle was “torched” at the bridge

2012-06-10


Señor El Once : Each building should be viewed independently

2012-06-10


Señor El Once : defense of Dr. Wood's textbook is so stilted

2012-06-11


Señor El Once : under the guise of objectiveness, we should still consider Dr. Jenkins efforts

2012-06-11


Señor El Once : Police Car 2723

2012-06-11


Señor El Once : The hollowness of the towers is not a concept that I am promoting

2012-06-12


Señor El Once : insurance companies did pay, it was not without some return on investment

2012-06-12

No comments: