I now place [Barbara Honegger] in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther.
I admit to not having studied Barbara Honegger's videos or Mr. OSS's analysis in detail [due to other things in my life requiring focus], so such an assessment may be valid. However, this does not alleviate anyone of the task of preserving the nuggets of truth from those works that merit such.
Case in point, the "don't land here" semaphore flags were waved with Mr. Ruff's gratuitious (negative) reference to Dr. Wood; with a whole year of Rogue-ian acrobatic circus to avoid taking Dr. Wood's work out of contention legitimately chapter-by-chapter [with my blessing and help]; and with a recent clumsy COTO clown-act [2013-09-11 at 3:10 pm] with the frame:
[SEO] cannot even provide a clear example of what is substantively unique to the [Dr. Wood] Book in comparison to what is provided on the [Dr. Wood] website of the author of the book. It is [SEO's] responsibility to prove the case that the book is unique, rather than mine to make an argument of nonexistence; onus probandi.
The research required for my response (unpublished) helped me discover something very crafty in that framing that I will get to in a moment. A snippet extracted from my response tackles the skewed charge of "lack of uniqueness" in the book prior to the gentleman's agreement to review it:
- [2012-02-16] "Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done."
- [2012-02-17] "Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. "
- [2012-06-08] "If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can't be considered Dr. Wood's final word."
The crafty thing from that framing -- "prove the case that the book is unique" -- is that it turns the focus onto the book exclusively and acts as if the debunking of the evidence on her incomplete, error-prone, disorganized, and several years old website were a foregone conclusion. It is not. And this was made clear to me when I attempted some of the busy work necessitated by the "proof."
THE DIRT !!!
Dr. Wood's book covers the dirt differently and truncated. More importantly, the incomplete web effort on the dirt is a glaring piece of evidence for neutron nuclear DEW.
Briefly: Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don't annilate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces "collateral damage" to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fracticide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle (e.g., not reaching designed nuclear yields).
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
Figure 102. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(a). This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 102(a). The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(b). The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?
Note the references to "still fuming from the wet dirt" and "still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002", which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
I also call readers' attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled "clean wrinkled beams" and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been "burned" off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vacinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
I call readers' attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slighly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
Mr. Ruff still ought to file the FOIA for the suppressed government report that may or may not prove his "No Radiation" assertion, but let this dirt be one of many glaring signs (a) about why the report is still suppressed and (b) what information it might contain.
All of of this I wouldn't have discovered if I wouldn't have gone back into the maw of the Wood-sian disinformation sources to rescue nuggets of truth worth saving.
If they can fly a plane low over the Pentagon from one direction, plant evidence it came from another, and through the MIC media outlets get the world to believe it hit the Pentagon, then they ought to be able to afford a few dozen neutron nuclear DEW devices as part of the missing $2.3 trillion in DOD spending.
Ergo, the moral of this story is that sincere 9/11 truth seekers should be mindful of the errant, but as of yet unsaved, nuggets of truth in newly labeled "disinformation" sources, such as Ms. Honegger's work. Do not be too swift in REJECTING ALL OF THEIR WORK in one fell swoop.
P.S. I related it to the discussion. I didn't mention Dr. Wood first. I don't champion her theories 100%, mostly because -- as this dirt work shows -- she stops abruptly short of appropriate nuclear conclusions. The anonymous physicists used to decry Dr. Wood as being a disinfo agent for gathering together of all the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camping them under "kookie" umbrellas (ala Hutchison, Tesla energy from space, etc.)
// [Diagonal posting that tries to emulate real truther, Mr. OSS.]