What in the name of all that’s holy is wrong with the otherwise seemingly normal people everywhere around us—that they can’t, or that they won’t, conduct themselves, or above all won’t conduct their thinking, in accordance with the simplest rules of logic?
I’m not referring to our so-called “leaders,” those who are “elected” and whom we call “politicians”—I’m not referring to them, whether governors, representatives, senators, or presidents, since the very nature of their place and calling necessitates that they lie to all of us each day and all day. The way things are now, with human existence itself nearing its endgame, the base-rock requirement of being an elected politician is that such a person must never, ever, no matter what, so much as mention any of the truly dire and transparently significant issues that threaten our destruction as a race, people, nation, or world. The long and strenuous effort to become an elected public official in the first place necessitates a massive and monolithic program of lying by omission. And the further step of actually accepting or inhabiting a public office of “importance” requires that this program of lying by omission—this necessity of not mentioning the real truth about any truly significant aspect of the endgame we’re now living in—becomes absolute. If politicians told the truth, it would become immediately apparent to everyone that essential, fundamental, bedrock changes must be made at once if any of us seriously hopes to survive in a state of any human dignity whatsoever. But change of almost any truly important kind is anathema to the politician every bit as much as it is to the vested interests that have paid for and paved the way to that politician’s taking of office. National politics, as it now exists, is a huge edifice of deliberate and calculated blindness, a matter of compulsory not-seeing and not-saying, a vast project of programmatic, perfected, and seamless lying, primarily but far from only lying by omission.
Therefore, when I talk about those many people “everywhere around us” who either can’t or won’t think logically, I’m not talking about elected leaders or about “politicians.” And neither am I talking about “the masses,” those, though with myriad troubles of their own, do little or no thinking of the kind we’re talking about, logical or not. No, the ones I’m referring to are, say, those ones more like you, or like me, people of the type who are likely to follow publications like Intrepid Report, likely to read at least some of the articles in it, or, very possibly, even write some of the articles in it or in other magazines.
So keep alert. Now and again I’ll name a name, but just as often I probably won’t. As a result, you alone, out of everyone else in the entire world, will know whether or not it’s you whom I’m writing about. Furthermore, and even more important, you alone out of everyone else in the entire world will be in a position to say whether I’m right or wrong in the things I’m going to say about you.
And that’s tremendously important, because one of the things I’m going to say—am now saying—is that “you” appear to be the possessor of an education that was effectively arrested somewhere in or around the seventh or eighth grade. Please don’t be offended—after all, maybe what I just said isn’t true. Also, whether I’m right or wrong to the side, you’re certainly not alone in hearing what I just said. In my 2006 book, A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit, I said roughly the same thing about hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people. Furthermore, it’s not as though plenty of other precedents haven’t been set in this business of lamenting American ignorance generally and, the same thing but a little more specialized, lamenting American feebleness in the understanding and uses of logic. For just one example, when I was writing A Nation Gone Blind and doing my own lamenting about the ignorance and intellectual poverty that were then destroying higher education in the humanities, I came upon and cited in my book something written by the American philosopher John R. Searle. It was a single sentence from an article called “The Storm over the University,” and it went like this, with some of my own words introducing it:
Thought, meanwhile, is hobbled and hamstrung by the cords of feeling it’s bound up in, with the result that most of the time thinking can hardly be said to be taking place at all. John R. Searle, straight-faced and without irony, wrote over a decade ago in The New York Review of Books that “One of the most depressing things about educated people today is that so few of them, even among professional intellectuals, are able to follow the steps of a simple logical argument.” 
Searle’s piece appeared in The New York Review of Books in 1990, sixteen years before I published A Nation Gone Blind and, today, no fewer than twenty-two years ago, lost in a dim and distant past. So my calling people—my calling you—uneducated and logic-challenged doesn’t make for news in any conceivable way whatsoever.
On the other hand, it may not be a thing well calculated to make you feel pleased—my calling you deficient. Therefore, I beg you to stay alert, listen to everything carefully, and conclude for yourself whether any accusatory thing I might say is in fact true of you, or in fact is not true of you. Keep track. It’s important—so important, as a glance at the title of this essay will tell you, that it has to do with nothing less than the future of the earth.
Ever since Dr. Judy Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go came out, almost two years ago, I have been an advocate of it and have argued that it is a work of the utmost world importance. In the Foreword, I wrote to its potential readers:
The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-first century. Let me explain why I say such a thing. Where Did the Towers Go? is a work, assuming that its content and message are properly and fairly heeded, that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.
A whole decade had passed since 9/11, and yet, even after that long a time, no clear resolution existed as to what had actually happened on that day. I wrote:
It is now almost a decade since 9/11 took place, and in all that time no unassailable, permanent, or, in pragmatic terms, politically influential progress has been made in determining exactly and irrefutably what took place on that day—or what did not take place.
With the publication of Where Did the Towers Go, that entire situation was changed. With the proof now offered in Dr. Judy Wood’s book, proof that directed free-energy technology was used to destroy the towers, not only would that resolution come about, and not only would it be “politically influential,” but it would be inevitable. And so I wrote:
But now Dr. Judy Wood, in this unique, powerful, landmark work of forensic scientific investigation, provides us at last with that determination: She shows us what did happen on 9/11. Although Dr. Wood’s scientific training and understanding are deep and complex, she has the gift of being able, without compromise, to express ideas of the greatest complexity in terms readily understandable to any interested and attentive lay person.
* * *
We’re starting out on year number twelve since the events of 9/11. A long time, yet the jerry-built slum-house of the party line, the “official” lies, deceits, falsehoods, myths, and platitudes, remains in place. Everywhere in the media, observers will continue to find the whole absurdity assiduously “reinforced,” even in august papers like the New York Times, where the stalest and dustiest of the old lies are pulled out of drawers by editorial drones and inserted into copy in the most heavy-handed ways. Still, the important thing isn’t to ask why the propagandists continue to propagandize. They do so because that’s what they are—opportunists, propagandists, and liars, all the way from the editor of the New York Times on up to the president of the United States, who, as he campaigns for re-election, continues to claim that the guy watching television and wrapped in a blanket in Abbottabad was Osama bin Laden, he who, so we’re told without a molecule of evidence, now rests with the fishes.
The liars and propagandists, from Obama on down, or from the ink-stained wretch at the city desk on up, will continue to ply their criminal trade and peddle their criminal goods for as long as the rewards and results of doing so appear to them more favorable than, say, switching to another set of lies or—mirabile dictu—perhaps even to the truth. My own great question, at this point, therefore, is not to ask why it is that the liars and propagandists remain committed so unflaggingly to their sinister program of lies and propaganda. My own great question, instead, is to ask why and how it can possibly be that the propaganda cow they continue to milk so unremittingly is still even capable of producing anything. My own great question is to ask how and why it is that the propaganda machine can possibly still work, why it hasn’t been exposed for the tawdry, cheap, and meretricious flim-flam that it is. My own great question—in a last variant—is to ask how and why it can possibly be that Dr. Judy Wood’s epochal, world-altering, unequivocal, scientific proof of what really happened on 9/11 hasn’t had the effect of unifying and electrifying vast numbers of thinkers, writers, commentators and observers all across America so as to bring into existence the common resolve that alone will make possible the sweeping away of all of the propagandists’ despicable, inane, and shabby props and veils, their blowing curtains and bubbling smoke-pots, their thunder-machines and slapsticks, exposing the propagandists, every one, for the repugnant deviants and repellent psychotics that they are.
Here’s what I think: I think that the fault that the great propaganda machine is still working is our fault. I think that the fault lies with you, me, with us. It lies with us thanks to our impotence-thinking and our impotence-writing, where sounding good passes itself off as doing good. The fault lies with us thanks to our intellectual laziness and to our obscenely bad educations. It lies with us because—Searle was right—we are so logic-challenged that we behave like children and think we’re wizards. It lies with us because we’re really, really bad at science: We don’t understand it, don’t know what it is, don’t know how it works. The fault lies with us because we’re unsophisticated, unobservant, illogical, and unscientific enough to have been played for suckers—first by one side, then by another side, then by a third—for more than a decade, quarreling and fussing among ourselves while our wealth is stolen, our nation dismantled, and our culture turned ever more surely to swill.
Angry? Yes, I am angry. I am also sick with grief, sorrow, and disappointment at the ruined state of our nation, and, attendant upon that, at the ruinous state of our nation’s behavior in the world. I am more forlorn than, up to now, I ever imagined I could be. America, it would seem, is dead, and its corpse is stinking.
Now I will tell some stories.
* * *
The ganging up on Dr. Judy Wood, the programmatic ignoring of her work—by Michel Chossudovsky and Paul Craig Roberts, for two especially prominent examples—the smearing, distorting, and misrepresenting of it (a way to begin catching up on the veritable mountains of this kind of thing is by perusing Jim Fetzer’s “Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” and then following up from there), all of these seem to me the result of abuses of logic, although whether these abuses are deliberate or not is much more difficult to say. In any case, abuses that are intended to suppress or discredit the work of Dr. Wood, or abuses that have the effect of suppressing or discrediting her work, are extraordinarily and massively destructive, absolutely so in the eyes of anyone who yearns to bring a stop to the on-going ruin of our nation—and our world—that began with the excuse of 9/11, that was catalyzed by it, and that has not slowed down since.
Whatever the crime, any effort to bring justice to bear on it cannot begin until and unless the agents of justice know what the crime was. The first step, therefore, in bringing justice to bear on any crime whatsoever must be precisely that step, of determining what the crime was.
In the case of 9/11, that step was distorted and lied about from the very beginning, and for very good reason: The perpetrators, whoever they were, most desperately wanted the exact nature of the crime to be unknown, and they wanted it to remain unknown. To be sure, their strategy of secrecy, lies, and the deliberate planting of confusion worked very well. Until now, that is. It worked very well until slightly less than two years ago, when Where Did the Towers Go was published.
The crime of 9/11, now that the truth of what the crime was is known, moves into a new category. Now that the truth of what actually happened is known, 9/11 moves into the category of a crime that is prosecutable—if not yet actually so, then without any doubt whatsoever potentially so. Knowing irrefutably the means by which the crime of 9/11 was committed may, at this point, be the only arrow in the quiver of those who yearn to take their country back from the craven enemies and traitors who have stolen it from the people. But that arrow is a strong and tremendously sharp one. For this reason, it is impossible for the thought not to pass through one’s mind that those who programmatically suppress, misrepresent, and smear the work of Dr. Judy Wood may, intentionally or unintentionally, be working against rather than for the best interests of their nation; may conceivably, in effect, be working on behalf of the traitors, thieves, and criminals who stole and are now destroying the nation rather than on behalf of those from whom it was taken.
Why and how could such a thing be? I don’t know, although I’m sure that whatever reasons exist will differ in different cases. Regarding some, I have no idea at all, while in others I suspect that the cause, or part of it, may lie in a failure of courage in the face of fear. Fear often leads people to seek shelter and safety (or what passes for shelter and safety) in group-thinking, since group-thinking makes the “thinker” less exposed and vulnerable than does individual—that is, real—thinking, which exposes just one responsible individual to scrutiny at a time. These possibilities, however, are conjectural. I do know, however, that the written language of observers and analysts often demonstrates a process or stance of not-seeing the irreducible truth of a subject—particularly 9/11—rather than demonstrating a steady and whole seeing of it in a way that brings a subject to a state that is irreducible and is therefore at a level consistent with the point where something can be provable. It may be impossible to know, in any given case, whether such not-seeing is willed or unwilled, witting or unwitting, even conscious or unconscious. In Where Did the Towers Go, Judy Wood placed this quotation from A Nation Gone Blind at the head of her Author’s Preface: “Faced with intolerable ideas, or with intolerable acts, people in very large numbers have begun simply denying them, declaring them ‘unreal’ and thus with a word striking them out of existence. . . . But the pattern itself of not seeing is inescapable, evident to anyone who looks.”
Language is a tell-tale medium, as are words themselves; both excel at revealing whether their user is seeing a subject truly and accurately, not seeing it truly and accurately, or perhaps trying to prevent others from seeing it truly or accurately. Take, for example, Jim Fetzer’s “Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” mentioned a moment ago. Fetzer is well known as a retired professor of philosophy, specialist in the philosophy of science, and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and the article provides an overview of his uneasy relationship with Judy Wood’s work from the time he first interviewed her on the radio, in November 2006 (though he’d known of her well before that. “DEWs,” by the way, for those who may not know, is an acronym for Directed Energy Weapons). The relationship between Jim Fetzer as observer and Judy Wood as observed has been a vexed one, with Fetzer portraying himself varyingly as a valiant supporter of Dr. Wood; as someone, on the other hand, betrayed by her (and by the “cult” that, he argues, surrounds, supports, and idolizes her); and as a righteously injured party who gives praise and receives only contumely in return.
In May of this year, on Amazon, he posted this review of Where Did the Towers Go. Here is an exercise. Read the review and, in it, try to ascertain whether its author is seeing his subject, not seeing his subject, or, our third alternative, hoping to keep others from seeing it:
14 of 24 people found the following review helpful
Masterful argument by elimination, May 20, 2012
By James H. Fetzer. This review is from: “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11” (Hardcover)
Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that appropriately functions as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done in this masterpiece has classically been referred to as a “prolegomenon”, or as a prelude to further research. The word “indirect” belongs in her subtitle, since “Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″ is exactly right.
She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite either. And she offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using mini or micro-nukes, although there is room for dispute as to whether or not she has actually shown that they cannot have been used.
What we have here is a monumental exhibition of the full range of evidence that an adequate theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers must explain. While theories may come and go—and the correct theory may not yet have crossed our minds—they are all going to be measured on the basis of the stupendous accumulation of photos, graphs, diagrams and studies that she has assembled. This is an exceptional work that moves us far forward in the study of 9/11.
Doesn’t it look, at first glance, like a wonderful review, something any author would be thrilled to get? Five gold stars precede its title: “Masterful argument by elimination.”
“Masterful.” And look at some of the other adulatory words and phrases that Fetzer sprinkles around, “enormous quantity of high quality evidence,” “monumental,” “stupendous,” “exceptional.”
A rave review, it would seem—although “seem” is indeed the right word, since it’s really not a rave at all. These sentences are sneaky fellows, and the words that make them up are sneaky helpers. The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable.
For a very, very simple and not perfect but still useful example, let us turn to Barfo. Evidence shows that Barfo is a dog—he drools, pants, fetches, has fur, is mammalian, gets worms, and barks. We can conclude, from this evidence, that Barfo is a dog. We can assert that all dogs have four legs, again, on observable evidence. And so we must conclude that—whether or not we may have noticed this before—that Barfo has four legs.
Now, what is actually the case with Where Did the Towers Go? Well, the book does compile and present an “enormous quantity of high quality evidence,” including seismic evidence, visual evidence, verbal and eyewitness evidence, physical evidence, chemical evidence, magnetic evidence, meteorological evidence, parallel evidence (that is, evidence provided by experimentation that has produced results parallel to results seen after 9/11), even historical evidence. By following all of this evidence—and the word “all” receives emphasis, since no known or available evidence whatsoever has been left out—by following that evidence, the observer who carefully maintains a sound logical relationship between it and any conclusions drawn from it will be led to the necessary conclusion that the destruction of the World Trade Center was caused by directed free-energy technology.
And so Fetzer is right on one point—in asserting that Where Did the Towers Go does not advance a theory, as Dr. Wood herself has declared—that she doesn’t “have a theory.” What she has instead is a conclusion. That conclusion is reached after analysis and observation of all available evidence—not just some evidence, but all that is available—and the conclusion indeed is conclusive, in fact irrefutable. It is a proof.
Why is it that Fetzer won’t agree in regard to this aspect of Dr. Wood’s work and publication? I don’t know. I do know of a certain number—no, a large number—of others who are in a similar kind of disagreement. One is the aforementioned Paul Craig Roberts; another is the commentator and Intrepid Report associate editor, Jerry Mazza, whom we’ll look at in a minute; and another is Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, whom we’ll look at in a minute as well. I’ve become aware also of other organizations, more or less parallel to the Gage group, that are closed to Dr. Wood’s conclusion—for example, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, whose web site includes an open letter with, for example, the fervently unseeing and cripplingly outdated observation that “many high-powered attorneys have questioned the Bush administration’s explanation for 9/11 itself, including why the Bush administration allowed the hijacked planes to inflict so much damage on 9/11.”
The most revealing moment in Fetzer’s review is when he asserts that Dr. Wood’s “high quality evidence” will “[function] as the foundation for evaluating alternative explanations.” I have heard the same sentiment from a number of various lay people—something like, “Dr. Wood’s argument is interesting, but the best argument, whatever it may be, will prove to be the right one in the end.” But hearing the same thing from a professional intellectual and philosopher of science is remarkable. Science advances by proof, not by argument. Where Did the Towers Go provides proof. Therefore, no, I’m sorry, but it won’t “function as the foundation” for anything beyond itself.
Let me make sure that my meaning is clear. I am saying that Where Did the Towers Go does not offer either grounds or foundation for what Fetzer calls “alternative explanations.” That is, the book does not offer foundation for “alternative explanations” of that one and only thing that the book itself has already proved. The one thing that the book has proved is that the buildings in New York on 9/11 were destroyed by the use of directed free-energy technology. That is to say, Where Did the Towers Go has proved only what happened on 9/11. Where Did the Tours Go has proved the means by which the crime was committed. Everything else is beyond book’s purview. Everything else is open to analysis and discussion. But the means by which the destruction was brought about—that part is finished, been proven, case closed.
Why Fetzer would choose to argue as a non-scientist, and incorrectly, is for him to know and us to wonder. Other people, as we’ll see in a moment, may or may not understand the scientific method and how it works—and they, possibly, may actually think (as I have heard them say) that in Where Did the Towers Go Dr. Wood is expressing an idea, an opinion, or what they often call it, using the word incorrectly, a theory. None of those words is correct. In Where Did the Towers Go, Dr. Wood is expressing a proof.
For whatever mysterious reasons that we don’t know and can’t explain, Fetzer goes on arguing and arguing, misrepresenting and misrepresenting, with the stamina of the Energizer bunny. It is impossible to know whether, on the one hand, he is an intellectual of the kind correctly identified by John R. Searle as deficient in the logic-handling department, or, on the other, whether he is a master of trickery and disguise, able to obfuscate very nearly anything with the ease of a blender reducing mixed vegetables to juice.
Nothing in Dr. Wood’s work is quite right, it seems, though its brilliance is apparent. Her book is a “masterpiece,” but at the same time its “high quality evidence” would be referred to “classically” only “as a ‘prolegomenon,’ or as a prelude to further research.” So far, this misrepresentation goes no farther than the one we’ve already seen. But then comes a new complaint. It seems a quibble, but it’s actually a major assault. About the book’s subtitle, Fetzer says:
The word “indirect” belongs in her subtitle, since “Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″ is exactly right.
No, the word “indirect” does not belong in the subtitle or anywhere else, and certainly not in the phrase “indirect evidence.” Nowhere in the work can the enormously plentiful and varied types and pieces of evidence that Dr. Wood has observed and collected—nowhere can there be found any reason why they should be called “indirect evidence” as opposed simply to what they are: Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11. What, for that matter, is “indirect evidence,” anyway?
And yet Fetzer, for reasons known to him alone, seems compelled to quibble on this point and others, with a near-manic energy. Let’s turn to “Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” where we will find—quibbling, yes, and a bushel or two of confusion.
Please lend an ear. Then ponder for a moment what it is you’ve heard:
Unfortunately, for all her good work in displaying the explanandum, what [Dr. Wood] says here does not do her work justice. For example, the claim that, “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic,” falls short on several grounds. Since truth and falsity are properties of sentences (or propositions), while empirical evidence consists of photographs, remnants of steel and other physical things, including dust samples and the outcome of observations, measurements, and experiments, “empirical evidence” is not the right kind of thing to be either true or false. Moreover, the idea that “theory mimic” [sic] empirical evidence compounds the semantic obstacles to making a claim that makes sense, since “mimicry” is a kind of simulation, replication, or emulation that would, were it successful, produce more of the same: more photographs, more remnants of steel and other physical things. What she should be saying is, “Empirical evidence is the data that an adequate theory must explain.”
Clear? It’s true that empirical evidence isn’t “true” or “false” but that instead it either is or isn’t evidence of something. Fetzer is taking up and belaboring a presumably adversarial point that would in fact meet with no disagreement from Dr. Wood. Even so, he isn’t content to end his paragraph without one final scolding:
What she should be saying is, “Empirical evidence is the data that an adequate theory must explain.”
Take that, Dr. Wood. Reading Fetzer, one feels swept back into the age of the Scholastics. Here is a last example before we part company with the professor:
Perhaps my background as a philosopher of science makes me more attune [sic] to the oddities of [Dr. Wood’s] formulations, but others are equally peculiar. To claim that, “If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. . . . The evidence always tells the truth,” once again, is to make an assertion that may sound appealing but does not make literal sense. Unless the evidence happens to be auditory and consist of sounds, vibrations, or other phenomena capable of being heard, which photographs, remnants of steel and most other physical things are not, the idea of “listening to the evidence” simply does not apply. I would liken this to a category mistake, such as supposing that geometrical figures, like triangles and squares, are physical things, like metal triangles and square tables, which are physical things in space/time, while the geometrical figures are abstractions, which have ideal properties and are not in space/time. Her confusion is roughly on that order. But to my surprise, she has gone even further by denying that she even has “a theory”!
This particular effort to stymie, obfuscate, and misrepresent is among Fetzer’s most remarkable. A reader wonders whether Fetzer is playing another trick or whether he actually failed to catch the irony that his “criticism” of Dr. Wood contains a perfect zinger describing what he himself does over and over. Dr. Wood’s phrasing, that “If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened,” declares Fetzer, “is, once again, to make an assertion that may sound appealing but does not make literal sense.”
No practitioner could hope for a more concise description of the obfuscator’s art than this one, provided by the champion. Even champions have off days, however, and this professional naysayer’s next step is a winner only in the category for plain, gratuitous silliness.
Fetzer apparently expects us to accept the absurdity that it’s impermissible for someone to say that he or she “ran into” a friend on the street, or that someone who offers strong and unquestioning moral support is “a brick,” or to write the lines
Drink to me only with thine eyes,
And I will pledge with mine;
Or leave a kiss but in the cup
And I’ll not look for wine.
That is, he is about to make the quite, quite nutty and preposterous claim that figures of speech can and must have no meaning other than their literal meaning. Under the terms of this absurd rule, the phrase “listen to the evidence” can be applicable only to “evidence [that] happens to be auditory and [to] consist of sounds, vibrations, or other phenomena capable of being heard,” ruling out “inaudible” evidence like “photographs, remnants of steel and most other physical things.”
It reminds me of being in college and having to suffer under the most pedantic and vainglorious prof in the school. And so, entirely in character, the pontificating Fetzer fills up this particular balloon with hot air, as we saw before:
I would liken this to a category mistake, such as supposing that geometrical figures, like triangles and squares, are physical things, like metal triangles and square tables, which are physical things in space/time, while the geometrical figures are abstractions, which have ideal properties and are not in space/time. Her confusion is roughly on that order.
I’m sorry, but no, it isn’t “roughly on that order” at all. The entire lecture is baloney. And phony Fetzer knows it perfectly well.
* * *
Every inch as fraudulent but far less entertaining are the trickery, misrepresentations, and professional falsehoods of Richard Gage and his “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” I assume that readers—those few who may still be with me—are as exhausted by the reading of this lengthy essay as I am by the writing of it, and so I will be as brief as possible.
Let me, therefore, go straight to the story of the relationship between Richard Gage’s group and the work of Dr. Wood. Synopsis of story: Gage knows full well that Where Did the Towers Go proves positively that his own arguments about “planned demolition” are wrong, indefensible, incorrect, misleading, and false. He thus does everything possible to ignore Dr. Wood, her book, and all that the book contains.
Now, ignoring the book means ignoring the evidence that it contains—evidence proving that the towers were destroyed not by “planned demolition” but by directed free-energy technology. Thus, being suppressors of evidence, Gage and his group are by definition non-ethical, non-professional, and non-scientific.
They should therefore be repudiated and exposed, dismissed from any form of serious consideration whatsoever as participants in the debates about 9/11 truth, and, further, they should be censured both by their own professional associations and by the scientific community worldwide.
The story of this group’s intellectual bankruptcy, scientific misprision, and intent to continue with its established program of lies is told most briefly and clearly by Andrew Johnson in his excellent and indispensable book, 9/11, Finding the Truth (download the book free at the iTunes Bookstore).
The story goes this way, chronicled by Andrew Johnson:
. . . [A] Medical Student named Abraham Hafeez Rodriguez . . . found out [that] his name had been deleted from the AE911 truth supporters’ petition following his efforts to raise awareness of Dr Judy Wood’s research. Abe had been a donor to the group as he supported their (apparent) efforts to uncover what had happened on 9/11.
Abraham explained that his name was removed from the petition following his sending Richard Gage a private email, which contained a question about Dr. Wood. He asked Richard Gage if he had ever heard of her or her research, and if he would be willing to contact her to collaborate and help support her legal cases. He never heard back from Richard Gage.
Abe began posting material and comments in relation to Dr Judy Wood’s research and also information about Dr Steven E Jones [sic] connections into Los Alamos National Labs. He had posted information on a number of forums (including the UK 9/11 “truth” forum which I helped set up in 2005). After a few days, he discovered his name had been deleted from the AE911 petition.
Abe explained that it was strange that they could later contact him to offer a refund, but they couldn’t reply to an email that was intended to help Richard Gage and AE911Truth.
Every bit as transparent as it is fascinating, the story reveals the obvious fact that the very last thing either Richard Gage or his deceitfully- and hypocritically-named group has the least interest in any “help” whatsoever. “Truth”? Did I hear the word “truth”? A proper name for Gage’s group would be Scoundrels, Liars & Anti-Scientists for 9/11 Deception.
Let me explain, or, rather, let the organization itself explain.
As chronicled by Andrew Johnson, Abraham Rodriguez finally did receive an email in response to his concerns about having been “unsigned” from the petition, but not an email from Richard Gage. Instead, it came from one Mark Graham. Here are parts of it, as cited in 9/11, Finding the Truth:
I am writing to you on behalf of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to explain why we removed your name from our list of petition signers and to offer you a full refund of your generous donations.
We decided to remove you from our list of petition signers because, whether you knew it or not, we have chosen to carefully limit the scope of our message to the collapse of the World Trade Center and the need for a new investigation that would specifically consider the use of explosives in bringing it down. . . .
At the time this letter was written, Where Did the Towers Go had not yet been published, but the information and research that it was to contain were prominently available online—where Abraham Rodriguez had seen and studied them.
And where Gage and his people had also seen and studied them—or I’m a monkey’s uncle. If you haven’t seen it before, now would be a good moment to have a look at Abraham Rodriguez Exposes Richard Gage, Part One, since this video so dramatically shows Richard Gage’s powerful “arm’s-length” policy in regard to any and all unknown other than his own that might shed light on the truth of what happened on 9/11. For that matter, it’s an equally good time, also, to take a look at Abraham Rodriguez Exposes Richard Gage, Part Two.
There. Now that you’ve seen those two videos, we can return to the email sent by Mark Graham to Abraham Rodriguez and to its explanation of the Gage organization’s stance toward the research and findings of Dr. Judy Wood. To wit:
Your suggestion about contacting Judy Wood and engaging in a discussion with her about her theories about directed energy weapons and other things is a suggestion for action that is outside the scope of our message. We would lose more than we would again [sic]. If nothing else we would lose the time required to make such a contact and engage in a discussion/debate whose duration would be unknown. We are also well aware of Judy Wood and her theories. The reason we don’t support her or her theories is that they are outside the scope of our message.
There is a lot of evidence besides the characteristics of controlled demolition seen in the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7 that strongly suggests or proves that the official story of 9/11 is false. As you know, 9/11 is a very complicated subject. Yet Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth deliberately avoids those topics. We; leave it to others to make those arguments and present the evidence to the public, to Congress and so on.
Where does one begin in the task of citing the inanities in just these two paragraphs? Oh, America of non-readers! Oh, America of science-ignorance! Oh, America, land of adult intellectuals who are unable to follow the steps even of a simple logical argument! Where are the nurturing guardians of the intellectuals, where are the quality controllers? Where are the instructors and professors and the examiners? Gone? All gone? Who is left to help us? To whom can we turn for absolute assurance that no one—no one—with a mind like the mind of Mark Graham shall ever—ever—be allowed near an architectural or engineering project of any kind, no matter what?
This, then, is the shabby band of crude propagandists referred to repeatedly—by such as Paul Craig Roberts, for example—as being reputable, professional, reliable, and so on: “The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge,” says Roberts.
Can Paul Craig Roberts conceivably be serious? Is it because these fellows with their “years of experience” are too lazy, or maybe just too afraid of over-taxing their minds, to do so basic a thing as look into what shows every likelihood of being new research of a kind most piercingly relevant to their own interests? God forbid that they might consider budgeting some time for such research: “We would lose more than we would gain,” said Mark Graham. “If nothing else we would lose the time required to make such a contact and engage in a discussion/debate whose duration would be unknown.”
Or maybe what Paul Craig Roberts so much admires about them, what makes him feel so deeply trusting of them is the unflagging and unflinching focus on their work that they maintain, absolutely blind to distraction. When Mark Graham says to Abraham Rodriguez that “We are also well aware of Judy Wood and her theories [anyway],” he actually proves the opposite by using the word “theories,” these being the very last thing Dr. Wood has. But it doesn’t matter, since Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth isn’t about to admit having looked at or thought about or analyzed anything whatsoever having to do with the research and writing of Dr. Wood. Why not? Try this for a zinger that’ll deepen your confidence in the experienced professionals: “The reason we don’t support her or her theories,” writes Graham, “is that they are outside the scope of our message.”
I don’t know about Paul Craig Roberts or Richard Gage, but when I was in school it was a flunk-for-sure tactic to ignore evidence relevant to your subject, especially if you knew it was there and ignored it to keep things simpler, and double-especially if it would have required an alteration in or a modification of, or maybe even a complete redefining of, your thesis. Skipping evidence to keep things easier—and less true, I might add—would get you a one-way ticket out of grad school faster than just about anything. That kind of scholarship was not just akin but sibling to “fixing the evidence around the policy,” and fixing the evidence around the policy is the same as—that’s right, as lying.
But maybe that seems okay to Richard Gage and Paul Craig Roberts. Maybe they went to lesser schools. Maybe that’s why they don’t mind it when they read evidence of intellectual falsehood and fraud like this (again, for this and much more, go to Andrew Johnson’s book): “There is a lot of evidence besides the characteristics of controlled demolition seen in the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7 that strongly suggests or proves that the official story of 9/11 is false. As you know, 9/11 is a very complicated subject. Yet Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth deliberately avoids those topics.”
Great. It really helps keep things simple. It’s much, much faster and more efficient just to shut your eyes to all but one thing and then say to all the rest—Hence! Away! begone!
I’m sure this method is what has made Gage’s two-hour plus movie, 9/11 Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out such a big success. I have an idea. To help underscore the intellectual excellence and the scientific authority of the movie, let’s make a list of just some of the evidence it ignores, leaves out, or fails to explain in relation to the movie’s thesis that the buildings were destroyed by planned demolition:
1) Seismic evidence indicating the absence of 1,000,000 tons of building mass hitting the earth
2) The absence of 1,000,000 tons of building mass in the debris pile (the pile equaled 2% of the total mass)
3) The fact of damage to buildings adjacent to the towers appearing only below eighteenth-floor level
4) Changes in Earth’s magnetic field at the time of each building’s destruction
5) Flames that failed to ignite paper, failed to singe tree leaves, and in many cases failed to harm flesh or burn clothing
6) The absence of high heat throughout the process of destruction
7) The absence of damage to the concrete “bathtub” under the buildings that is there to hold river water out
The engine blocks of automobiles missing entirely
9) Automobiles having been “toasted” in patterns inconsistent with oxidization
10) Fire trucks and other vehicles being flipped over with no sign of heavy wind or concussive force having been present
11) the sudden exploding of objects, people, vehicles, and steel tanks
12) Circular holes having appeared in glass panes while the panes remained intact
13) The presence of thunder on 9/11 recorded at all three major metropolitan airports
14) The presence of hurricane Erin offshore from NYC on 9/11, a category three storm that went unreported on news media and that abruptly changed course away from NYC after the towers’ destruction
And more. But let it rest. What on earth is going on? An ignorant and uninformed movie, an ignorant and uninformed group of reputable and lauded professionals, then yet another ignorant and uninformed group of an exactly parallel kind. And these are only one or two of the stories I have to tell. What about all of the publications, institutions, organizations, columnists, clearing houses, newspapers, magazines—all of them, in this same Gage-ian and Robertsian way, ignorant and uninformed, all of them either knowingly or unknowingly, purposely or ignorantly, actively or passively, participating in the cover-up of a book of scientific research and discovery that to my way of thinking—as I have said before, although perhaps not here, and as I will say again, is as revolutionary, important, and significant for us now as Copernicus, Galileo, or Darwin were revolutionary, important, and significant for us then.
Many of these people, publications, parasites, and institutions are noted and named in The Skull of Yorick, although that doesn’t matter much, since Americans, mostly, read and write not to remedy their ignorance but to reinforce and flatter it. Life is so much easier and more comfortable that way.
It’s beyond time to end, but other stories keep knocking at the door. Here are three.
1) The friend, successful writer, and known journalist, who wrote during an exchange of emails:
9/11 shot America right between the eyes. Was it a .44 magnum . . . a 30–06 . . . a directed energy weapon . . . EVERYTHING that really matters, it’s all the same.
Okay, perhaps the physical cause of the wound might in some way influence the choice of treatment? But what our maximum energies should focus upon is the wound itself, who inflicted the wound, and how to stop them from further wounding—indeed, HOW TO wreak justice upon them.
How much difference would it make to what matters most whether Judy Wood is “right”, or what I believe is “right”?
Indeed, in the realm of what matters above all, how would it make any difference whatsoever?
Who received this from me in answer:
Do you think that in a murder trial in a court of law where you were, say, the prosecuting attorney, it “wouldn’t matter” if you were unable to say how a murdered victim came to be dead? Suppose you were unable to say whether the dead guy died by slingshot, 22 rifle, “.44 magnum [or] 30–06” or, hell, by poison or by burning?
If you couldn’t identify the type of murder weapon, you’d have no case, or at very, very best a wildly weak one. You write that “what our maximum energies should focus upon is the wound itself, who inflicted the wound, and how to stop them from further wounding—indeed, HOW TO wreak justice upon them.” But, X, that’s a gobbledygook mouthful. In court, you’d be a dead duck. What in the devil’s name are you basing your case on? Are you basing it on “the wound itself”? Are you basing it on proving “who inflicted” the wound? Are you basing it on “wreaking vengeance,” a concept having nothing whatsoever to do with justice?
And whom I haven’t heard from since, except through his angry silence.
2) The friend, writer, teacher, poet, and erstwhile political radical to whom I sent a copy of Where Did the Towers Go because he himself was broke at the time. When it seemed clear to me that he wasn’t going to read it, I asked him why not. The reasons were solipsistic and made up of a battered and weakened logic worthy of Richard Gage. Here are parts of his response as he describes his giving up, turning inward, dropping out, removing himself to a faux-edenic place of self-gratulation and self-indulgence as nation, people, and planet take care of themselves in their dying:
It couldn’t be clearer to me that our world is one in which 9/11 was just the latest of ineffable horrors inflicted upon a gullible many by an evil, self-serving few, serviced and protected by a great many willing parties to great crimes and an even greater number of useful idiots. That’s pretty much where things stand for me. Is anything Judy Wood says going to change any of this for me?
I’m aware of so much more than when you and I used to write—though my intuition was already showing these things to me—that to engage at any level of American politics now would be to engage in a fiction which I know to be just that. There exists no law, no United States, no semblance of good in the system that one could ever hope for good from.
There will be no justice for 9/11, nor for any of the near-infinite other crimes at least as great. No party, no movement, no group of truth-tellers is to be trusted, ever. Anything which gains an iota of traction is immediately infiltrated. The only thing I can do is to keep my own soul, my inner truth, my higher self—whatever you want to call it—pure and whole, and to act spontaneously out of that integral place.
With a bow to you, dear sir, for all that you do, and, again, for sending me Judy Wood’s book. One day I’ll perhaps read it. At this point in my life, it’s like having a dusty copy of a great Greek or Roman work on my shelves. I prefer to live, say, with the wisdom of the I Ching, or one of Deng Ming-Dao’s books, or, even better, the quiet whisperings of my own soul within.
3) The journalist and Intrepid Report associate editor, Jerry Mazza, posted an article (containing contributions from Christopher Bollyn) on September 5 called “9/11 widow hoping for Supreme Court review.” Its subject: 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani and her decade-long struggle for a fair hearing, with Supreme Court review being her final hope at the time the article appeared.
After reading the article, Emmanuel Goldstein wrote to Jerry Mazza in care of Intrepid Report, asking if he knew about the science fraud case that Dr. Wood had brought in 2009:
I noticed in your article about the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund that [Mariani] wants to present her case to the U. S. Supreme Court. Are you familiar with Dr. Judy Wood filing a federal qui tam case with the U. S. Supreme Court against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC for science fraud in December of 2009?
The result of Emmanuel Goldstein’s query was that an angry Jerry Mazza reminded Goldstein that one of the things he, Mazza, dislikes about Dr. Wood is “her sense of inviolable superiority.” He mentioned me, too, saying that my review of Where Did the Towers Go was, like Dr. Wood, narrow-minded:
In fact, [the review] iterated the same hard-headed, steel-plated point of view that Where Did the Towers Go propounded. It made no attempt to listen to anyone else or see the circumference of traitors surrounding the 9/11 drama, responsible for Where the Towers Went.
I’m sorry, but here is a very, very serious question that I see no way of avoiding: What on earth is going on when accusations of “hard-headed, steel-plated [points] of view” are made against scientists? I can’t believe it, but does Mazza actually not realize or understand that science isn’t the same as opinion? The same as argument? As “point of view”? Does he, even, after having read it himself, actually think that a logical or relevant criticism of the book (not to mention my review of it) is that it “made no attempt to listen to anyone else or see the circumference of traitors surrounding the 9/11 drama”?
Either he read a different book than I did or he’s misremembering, but Where Did the Towers Go neither has nor ever intended to have anything whatsoever to do with “the circumference of traitors surrounding the 9/11 drama.” It is a science book. It sets out to do one thing and one thing only, and that’s to show scientifically and physically what happened on 9/11. Any considerations of who did it or why they did so or what might happen afterward are outside the scope of Dr. Wood’s research. A good scientist in fact makes an enormous effort not “to listen to anyone else” but, instead (pay attention, Dr. Fetzer), to “listen to the evidence” and only to the evidence, since it’s that alone that will or can “tell you exactly what happened.”
Mazza both cites and decries the setbacks and sequential injustices that have been the lot of Ellen Mariani as she “has been in the courts duking it out with the Zionist Judge Alvin Hellerstein and his cohorts for 11 years.” He remarks on Hellerstein’s ugly “comment . . . that ‘Money is the universal lubricant” and adds that he himself “was in the courtroom when a two not three member panel of appellate court justices, faced Mr. Bruce Leichty, Mrs. Mariani’s attorney, and determined later to threaten Leichty and Mariani with financial sanctions, another disgrace.”
Then comes this absolutely remarkable, highly revealing, and entirely misleading paragraph:
But you see, Dr. Wood cannot see beyond the scientific Petri Dish that she turned 9/11 into, forgetting about the human circumference of that dish, the players like Larry Silverstein, who raised the WTC insurance weeks before 9/11 to $3.5 billion and who after the horror wanted to be paid twice, claiming the Towers that fell were separate events. Then there’s Victim Compensation Fund ‘Special Master’ Kenneth Feinberg who gave away $7 billion to victim families but not a cent to Mrs. Mariani. There is Louis Eisenberg who authorized the lease of the WTC complex to Silverstein at a tiny fraction of its value. There is Frank Lowy, owner of Westfield, who paid but $127 million for a 99-year lease for the retail areas in the WTC thanks to Mr. Eisenberg, who managed the New York/New Jersey POA and delivered the WTC into Zionist hands. All of these men have dual passports, dual citizenships and ties to Zionist Israel. This is not a theory, it’s a fact. And there many more names to cite. But living in her Petri Dish, Dr. Wood refuses to see the most probable cause of the Towers demise, human greed and perfidy.
I may as well begin with the horse-pill-sized anti-science trope that Mazza himself opens with. Dr. Judy Wood has not “forgotten” anything whatsoever about “the human circumference” of 9/11, nor are either her research or her book a “Petri Dish,” by which I assume Mazza, in his own science-philistine view, means something blind, narrow-minded, inhumane, and tunnel-visioned. In regard to his scorn for Petri dishes themselves, talk about an ingrate! I’m given to understand that in the absence of such scientific and micro-biological research and detection as Julius Richard Petri’s dish has made possible over the past century and more, a very, very great many of us who are now among the living would be enjoying ourselves, as best we might, among the dead.
Further, as regards the “human circumference” of 9/11, I know of no living person public or private anywhere in the world more absolutely dedicated to the humanity and to the human life either lost, being lost, or being jeopardized by 9/11 in all of its ramifications than Dr. Judy Wood. A person need only read her third chapter, “The Jumpers,” to feel on one’s very pulse the depth and steadiness of compassion Dr. Wood feels for those who suffer and especially for those who are made to suffer because of criminal injustice and ice-cold, reptilian inhumanity.
Consider the sheer effort that Dr. Wood has made, the years and years and years of observation and study and research, not to mention the additional effort and time given to the actual writing of the monumental Where Did the Towers Go. Would anyone lacking a sense of or sympathy for the human dimension of the present political moment go to so immense an effort to bring hope and a concrete step toward relief and security to millions of people who are now in harm’s way?
Something is wrong at the heart of Mazza’s paragraph. Its gears are slipping. It’s trying to drive off in two directions at once. Dr. Wood has buried herself in a Petri dish and so she can’t see that “human greed and perfidy” are what “caused” 9/11. But she never intended to look at or study the “cause” in that sense. She set out instead to determine the “cause” in the sense of finding out what the means of destroying the World Trade Center buildings was. And she did it. She looked, saw, observed, listened, compared, organized, then looked further, listened further, compared further and determined scientifically, without any doubt whatsoever, that the buildings were destroyed by directed free-energy technology. Mazza, meanwhile, excoriates and castigates her for not having written a book on the motives for 9/11. And, for his own strange and curious reasons, he lambastes her on top of it for being insensitive to humanity.
What conceivable reason can there be for his being so angry about Dr. Wood’s proving the physical means by which the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed? In matters concerning 9/11 and the tyranny it has brought about, the tyranny it has imposed upon both us and upon the world, Dr. Wood has given us the equivalent of the liberating wealth of all the Indies, a way toward liberation from an absolutism of tyranny—and is castigated, snubbed, smeared, and scorned for it.
Why? Why do my own friends and correspondents and fellow writers scorn, sidestep, ignore, repudiate, or abandon Dr. Wood and her work? Why do Paul Craig Roberts, Richard Gage, James Fetzer, and Jerry Mazza do so? Why does Matthew Rothschild at the Progressive Magazine do so? Why the New York Times? Why Amy Goodman at Pacifica, Tom Englehardt at The Nation Institute, and Christopher Hayes at The Nation itself? Why Noam Chomsky? Why the Atlantic, Harper’s, The New Republic? Why Frank Rich and Don DeLillo? Why. . . .
But enough. The list is long, we all grow tired, and, often for reasons that I don’t fully understand, passions run high. After providing a catalogue of the “Zionist players” who may well have been—or were—involved in or supportive of the 9/11 crime, Jerry Mazza signs off this way: “I rest my case and would rather not hear from you [Emmanuel Goldstein] or Dr. Woods [sic] or Dr. Larson [sic] again. The lot of you disgust me.”
With nothing less than the survival of our nation, our people, our world, and our life under the rule of law at stake, this—well, this sort of splenetic myopia and pontifical self-righteousness—isn’t going to get us very far.
I ask only, Can’t America do better? If it can’t, I fear gravely, and I grieve, for where all of us are headed.
1. “The Storm over the University,” The New York Review of Books, Dec. 6, 1990
Eric Larsen is author of the novels An American Memory, I Am Zoe Handke, and The End of the 19th Century. His next novel, The Decline and Fall of the American Nation, will be published soon. Larsen is also author of A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit (2006) and The Skull of Yorick: The Emptiness of American Thinking in a Time of Grave Peril—Studies in the Cover-up of 9/11 (2011).