Presentation 2012: Where did the towers go?

Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference

There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;

1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications

Wikipedia's block listed 9/11 scientist.
Cancelled by Wikipedia for 14 years and counting.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/wikipedias-block-listed-911-scientist

Sept 11 is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.

The order of crime solving is to determine

1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).

Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime.

You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief.

You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with.

If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.

Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the 19 bad guys with box cutters story we were given before noon on 9/11/01.

Dr Wood’s research is not speculation and she’s been the closest to getting to the bottom of the who dunnit.

Dr Wood did a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01.

She does not address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question right now.

Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened.

By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind.
The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called 9/11 truth movement) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to Dr Wood’s research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence.

Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda.

The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court.

Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.

There are a lot of coincidences with regards to the build-up, on the day and the days after 9/11. There are suspects as to who might have had some sort of involvement in the events of 9/11, but for now it’s all they are. Suspects.

Dr Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors who were tasked with security and clean up at ground zero. These companies also helped write reports that made up the scientifically flawed, 10 000 NIST report.

Two of the main defendants in the case were ARA and SAIC, who specialise in psychological warfare, weather manipulation and directed energy weapons, DEW.

If Dr Wood’s 2009 US Supreme Court Case wasn’t railroaded by the judge, she would have been able to depose these 23 companies and in so doing, would have been closer to determining exactly HOW and then we’d get a lot closer to WHO and WHY.

But we can have our suspects for now, but we need hard evidence to convict.

Read Dr Wood’s book: Where did the towers go? https://www.wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Were the towers destroyed by a gravity collapse? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by explosives? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by thermite? The evidence says no.
Were the towers destroyed by nukes? The evidence says no.

The answers to these questions can easily be found by studying the evidence.

The problem is NOT a shortage of evidence.
The problem is nobody wants to LOOK at the evidence and think for themselves.

Instead, everyone wants to be TOLD WHAT TO THINK by "experts" in the MSM, alternative media, the scientific community, the government, and the "truth" movement, but these "experts" spend the whole time covering up and muddling up the evidence.