Time to topple our own heads

A while back I linked to an online IQ test and suggested readers take it and keep results to themselves. Please go back and review, as it is testing our problem solving and pattern recognition skills. Dr. Judy Wood, who uncovered much of the apparent technology in play behind 9/11, suggested two three reasons why Americans cannot connect the dots around that and so many other crimes:

  • 1: Poor problem solving skills;
  • 2: Fear of the implications;
  • 3: Group think.

Problem solving skills involve pattern recognition. If you go back and take the IQ test again, you’ll see that’s all they are testing. The better your recognition skills, the higher your score. Journalists are trained not to recognize patterns, as they believe it introduces bias into reporting. The rest of us are scared away by the use of “conspiracy theory” meme, which implies mental instability and lack of intelligence.

Quite the opposite, patterns are all around us, easily seen, and problems are easily solved. It’s just the implications that are so damned troublesome.

So why, on one hand, are Americans scored during their education based on pattern recognition abilities, and then ridiculed when those skills actually come into play? It is simple: In the Empire of Lies, blindness is a virtue, incredulity a vice.

The reason why the powers behind the throne can do awful things like shooting down airliners and beheading people and get away with it is a simple matter of faith. This is evil shit, and we do not want to think that our leaders are behind it. That places enormous responsibility on us to change our leaders. And anyway, we like Obama and cannot imagine he would do such stuff.

But that problem is easily understood once we understand the implications of 11/22/63: The office of president since has very little power, and is usually occupied by actors.

So set Obama aside, as he is just a spectator, and like most politicians, just a third-rate human. “He” is not doing this stuff. But who is? Much easier to think it was “them,” and if the “them” happens to be darker skinned people who live in far-away places, who we shown on TV to be irrational anyway, so much the better. Then we can demonize them, bomb them, topple their heads, take their land and resources, and even feel morally superior in the process.

Please understand, people, that the patterns are right before your eyes, and that the evil resides within our country, and not without. Solving the problem is the easy part. Accepting the implications is tough. Please do so. The hardest part: Accepting responsibility. We allowed this sinister force to take control of our government, and now look the other way whenever it misbehaves. It is time to grow up.

The rest of the world very badly needs for Americans to topple our own heads.

30 thoughts on “Time to topple our own heads

  1. One place to start would be to slash budgets and terminate contracts used to spy on citizens. So far, no 2014 candidates I am aware of have talked much about domestic spying or propaganda abuses by our war department.

    “The Department of Defense has turned its huge public affairs program into an offensive propaganda campaign being run by the same contractors that spy on the world through the intelligence agencies, according to a DCBureau-National Security News Service (NSNS) investigation.” http://www.dcbureau.org/201309309080/national-security-news-service/the-selling-of-the-pentagon-2013.html

    And that’s just the DoD.


    1. This regime is making war now in Syria and Iraq and Ukraine, trying to topple a democratic government in Venezuela. They are out of control, almost in panic mode. They need to be toppled, but what will bring them down in the land of somnambulism? It can only happen from without, and by war, and it will be very, very ugly.


  2. I wonder how strong the negative correlation is between IQ and an acceptance of Dr. Wood’s pseudoscientific hypothesis.

    That would be quite telling wouldn’t it? Or would we abandon IQ when it came to explaining intelligence’s role regarding that?


    1. Too funny – since you’ve never examined Dr. Woods’ work, your analysis that it is “pseudo-scientific” (it is not by any stretch) must be based on the statements of others, an expression of faith on your part, or belief without evidence.

      How do I know you have never examined her work? Because people who have are deeply troubled, and you’re not.


      1. “How do I know you have never examined her work? Because people who have are deeply troubled, and you’re not.”

        As I’ve said before, the parallels between your own logic and that of Religious Apologetics are staggering.

        You’re wrong though, I have examined her work. As much as was warranted anyway. As a “physicist”, she adheres to a hypothesis regarding technology and physics never before developed, tested, and published for reproduction via Methodological Naturalism. Much like the guy selling time machines on ebay, with her certainty and supposed understanding, she should be able to reproduce said technology, but doesn’t. Either pretty much all other physicists in the world are scared to pursue her hypothesis – because of the deep state – and are ignoring the greatest technological development since nuclear energy. Or, her hypothesis isn’t worth pursuing. The latter is far more likely a priori, as the world is full of pseudo “scientists” who have a pet theory the world is ignoring -nearly always for good reason – their theory is garbage. Further, I watched her presentation you linked to about a year ago, and then watched her interview with the physicist. Dr. Gregory Jenkins. She’s a kook, and in the presence of another physicist who can push the issues, she crumbles.

        You don’t understand how science works, you certainly don’t understand physics, and you are a sucker for the internet, Mark.


        1. As they say in poker, a couple of “tells” here.

          1. “as much as was warranted, anyway,” another way of saying “No, I have not examined her work.
          2. The technology has been tested and reproduced by Tesla and others. Obviously it cannot be done on a grand scale, but again, this demonstrates that you have not examined her work.
          3. She does not have a “pet theory.” (Jesus, even a cursory review of her work would tell you this.)

          4. Her credentials are “professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science.” You reduced this to “physicist,” but her field of study is far more specialized, dealing in metals, stress and interferometry, especially interesting.

          5. I am aware of Jenkins’ ambush interview, and I don’t see him coming out on top. Maybe you watched another one. It was made for dabblers like you who are looking for confirmation of your biases.

          Long and short of it, you got nothin’. Please do come back when you have read her book. Until you do, you’re just another true believer.


        2. Nameless Range, if you think Dr Judy Wood is a physicist, you are more clueless than I thought.

          You demonstrate your complete ignorance about Dr Wood and her work. You don’t even know what her BA, her MS and her Ph.D are in, do you? I’ll give you a hint, None are in physics.

          Nope. You are completely in the dark. Go read or go away, idiot. Quit talking about shit you know nothing about. You are embarrassing yourself.


          1. Oops. I miss labeled her.

            No answer to the fact that she has no current technology to reference? a Priori, this is bad.

            No answer to the fact that she can’t even describe the mechanism for the “energy” she claims to have been used? How does this effect the probability of her hypothesis?

            No answer to the fact that in a world of Mechanical Engineers, Metals Experts, and the like, she is the ONLY ONE who adheres to such a theory? How likely is that?

            This occurred 13 years ago, yet we have no more reason to believe such technology exists now, than we did then. How likely is that?

            Hers is the definition of a pet theory. Bad priors. Dubious assumptions. No peers on her bandwagon. Never improving evidence.

            Scientists, and science in general, love new discoveries, and she is claiming the existence of the most powerful technology since nuclear weapons. New discoveries = money, fame, job security, pride, winning, etc.. Disregarding the rest, the fact that the rest of the scientific world doesn’t bat an eye, and hasn’t in over a decade, is nearly evidence enough.

            I don’t need to read her book to know her theories are garbage, any more than I need to read the bible to know Christianity is false. You’re spinning your wheels as Dr. Judy Wood fades into obscurity, become less and less relevant, and more and more evident as someone that didn’t, and doesn’t, have an evidence-based leg to stand on.

            She’s a kook steve, and you are a sucker.


          2. Here’s the “tell”: “I don’t need to read her book…”

            You do, actually. I am not a stupid person, nor is Steve. We’re both actually pretty smart. The book it an exposition of evidence of what happened that day. As to what caused those things to happen, she does not know. She is familiar with the technology on a small scale that offers similar evidence. It could be that this technology has been weaponized, which is why it is safeguarded by national security. Military technology is always decades ahead of civilian technology.

            Now, here’s what you did: When I said that Dr. Wood thought that people can’t figure out things because of poor problem solving ability, you thought “I’ll show him a thing or two.” You then went to a debunking site regarding Dr. Wood, gathered some ammunition and then came back here pretending to have actually examined her work.

            How do I know that? The content of your remarks is paltry. You’ve obviously never been exposed to the bulk of her work. You’re just like most people. You’re so afraid of the implications that you seek group comfort rather than knowledge.

            So read carefully here: You bring nothing here. You don’t know shit. You get nasty even though you don’t know anything. Further, you will never know shit because you will never have the courage to confront the evidence.

            Go away. You’re a waste of time.


          3. ” Further, you will never know shit because you will never have the courage to confront the evidence.” – M. Tokarski

            “If only Atheists would try to read the bible, to try to commune with the Holy Spirit, then they would see the error in their ways” -Random Religious Apologist

            You blame it on TV, they blame in on TV. You blame it on courage, they blame it on courage. Ultimately, you engage in nothing but ad hominem – ad nauseum. It is the only way you can uphold your certainty in spite of overwhelming demographics of belief. If only you could see. People don’t buy into your theories not because they are propagandized or afraid of the deep-state, but because the arguments upholding your propositions are really bad.

            The reason I won’t read her book is because I enjoy reading good books too much to waste my time with a poor one. Life is finite. I laid out my reasoning why the probability is incredibly high that her book is garbage, which you never really addressed. I am simply applying the same criticism to her as I would to any other individual with extraordinary claims.

            I’ll give you one thing though.

            “Military technology is always decades ahead of civilian technology.”

            Let’s discount the fact that this is utterly false. You may have just done something you nearly always shy away from – make a prediction. Predictions can be falsified, and show how little you actually know. Are you predicting that within the next 10 years,(that would put us over 2 decades from 9/11) that Dr. Wood will be vindicated? Because you, I, and the internet will probably still be around then, or will you, like a 7th day Adventist, push the due date further into the future.

            That too, would lower the probability of you proposition.


          4. Nameless Range;

            Just as Pons and Fleischman were ultimately completely vindicated, 20 years later, so will Dr Wood be vindicated too. What’s that? You didn’t know Pons and Fleishmann have been vindicated? Figures. You are ignorant, Nameless Range.

            Dr Wood came to her insights over the course of collecting data and testing multiple hypothesis. It took years of research. She sued NIST after she had collected sufficient evidence to sustain her law suit.

            Her evidence tells you what happened. Just as Pons and Fleishmans’ evidence did, She is the Sherlock Holmes who lets the evidence speak. You listen to the paid suits which is why you are ignorant.

            All those documented legally admissible as evidence photos tell a story. Combined with all the other supporting evidence it’s a compelling story. And it isn’t the NIST story. It holds up far better than the NIST story on point after point.


          5. You showed your clear, complete, and obvious ignorance. i don’t care that you are ignorant if you don’t care. Yes, I excuse you for being ignorant. Think nothing of it.

            You have no awareness of what any scientist any where thinks, even though you think you have this awareness. If you actually took the time to look you would find that many respected patent holding scientists accept the Hutchinson Effect as passe.

            Dr Wood simply demonstrated with documented photographic evidence, seismographic evidence, eye witness evidence, electron spectrometer analysis evidence, and many kinds and of evidence that what occurred at the WTC on 9/11/01 caused phenomena that is very similar to, and consistent with, the Hutchinson effect.

            I haven’t heard what you believe caused the disappearance of about 80% of the WTC, but i would be fascinated to hear your theories. Seriously. How do you explain it?


          6. I have a strong intuition that a discussion involving the possibilities I consider as explanations for 9/11, as well as the probabilities I apply personally to them, would have diminishing returns in terms of utility. Rob was right though, your call for THE EXPLANATION is childish. I only need to apply a higher probability to a wide array of possible explanations for me to discount Dr. Wood’s account of things as improbable.

            It looks though, as if I was correct to not read the book. Rob pointed out a few issues he has, and those were answered with “Bullshit”. I am well aware that there has already been a fair amount of discussion between those who read Piece of Mind, regarding the Math and physical claims Dr. Wood has made. Because of a long list of arguments I will not provide, because they will be ignored, I have a feeling my objections would ultimately be addressed with nothing but “bullshit” anyway.

            I had never heard of the Hutchison Effect. I just spent about 30 minutes doing research on him, which was more than enough to identify him as a quack, though VX theory is interesting and people are researching it, though not in any way that vindicates DEW. It certainly doesn’t uphold any of the Dr. Wood explanation, and the only sites endorsing the Hutchison Effect as anything legitimate are those associated with Dr. Wood’s theories. There is a reason that results need to be replicated by independent scientists before the rest of the scientific world takes an effect or hypothesis seriously. There is a reason I had never heard of the Hutchison Effect.


    1. Interesting. But in matters of the lies of the Empire, the phenomenon is not intellectual, but behavioral training. People instinctively know not to look at evidence that brings to light doubts about the official truth of the events of our times. Instead, and this is interesting, they ridicule and sneer.


  3. X + Y =1.1
    X + X+1 =1.1
    2x + 1 = 1.1
    2X + 1 – 1 = 1.1 – 1
    2X = .1
    2X/2 = .1/2
    X = .05
    Do I get extra credit for showing my work?
    Lizard has been trying to make a subtle point in other threads and it’s a very good one. If you start with the dictum that the government lies to us and conclude that the government is always lying to us, you have made an intuitive conclusion, one that is not born out by fact. And as all y’all pile on NR for being ‘ignert’ and making intuitive conclusions, y’all are doing the same. You are starting from an unproven a priori axiom and following bad logic. The claim that Wood makes and is so well favored here is that if all other explanations are exhausted, then the only remaining must be true. The problem is that all other explanations haven’t been exhausted, unless you accept up front that they have. The true failing is that there is no real evidence that supports a massive energy beam weapon, other than the lack of palatable evidence for other theories, and that some people are working on a weapon of that ilk. That’s the only point Nameless Range was making, that some folks ’round these parts are putting too much faith in what cannot be verified or vindicated except by chance.

    If you can fit it in your mythology of black ops, false flags, energy beams and such, you might consider that Nameless Range never supported the ‘official account’ of what happened 13 years ago, nor followed the propaganda trail into ‘Murika kicks ass’. He was skeptical, and rightly so, of the “work” professed by Judy Wood. The real tell that you folks are dealing with a mythology and not established fact is Steve W’s childish demand that Nameless Range come up with his own explanation for what happened on that fateful day. Sorry, I don’t have to explain the creation of either one to know that shit ain’t Shinola (though either would probably do a very good job of polishing your dress shoes. The former would leave them stinky, though.)


    1. That’s pretty basic algebra there. I suppose I should check to see if it is right or if you’re pulling a fast one.

      There’s no dictum. You would simply be amazed, when you look at evidence, how blatant the lies are when they lie. Do look at the evidence some day.

      Regarding Dr. Wood, you too have never looked at her work, and please come back when you do. There are ‘tells’ in your words here.

      Glad you’re speaking for NR. I am sure he appreciates it too.


      1. You know what I like about the Internet? You can pirate books without paying for them.

        Mark, there is an appalling lack of relevant math in Wood’s book, “Where did the towers go?” I get that she’s an engineer, kind of like the guys who develop vacuum cleaners that are unusable because they’ve never used one. Wood examines the math of structures given tensile strength of disparate materials, but not in context of 9-11. (We’ve had this discussion enough to know that the entire concept of tensile strength sets you quivering with frowny faced outrage. Just get over it.) She can’t discuss mathematical values of collision because she doesn’t know. And very much like folk ’round here, she uses that ignorance to support her theory. (Ain’t it funny how folk ’round here call others “ignorant” while basing their own theory on established ignorance?)

        The point I and others have made to you before, Mark, is that ignorance is not a foundation for truth. Wood does not make a mathematical foundation for her theory save that the energy required would be X, and she then attempts to discount X without mathematically doing so. It’s deception. Math is the language of physics, and for pity’s sake, Mark, you went off about Newton’s third law without understanding the math behind it based on Wood’s recommendation. You actually claimed that Newton’s third law had nothing to do with velocity when V is fundamental to Newton’s second law regarding acceleration. Wood offers very little that is credible, but you want to believe, you need to believe. I find her math lacking. I find your theory lacking.

        I have no interest in arguing this crap with you again. We’ve done this too many times and your mythology simply will not brook disagreement. Too bad. Nameless Range had a good point, and got called all kinds of stupid names for holding his ground. I don’t think he’s the stupid one, here.


          1. I was going to reply to the BS in many of Rob’s erroneous and unsupported statements on this particular post, but I resisted, since it’s like talking to the wall.

            Rob never read her book, but he wants to give his opinion, as if anyone cared about his uninformed opinion. He’s ignorant. About this subject. He should stick to football, at least he;s put the time in to maybe have an informed opinion about that.

            Here is the opinion of someone who has read Dr Wood’s book and agrees with the stated conclusions; Dr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

            “Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 “research”, including the unscientific ‘9/11 Commission Report’. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make. “


          2. Lots and lots of math spread in various places throughout the book, Where Did The Toweres Go? Proof of Directed Energy on 9/11

            There is math about bodies in motion,


            and magnitudes of p and s waves all conveniently expressed in numbers. There’s math about tritium half life and about the chemical make up of the dust. There’s math about the hundreds of people who, for the first time anywhere, all started jumping to their certain deaths from the 81st floor and there abouts.. There is more math than a civilian like yourself could probably handle.

            Go to the appendix at the bottom and lets hear your opinion, Mr Math. What was your degree in?

            You don’t know math from shit because you are afraid to heft up the book and read it. Where’s the curiosity boy? Math is for people who are afraid of data. Look at the data. Record the data correctly.


          3. By the way, Rob, please don’t continue to insult my intelligence with your talk of tensile strength and how confounded mathematicians struggle over Newton’s third law. You’re trying to conform your own mind to the impossible, buckling under to the emperor, and telling us that yes, aluminum aircraft really can pass through reinforced steel buildings without resistance. Newton said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You’re saying yes, this is true, except when the emperor says it is not.

            I am not the one struggling here with reality. You are.


  4. In answer to Nameless Range, above:

    Since you refuse to go to the evidence, I’ll bring it to you, Nameless, and only because you won’t go away as I have asked.

    Rob never looked at her book, easily discerned, which is why I called bullshit on him.

    The reasons are obvious are two:

    First, Dr. Wood used very little math in her work, and is almost exclusively examining physical evidence on the ground at Ground Zero and trying to explain it. Rob just pulled that out of his ass, asking us to imagine he is working complex formulas and finding her as coming up short. It’s laughable! Total pretense!

    Here’s some of what she has done:

    • She used a billiards ball example as evidence that the buildings could not have collapsed under their own weight, and that there had to be a massive injection of outside energy. But that’s mere arithmetic.
    • She examined the near-pristine state of the “Bathtub,” that reinforced wall that holds the Hudson River at bay and keeps Manhattan’s financial district and subways from flooding. The debris suggested a near scalpel effect, with massive buildings destroyed but the Bathtub unaffected. Massive collapse is not controllable, so that that effect is highly unlikely.
    • She examined possible sources of outside energy, including conventional explosives, nuclear bombs, “nanothermites”, and found them wanting. The quantity of explosives would require tens of thousands of bombs placed strategically throughout the buildings. There’s no evidence to suggest that ever happened., and more so, not enough debris. There is not enough heat to justify a nuke. The chemical signatures in the debris, specifically the high presence of tritium, suggest a cold fusion process at work.
    • She did examine seismic data and compare those events to others in terms of strength signals. She found that a much smaller building, The Seattle Kingdome, left far larger seismic signal and more debris, suggesting that much of the buildings had simply turned to dust.
    • She examined photos and movies of the buildings in collapse, trying to understand the process before her eyes. Where Did the Towers Go? is the title of her book for good reason.
    • She did examine the phenomena of 1400 cars that burned, including one whole parking lot blocks away that did not catch any debris, and yet where cars incinerated.
    • She examined the vehicles themselves, and found that the fires did not behave like normal fires, but rather seemed to exhibit a cool process and were stopped from spreading by plastic seals.
    • She examine the phenomenon of 1200 people voluntarily jumping out of the buildings even as it was not clear that collapse was imminent. That is not how people behave normally. They either wait for rescue or try to save themselves.
    • She wondered how workers could walk over supposedly molten debris, how hoses could lay on top of it, and not burn up. She wondered why, even as cars were burning up, paper under and around them did not.
    • She examined magnetic signals in the earth’s field and found that right around the time that the two building that fell “got their holes” (she does not assume planes hit them, as there is no aircraft debris at Ground Zero), and found that there were huge influxes of energy at that time.
    • She wondered about the presence of Hurricane Eric off the coast on Manhattan/Long Island that day, and why it was not reported on the news.
    • She examined the debris of all seven buildings that were destroyed that day, trying to understand the large circular holes in Building Six where offices were still intact, coffee cups still on top of desks, even as a clean hole was cut.

    Rob ignored all the evidence she examined, and instead adopted the posture that he had been able to undermine her mathematics. It’s an absurd posture. A mere glance at the book tells me that Rob is spouting bullshit.

    Rob also has no notion that Dr. Wood states at the outset of her work that she is not going to get into who or why, but rather only focus on “what.” Consequentially, her book, 485 pages, names no names, postulates no theories on who or why, and simply asks “What happened that day.” If Rob had read the book, he would not have written

    If you can fit it in your mythology of black ops, false flags, energy beams and such, you might consider that Nameless Range never supported the ‘official account’ of what happened 13 years ago, nor followed the propaganda trail into ‘Murika kicks ass’.

    Rob has his own narrative going here, as if he had never glanced at Dr. Wood’s work and was putting up a phony front. The subject at hand was her work, and if he has not looked at it, then the proper response is


    This brings us to you. You are a deeply insulting man. You take but a mere glance at the evidence, turn away, run to a debunking site, and then start hurling invectives at us, as if we are stupid and incapable of your level of insight – this as you have not even look at the evidence!

    There’s nothing new or different in anything you’ve said or how you have reacted. You’re just like everyone else. You are cartographer, if I read you right, so that you do have some technical skills that you can bring to bear on a complex problem. But you refuse to even try. You refuse to look at the evidence!

    That’s fear, sir. You are perhaps different than most in that you do possess problem solving skills, but just like everyone else, you are afraid of the implications, and a product of group think.

    I generally answer insult with insult, and if you feel that you’ve been treated harshly here, I suggest you look at your own words in addition to the responses those words generate. Further, it has taken a long time to put together this response, and I did not want to do it as I know you’ll probably not even trouble yourself to read it. Dealing with you fools who get their views from groupthink is frustrating.

    Good day.


  5. I went back and forth for about three months as to whether I believed the Hutchison Effect was indeed real. It was mind boggling, to say the least, since it was so foreign to my known mind parameters.

    I didn’t spend 5 10 or 30 minutes and then proclaim it to be false.

    I did some deeper looking and I found out that a number of well known and respected scientists viewed John Hutchison as an interesting (if slightly eccentric) and knowledgeable contributor to the understanding of gravitronic field disruption. People like Lockheed Skunk Works senior scientist Boyd Bushman or “father of micro-electronics” Ken Shoulders seem to like and respect him.

    Here, see what I mean

    Also, as Dr Wood points out, John Hutchison owns 5 or 6 hundred pounds of metal and other objects that went through the static field/microwave and radio wave environment. Some of those samples contain alloys never before seen on earth, for instance, among other interesting data. How would you explain away that data? If you were to try?

    Check it out. Before you close the door to your own mind. You might learn something despite your own best efforts.

    By the way, the benefits are to no longer run away and hide in a hole like a little bunny rabbit if someone asks an opinion as to what made the towers go away. Just say “It was a cold directed energy weapon (c-DEW) which caused a gravitational demolecularizing effect on certain materials.” With a great deal of confidence. That’s what the data says.

    That’s what the best evidence up to this point leads me to believe. Now that I’ve looked at and thought about the data in pieces, together and as a whole.

    It’s obvious planes don’t explain the data. It’s obvious thermite or high explosives, or mini nukes don’t explain the data. (No ionizing radiation, no heat, no light, no initiation to complete expansion pattern of debris)

    Look at pictures of Gaza. Those are high explosives and the piles are far higher than anything at the WTC ever was. Gaza didn’t have any 110 story buildings. People had blown ear drum in Gaza from the shock wave of explosion. Not so at the WTC.

    A field effect with disruption of molecular bonds and atomic nuculi at room temperatures really does explain all of the data quite nicely. Even if it’s gonna take some time for most people to wrap their heads around it. The good part is there is so much evidence that suggests gravitronic field effects and so many examples of the Hutchison effect, that sooner or later it will be mainstream.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s