US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Hidden with code "Other"
Commentary :: War and Militarism
Zahir Ebrahim's Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima' and 'Where did the towers go?'
21 Jul 2011
Therefore, for those attempting to study 9/11, it is primarily a forensic case for a Sherlock Holmes and a Hercule Poirot who can draw on expert opinions as pertinent and set aside other expert opinions as false, rather than some some simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded) scientists and self-ascribed scholars of truth assuming that the only thing false about 9/11 was the false-flag operation of demolishing the towers, but everything else is straightforward including the "evidence". Nothing is straightforward. A criminal mind that can plan and execute the 9/11 as 'Operation Canned Goods' for creating the pretext for "imperial mobilization" is certainly also diabolically smart enough to realize that it also would require cover stories and the subsequent spins, including leaving a trail of enticing red herrings right at the crime scene. If an overzealous detective picks up one or more of these red herrings as if they are real clues, and creates his erudite analysis on this "evidence", you know where he ends up - in the woods! No pun intended.
Click on image for a larger version

Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima'

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project

April 18, 2011 | Clarifications added April 22, 2011

[ This comment is an excerpt from an article based on Judy Wood's work which I had started but never found the time to pursue to completion. I thought this review by Eric Larsen might be a good place to just leave the following passages from its lengthy Preamble as comment. The comment has evidently still not been accepted. ] ... judy-wood-where-did-the-towers-go-coverpage_blue_s.jpg

I had never heard of Dr. Judy Wood until the beginning of February 2011. I haven't paid much attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement people because I found them patently silly in their prime demand: new investigation. By who? Of what? There is no crime scene hard evidence preserved. And when the judge, jury, executioner, sherif, and posse, all work for the same club, the club of "imperial mobilization", what sense does new investigation make? The only sense of a red herring to keep more peoples occupied in species pursuits, and perhaps administering some additional Hegelian mind-fck towards eroding national sovereignty by internationalizing the investigation, perhaps under UN, as baby-step towards accomplishing more world government. Now local crimes are investigated by a global body ? a justification solidified, since none of the national authorities are deemed capable of it for one reason or another! After my brief communication with the 9/11 Truth movement cheerleaders and scientists, I had given up on anything useful coming out of this lot except hard runs on the treadmills of inefficacy. But I had at least heard the names of its famous participants, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, etceteras.

But never Judy Wood. So imagine my surprise when I encountered this recent interview of Judy Wood by Red Ice Creations, dated January 18, 2011, Where Did the Towers Go? ( ) I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and for the first time. What is this Hurricane Erin? What is this dip in the Earth's magnetic field? What is this about the seismic signature not being consistent with a Controlled Demolition of 500,000 ton steel buildings? What is this about the audio signature (loud noise) not being consistent with Controlled Demolition (WTC-7's almost whisper-silent collapse)? What is the modality of ?Dustification?? Where is the mass of the three tall buildings? What high temperatures ? how could workers have been treading on molten steel? Why is the paper not burned?

Hmmm ? why had I not heard of these things by way of explaining them in the many technical papers written by Jones, Ryan, Legge, Harrit, et. al., which kept flowing into my in-basket every now and then?

What is the damn explanation for the paper not being burned ? isn't that molten steel flowing everywhere in the pictures that Jones et. al., have been showing to indicate a high temperature event? Why did it not burn the paper strewn everywhere? And, only paper is what's seen strewn everywhere. Were is the debris characteristic of occupied buildings having thousands of office occupants (chairs, desks, telephones, toilet bowls, etc.)? What type of fire (NIST), or controlled demolition (JONES), is this which consumes concrete-steel, turns everything to fine dust, and does not touch paper?

Only the demonic fire in the mind of Hectoring Hegemons and their SHM (Science HitMen) dishing Hegelian mind-fcks to the public.

So, I wrote to Judy Wood ? and it began my interesting study into this new stuff which this courageous professor had uncovered. Appendix-B contains one of my letters to her complimenting her on her stupendous courage. It was all right there in plainsight. But only she seems to have been highlighting it, as Dr. Wood says, since 2005. My article however is not about Dr. Judy Wood, nor about the 9/11 Truth Movement (which I think is a ?collection agency? ? using Judy Wood's diction, see Glossary), nor about social engineering. It is primarily about this new evidence which I am seeing for the first time, perhaps because I am now actually interested, because it was always there had I cared to look, and which has led me to use Judy Wood's own apt description of it in the title of this paper: The New Hiroshima. I do however touch upon all those other topics as appropriate only in the context of the primary focus of this paper, the evidence, and the separation of real evidence from the attendant noise, some of it deliberately fabricated noise as red herrings. This point about evidence and false clues being fabricated and put in place to mislead real investigators requires some elaboration.

There is a fundamental issue here, namely, that of layers of deception to mask both the methods and the culprits of 9/11. Deceptions in who dunnit is already obvious (see: ). Deception in the method of executing 9/11 by the perpetrators; deceptively removing the crime scene and destroying all evidence in the name of cleanup before any forensic study could be performed or evidence preserved for later forensic examination; deception in the myriad cover stories to mask how it was done; deception in misleading and/or concocting any and all investigations spanning the gamut from the official 9/11 Commission and the official NIST studies to the so called private investigators from the academe and from among the activists; have all muddied up the waters by each insisting that their evidence-set and their explanations are the most accurate 'truth'. And what's the best way to obfuscate even honest thinking civilians looking at whatever is available from the photographic evidence and the dust field? Fabricate evidence and leave a whole string of false clues behind.

In this maze of layered deceptions, it is not always obvious what is real evidence, what is cover story, and what is the deception-spin by the Mighty Wurlitzer's agents and assets (see ). Anyone can write anything. Anyone can publish a book. Anyone can doctor photographs. And anyone can publish a scientific paper on Bentham Open for $800 in the name of ?peer review?. I had checked this out myself a while back. Which peer reviewed publication asks for money? Heck, anyone can publish even junk science, from false theories to utter rubbish, in respectable peer reviewed science journals (see ). And of course, Galileo was not published in his time ? meaning, real truth which goes against the ruling interests is a rare commodity in public discourses. Especially, when it pertains to such a crime as the New Pearl Harbor the unraveling of which goes against the state's agendas. Such truths, for one thing, cannot be easily ferreted out, and for another, cannot be easily vented without systematic demonization, and ultimately, assassination.

Therefore, it is easy to suggest look at evidence. But when the Mighty Wurlitzer and his minions in the academe, media, and in ?truth? investigations teams are at work, just to figure out what is evidence and what are false clues can be a formidable challenge for genuine detectives. And when the pursuit is taken over by faux detectives whose only purpose is to mislead real detectives by introducing what Cass Sunstein called ?beneficial cognitive diversity?, the problem is compounded. Perhaps even made intractable and unamenable to a solution in a time frame that is meaningful to preventing faits accomplis. 150 years later, just as today even sixth graders learn how the natives were exterminated from the America's with biowarfare and small-pox, our progeny may also study how 9/11 was executed in their junior high history books with a clarity that is unavailable to the best detective today.

Therefore, for those attempting to study 9/11, it is primarily a forensic case for a Sherlock Holmes and a Hercule Poirot who can draw on expert opinions as pertinent and set aside other expert opinions as false, rather than some some simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded) scientists and self-ascribed scholars of truth assuming that the only thing false about 9/11 was the false-flag operation of demolishing the towers, but everything else is straightforward including the ?evidence?. Nothing is straightforward. A criminal mind that can plan and execute the 9/11 as 'Operation Canned Goods' for creating the pretext for ?imperial mobilization? is certainly also diabolically smart enough to realize that it also would require cover stories and the subsequent spins, including leaving a trail of enticing red herrings right at the crime scene. If an overzealous detective picks up one or more of these red herrings as if they are real clues, and creates his erudite analysis on this ?evidence?, you know where he ends up ? in the woods! No pun intended.

Having accurate evidence to base subsequent rational analysis on, is the sine qua non of getting useful and real scientific results which are un-biased, un-agendist. Therefore, keeping in mind that if one is interested in fabricating conclusions for hidden motivations, always, almost always, faulty evidence has to be employed and passed off as real evidence, followed by faulty logic and specious reasoning to reach the pre-determined conclusion. Therefore, the emphasis on acquiring un-tempered and genuine data followed by correct reasoning process cannot be over emphasized. Those employing the former used to be called ?sophists? in ancient Greece, but today, I'll just straightforwardly call them prostituting for empire to cause them maximum offense.

What Judy Wood has done is gathered all the evidence available from the mainstream news and official sources themselves and put them up for our examination. Which of that evidence-stream are false clues, and which are real? For instance, was this a high temperature event or was it a low temperature event? What is the role of Hurricane Erin on the day of 9/11? A list of evidence is comprehensively compiled in Judy Wood's book and on her website (linked to with the image of her book cover above). What method of demolishing the towers explains all the evidence? As Judy Wood herself argues, and which I too agree with, a theory must explain all the evidence, including separating out false clues from real evidence.

But I do not subscribe to many of the theories that Dr. Judy Wood has put forth to explain this evidence, such as the ?Hutchison Effect? which no scientist can reproduce. See Appendix-A. (Here is the PDF of the letter I wrote Judy Wood on John Hutchison's admission that ?I actually had my own encounters with the UFOs? ? anyone who talks UFO gibberish is part of the Hegelian mind-fck and I have no time for them; anyone who cites a UFO aficionado as a source of science is spinning absurdities, isn't Judy Wood aware of that, or does she too believe in UFOs? ).

I have no idea how it was done. Nor do I speculate based on hearsay. As Judy herself admits, the science and technology behind it all would be a most highly classified military and state-secret. Then why does she keenly speculate herself? My inquiry to Judy to explain her terminology that she had been using, such as ?interference?, etc., elicited a rather humorous response from her. Here is an excerpt from that email exchange (some ramblings in my letter are omitted, Judy's reply is complete):


'Subject: Please clarify this idea of interference

From: Project humanbeingsfirst (at)

Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM

To: "Dr. Judy Wood" lisajudy (at)

Hello Judy.

'I am very impressed. Excellent conversation on veritas:

1) I am not sure that I understand at all what you are talking about when you say "interference", "mix and match". How can superposition ever apply to microwave frequency and radio frequency simultaneously, for instance? Can you show me in some simple exposition how energy bands of markedly different wavelengths can ever interfere?

2) My next investigation question is about this Tesla business. I don't understand this "scalor waves" business (seems like a non-sequitur, "scalor" implies it has no direction component in the traditional sense, only magnitude) ? and I have looked at this stuff many many times over the years until I dismissed it all as gibberish. Like you, I don't know what HARP is, have only heard conjectures, mostly plausible, but not demonstrated. I don't know what Chemtrails are, but I have heard plausible explanations. I am unwilling to base any theory that is merely plausible ? for the unconstrained imagination of philosophers can come up with an infinite number of immanent thingys. So, like yourself, I look for empiricism, and theory which explains that empiricism, but which is then verifiable on predictions and experiment. i also concede that when there is black-projects and classified projects going on, as the DEW conference I sent you info on in a previous email [ See ], it can be difficult to come by that science for the public. That however, does not mean that every notion and plausible explanation fits that science. This Tim (or Tom) Bearden fellow is the main exponent of "scalor waves". And as far as I understand Maxwell's equations, we are dealing with vectors. Power flows with the Poynting vector. [ See Caltech professor C. H. Papas' classic text on the subject: Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, 1965, 1988 ] How can it "flow" as a scalor?

Therefore, Dr. Wood, I had, a while back, dismissed all this "scalor talk" as disinformationists laying a trail of red herrings in preparation for future "collection agencies". As of this writing, my previous limited study had indicated to me that people who keep talking "Tesla Tesla", don't really show anything beyond gibberish and hand-waiving conjectures ? what has Tesla demonstrated that is not explained by Maxwell's equation? The hand-waiving spin often put on Tesla is not any different than what Steven Greer put on heat-pumps for the ignoramii who flock to him (see my article debunking his bs if you haven't already: ).

But now, are you saying Judy, that you understand this "scalor physics" beyond the gibberish? I am eager to learn then. Please show me.

As noted before, if you have precisely addressed these two questions in your book, I'll just read it there. Otherwise, I would much appreciate your showing me what you know. I'll reach my own conclusion of how much to be persuaded.'


Dr. Judy Wood's Full reply:

'Subject: Re: Please clarify this idea of interference

From: Dr. Judy Wood lisajudy (at)

Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:49 PM

To: "Project" humanbeingsfirst (at)

Hello, Zahir.

At this point, I'm a little concerned if you've been assigned to find out how much I know to determine if I need to be eliminated or if marginalizing me will be sufficient. I don't think that is the case, but the characters approaching me have gotten more sophisticated over time. If I seriously thought that, I probably wouldn't say it. Perhaps I'm merely explaining the reasons behind my cautiousness.

You are projecting issues onto me that do not belong there.

There are also people who have grown up in a box and feel they understand that box and may even feel in control of that box. Then, when exposed to something outside of that box, something they are not in control of, they feel threatened by it and respond in anger.

I have no interest in "persuading" others. I'm not here to perform for anyone, either. Learning is a voluntary exercise. Let me know when you are ready.



Disregarding that bit of understandable but delusional paranoid quirk (one of her students was murdered in cold blood ; and perhaps she did not like a dumb ass like me to ask questions ? I subsequently read some feedback about her by her Clemson students that Judy Wood didn't like students asking questions ? see here: ), and ignoring all Judy Wood's specious attempts at speculatively theorizing on the empirical evidence that it is Hutchison or Tesla or Free Energy etceteras, I have featured Judy Wood's book on my website's front-page (and in the article: ) solely for its outstanding evidentiary content which would tickle any curious scientist's funny bone.

As of this writing, I am forced to accept, by the sheer force of logic and the overwhelming evidence that Judy Wood has highlighted in her work on 9/11, that perhaps an entirely new mechanism other than airplane crashing, other than jet-fuel fire, other than controlled demolition, and which is potentially of the same revolutionary order as first employed at Hiroshima, was employed at 9/11. I will tentatively use the Pentagon and the Department of Defense's own terminology to refer to its class, the Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). This is a new emerging class of technology that employes some aspects of electromagnetic fields as a weapon system the understanding of which is presently not in the public domain of knowledge.

Therefore, what is the precise nature of the instance of the "DEW" weapon system that was used on 9/11, I have no idea, and I do not wish to speculate. And I echo Judy Wood's description in my own usage of the term DEW ? "Energy which is Directed" as a weapon system. That is as general a statement to identify a new blackbox weapon system as anyone can objectively make. Perhaps I ought to give it a different name to distinguish it from other laser based anti-missile systems and anti-personal electromagnetic wave systems that are actually known to exist (see the DEPS conference link cited in my letter to Judy Wood above), and which are also of the same class as ?Directed Energy Weapon?. But the acronym is semantically also what I want in order to distinguish it from all other conventional weapon systems which employ Kinetic, Thermal, and Nuclear Energies (explosives, nukes). What's inside that blackbox used for 9/11 and how it works, I don't know. All I understand, based on the evidence portion of Judy's work, that it must have been such a blackbox system because nothing conventional, including solely controlled demolition, explains all the evidence.

That is not to say that those other elements of destruction may not have been present (and as I am beginning to suspect, primarily for deception and red herrings to cover tracks), but they cannot have been the sole or primary modalities of the three WTC towers demolition on that day. Controlled demolition for instance, does not explain the bizarre dip in the magnetometer readings of the earth magnetic field, nor the bizarre movement of Hurricane Erin near New York city on that very day of 9/11, nor the voluminous unburned paper flying everywhere in a debris field of fine dust, nor the bizarre disappearance of door handles from half-burnt automobiles, to cite just a few anomalies which need explaining when talking of the HOW modality of 9/11. Judy's work is persuasive in that respect of gathering all the evidence in one place, even though, she fails miserably to persuade on her theories which try to explain it. Had she not brought in a UFO freak, I might have paid more attention.

Ignoring what I don't comprehend in Judy's work, what I do comprehend is such a commonsensical realization that I am puzzled why didn't I see this earlier myself ? possibly because I had never paid much attention to the HOW. ( See: )

As of now, to my mind, nothing else can explain all of the evidence and bizarredoms listed by Judy Wood except a new blackbox mechanism so radical, so transforming, so clandestinely lethal and controlled in its usage, that its very existence has to be cloaked with side-shows unlike the first Hiroshima atomic display with its uncontrolled blanked destruction which was boldly proclaimed to the world. I will not speculate why it has to be cloaked, only that it has been cloaked and must be kept cloaked. Intriguing.

There is no religion here. Only hard attempt at doing rational science, but not junk science. No UFO bullshit here. No secret alien science here. I am neither impressed by Nobel prizes nor by fancy titles, not by leaking state-secrets, and not by any proclamation of saintly virtue by anyone. There are no saints when ?deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.? Each scientific position, and considered opinion, on every issue, has to be evaluated based on what it is, not on titles, credentials, and accolades of its exponents. Furthermore, their saying ten things which are shown to be correct, does not make their eleventh thing also automatically correct by association with previous correctness. A very crucial failing of the public given to celebrity appeals, which enables the crafty introduction of ?cognitive infiltration? and ?beneficial cognitive diversity? by the people's trusted heroes and lauded chiefs. (See: ) These wonderful experts can serve the agenda for junk science as much as greedy fools and useful idiots often do, and Global Warming is ample evidence of that. (See: )

Such public deception in all aspects of modern statecraft, of which the high-tech and military sciences are an essential component, and without which no state can aspire to exercising ?full spectrum dominance? when they deem their ?democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization?, is always necessary because real and complete evidence, when examined by rational, non-agendist men and women of intellect using un-emotive reasoning, always leads to the correct conclusion-space of its own accord (eventually). This is as much true in hard science, as in political science which remains engulfed 24x7 in social engineering and Machiavellian manufacturing of consent and dissent. I believe this to be true to such an extent, and evidently Dr. Judy Wood has also stated her belief in this rational science paradigm time and again ?empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic; to look at the evidence and the evidence will tell you what happened?, that if there is any fault in the evidence-stream in her book, any fault in reasoning which pertains to the evidence, then I wish to be notified by those more knowledgeable than I.

Show me the inaccuracies in her evidence compilation. In the absence of such correction, the analysis based on this hard evidence gathered by Dr. Judy Wood is clearly leading to only one rational conclusion for me, and I would not like to reach that conclusion based either on crappy data, being victim of deception, or faulty logic: A New Hiroshima was used to execute the New Pearl Harbor to launch ?imperial mobilization? for world government.

Dr. Judy Wood's contribution to that statement is the ?New Hiroshima?. I thank her for that enlightenment. The rest are due to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carroll Quigley. The latter two have been amply written about on my website. The treatment of the former, and the rest of this article I hope, will be completed someday. But it seems like such a waste of time to pursue this HOW ? we will never know for one thing. And second, the real power of the ?New Hiroshima? was not in destroying three tall buildings ? but in sewing up the fait accompli of ?imperial mobilization?. Military expenditure derives its raison d'?tre only from political goals ? the goal of ?full spectrum dominance?. Given the unsurmountable impetus toward world government which it unleashed as the hammer unto the anvil (see: ), it is guaranteed that the mindless pursuit of the HOW devoid of it being rooted in the calculus of political science, only makes for a ?collection agency? to gather the energies of conscionable people so that they don't expend it in pursuing something productive.

Thank you,

Zahir Ebrahim | Project
See also:

This work is in the public domain