Zahir Ebrahim's Open Letter to 9/11 Truth Chiefs

To: Steven Jones <>, Kevin Ryan <>, Frank Legge <>, Niels Holger Harrit <>, Richard Gage <>, Kevin Barrett <>, Judy Wood <>
Cc: newsroom <>
Subject: Zahir Ebrahim's Open Letter to 9/11 Truth Chiefs (Reissued Sept 11, 2016)
Dear recipient,
Peace be with you. I am resending this revised and final version of my Comment on Judy Wood's 'New Hiroshima' to the addressed recipients as an open letter because in it, I am explicitly expressing my humble 0.2 cents worth of opinion on the credibility of Steven Jones et. al.'s work. Please be advised that I have no affiliation with either Judy Wood or with any of the recipients of this email, nor have I ever met her or anyone else from among the recipients. I don't know any of you personally. What interests me as an ordinary justice activist suffering the largesses of “imperial mobilization” are two aspects of your public role in this HOW topic of 9/11. Specifically,
1) evidence which betrays motivation of its exponents ; and
2) authenticity of evidence-stream which you publicly bring to the fore in your respective exponentiations which directly impact public opinion.
Anyone who impacts public opinion is of interest to me. I always examine both the aspects noted above simultaneously. I drew this inspiration from the famous Bernard Lewis of Princeton who wrote in his book “The Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror” the following shrewd sentence as justification for writing his vile book with that equally vile and specious title: “Terrorism requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that drive them.”
I have ever since been inspired by the idea that it is always “useful to understand the forces that drive them” in order to examine the forces which drive anything, any mantra, and every individual who brings a mantra. The work of any individual or group or organization or institution is not divorced from the forces which drive them if Bernard Lewis' prescription is correct. The British Svengali and former OSS operative used this notion to seed falsehoods in the form of fabricating motivations to make the “clash of civilizations” believable to the ignorant public in America and the West. I employ it, judiciously always, to unlayer and uncover deceit of people like him who shill for empire, either overtly or covertly.
Since the remains of 9/11 are no more preserved as crime scene evidence, except in copious images and videos, those who bring their eruditeness to the fore as either self-appointed crime-scene experts, or as experts appointed by the establishment, are part of the evidence themselves. If they stand discredited, or if their motives are suspect, so is their evidence stream unless other unimpeachable sources for that evidence-stream is found. If they are incestuously the only source, the evidence lives or dies solely by the credibility of its exponents. One is not separate from the other, and those who separate them in innocence, may, I hope, become better informed by reading my article below. This is a well known rejection criterion to reject evidence from those who commit fraud, or have committed fraud in the past, or are known to be allied with those whom they purport to give evidence against, or are known to promulgate deception.
If anyone has ever been on Jury selection, they would have surely observed the emphasis by the prosecution team as well as the defense team to discredit the other team's witnesses. HolocaustTM is entirely about blanket acceptance of witnesses and testifiers without examining their integrity and motivations, and not about evidence. Whereas, 9/11 has uncannily become entirely about blanket acceptance of evidence without questioning either the validity of that evidence, or the motivations and integrity of the testifiers who bring forth that evidence, just as in the former case. I find that similarity very intriguing.
Because, if one were to ask cui bono, one is not surprised. Each case serves an agenda which is other than uncovering what really happened in those respective crimes against humanity. The former, with the TM, serves the agenda of sustaining the legitimization of Zionism in the mind of the goyem, and the endless extortion of both sympathies and restitution monies from them. The latter serves the agenda of sustaining “imperial mobilization” one way or another. From certain vantage point, it can be rather hard to distinguish between the two monumental crimes of recent memory the import of which continues to direly resonate globally today.
Of course, it is also obvious that passing the aforementioned rejection criterion of discrediting the witness does not automatically constitute an acceptance criterion for the evidence-stream, and that is also a universally accepted practice. Acceptance and rejection criterion are two distinct and separate things.
This fact is especially important in the forensic unraveling of a crime whose hard evidence has been rapidly removed, a monumental crime which is a priori known to be wrapped in layers of deceit, false clues and red herrings to serve imperial agendas, one whose import is so “transforming” that it must not be unraveled within the time frame that its obfuscation is needed to accomplish all faits accomplis seeded by it, and whose continued obfuscation is required in order to complete the intended transformations. I don't think anyone can sensibly disagree with any of this.
Nor can anyone sensibly disagree with the fact that 9/11 was one such monumental crime which fits the aforementioned attributes to a “T”. A supreme crime analogous to Hitler's 'Operation Canned Goods' used as pretext to commit the supreme international crime of aggression, to “goosestep the herrenvolk across international frontiers” (as noted at Nuremberg) for the exact same purpose of acquiring a “greater Lebensraum”. Just that in this case which plagues us today with an even greater tour de force of evil, Lebensraum is “world government”.
All this is brazenly obvious today and surely known to everyone of the recipients. If anyone denies any of it, please deny it publicly (and leave me a pointer to it) so that the public can also judge your knowledge of the world, your sophistication and objectivity in analyzing current affairs and the historical chain of events that has brought us here, and your inherent biases in which you cradle your worldview and thus your pursuits. Which ones among you are exponents of Zionistan I would surely like to know. Who among you seeks World Government, I would also like to learn that (see footnote [19]).
Therefore, henceforth, as presumably entirely genuine and objective scientists pursuing a hard scientific inquiry into a crime which, one ab initio accepts, is wrapped in layers upon layers of deception by its very nature, let me know why anyone should believe Jones et. al.'s evidence-stream, or disbelieve Judy Wood's evidence stream that is entirely drawn from public-domain sources which challenges the former and spotlights some new aspects which were hitherto unknown (at least to many people like myself).
Please make the case – and this is an entirely different case from that which any of the recipients have ever been called to make, namely, it is an ab initio case of why should one believe the evidence-stream and analysis being presented. But do try to not bring my humble limitations into the mix by calling me ignorant, or lacking in due diligence. Therefore, If you wish to respond henceforth, I enjoin you to make your arguments in public and publish them – my article (appended below) was published here.
And I thank you in advance for a useful public response, especially one that shrewdly examines why one might rationally accept anyone's evidence stream, and specifically addresses fig 5 vs. fig 6 issue noted below. Namely, which figure is fraudulent, and which is authentic, and consequently, on what basis might one determine whether 9/11 destructions were a low temperature or a high temperature event. Something seen flowing from windows, and/or glowing in an image/video, is not evidence of heat, only of low viscosity and its color temperature. I am sure the recipients as scientists and engineers are aware of this and know the difference between color temperature and heat-content. In Photoshop for instance, one can produce any color temperature – as you all know – and make things vicariously look hot or cold. We interpret these color temperatures based on our everyday experiences on what we expect looks hot and therefore can easily be fooled even if deception is not the purpose. Therefore, from that flow of some fluid and/or its color temperature, to leap to "hot" as in heat – please provide the evidence if you are Jones et. al. (or their partisan with any technical expertise), and why one might disbelieve Judy Wood when she says "not hot" based on all the photographic evidence-stream she presents, if you are among her many detractors.
Excerpt from Judy Wood:
Psyops is an abbreviation for psychological operation.
Definition of Psychological Operations:
'Psychological Operations:  Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense

Figure 5. Original image. The fellow with the shovel, wearing a blue shirt, appears to be standing down in this hole.
Source (
Figure 6. This is the image Jones captions “Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.”
Source (p. 18) (
Caption Fig 5 and Fig 6 from Judy Wood's evidence stream Dirt4. Is the color temperature evidence of heat in fig 6? The question that begs that question is whether or not fig 6 is fraudulent in comparison to fig 5. Jones et. al.'s narrative prima facie becomes another big lie if fig 6 is doctored and part of Psyops.
Is Judy Wood's evidence fraudulent? Is her reasoning specious? How - when firemen are seen in public-domain photographs walking around in traditional work-boots on what is supposed to be very very hot molten stuff? As I understand it, Judy Wood has shown that the Jones evidence is fraudulent, at least in that one instance of fig 5 vs. fig 6 (see footnote [17] for details). Which is it? Please prove by evidence and the logic of the observation which can address both supporting as well as contradictory evidence, and not by assertions, not by suppressing what isn't convenient, and not by disparaging the inquiring minds who want to probe further beyond the polished credentials.
Prove everything ab initio – no assumptions – beginning with authenticating everything you bring to bear as evidence. Why should one believe Steven Jones et. al.'s private experimentation and their un-authenticated material evidence acquisition published in a pay-for-peer-reviewed journal in which anyone can publish pretty much anything if they have $800 to spare? Evidently, most consumers of Steven Jones et. al.'s work believe it because of claims to being “peer reviewed” in Bentham Open's online publication. Unfortunately, it can also be a nice scam – if one wanted it to be – since it remains unverifiable, because one can always claim peer-reviews are done anonymously! I also simultaneously recognize that publishing anything which goes against the ruling powers and the establishment's mantras is very difficult indeed, while gibberish can be trivially published if it supports the agendas of empire (see footnote [25]).
Therefore, genuine researchers must seek out other ways of venting their discoveries. And, knowing how hard it is to publish for any would be Galileo, it is also obvious that the Machiavelli will insist on bringing peer-reviewed scientific publications to them (as was the case with Noam Chomsky) before they would even look at the idea that anyone other than Osama Bin Laden could have done 9/11 (see my letter to Noam Chomsky when Steven Jones' “peer reviewed” paper came out, sending a copy to him). It is the false attribution of being genuinely peer reviewed as is done for instance in an IEEE journal, to bring the research respectability which is the new problem for me in Steven Jones et. al's work. I will openly state it here that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I now suspect it to be false projection in order to gain respectability. I clearly see the Hegelian dialectic: publish first before I take you seriously (Chomsky) vs. I have published so now I must be taken seriously (Jones). So let's see the process behind “publish” and also authenticate what was “published”.
Because the mantra of “peer reviewed” appears everywhere on Steven Jones et. al.'s websites and it is their claim to credibility, I wish to dig deeper into this “peer review” business which their research underwent. It is evidently the primary basis for their claims before the public that it is genuine scientific research that they are doing which proves “thermite”. I must admit that I accepted this claim in the past myself without scrutiny. Not any longer. And I hope I may be forgiven if I now wish to scrutinize that claim. Their peer review process to the first order now appears exactly the same to me as climategate's so called peer reviews: incestuously assembled. I don't trust anything establishmentarians, former or current, have to say in their analysis, in this case of thermite. Additionally, I am puzzled that Steven Jones et. al. also do not assert thermite presence in any of their submissions to NIST. Please correct me if I am wrong and do point me to the submission to NIST which asserts their thermite discovery. As far as I am aware, and I am not all knowing, Steven Jones et. al. have only asserted thermite in their copious “peer reviewed” promulgations before the lay public. I am still awaiting to be corrected on this count, and I thank the recipients in advance for pointing me to an official NIST submission, to any official submission before the establishment's federal institutions, in which the discovery of thermite, nanothermite, and its assorted brethren, have been asserted by Steven Jones et. al.
This is on top of the fact that it is possible that elements and remnants from traditional “controlled demolition” may have been found on the crime scene if the purpose was to establish “controlled demolition” in the mind of the detractors of the official NIST narratives. I want authentication of that counter narrative to NIST. This is most essential because almost all of 9/11 Truthers have been blindly assembled around the second narrative, while all the mainstream is gathered around the former. Pleading that thermite evidence before a federal agency increases the confidence in its authenticity, as doing so fraudulently is to commit a grievous federal offence which has severe penalties associated with it. But as we all know, lying to the public is for free – bigger the lie, greater the expectation of bigger prizes. Richard Gage on his website had even pitched the Nobel prize for his confrere Steven Jones (see footnote [2])! Perhaps it was just the exuberance of the innocent at having discovered the wheel (see footnote [26]). Who is deceiving the public – if anyone – the public would like to know.
I remain fully cognizant of the fact that pitching unverifiable mantras couched in the gooblydook of science is also a game as old as empire (see footnotes [24] and [25]) just like striving for hegemony. By that token, I have no a priori reason to accept Judy Wood's evidence stream, except for the evidence she has gathered entirely from public sources and explicitly sourced as such. Then the burden shifts to that source from the one who has compiled it. It is possible that this evidence-stream itself was doctored at the source, or misrepresented by the compiler. Please feel free to provide cogent evidence to that effect. This is primarily the basis for my inquiry into the aforementioned fig 5 vs. fig 6 as it potentially separates the chaff from the wheat very neatly. In one shot, one can know who has mala fide intentions, who is mistaken, who was themselves deceived, and why should anyone believe him or her after that determination!
Or, at least be bold enough, and scientifically accurate enough, to suggest that this matter may remain inconclusive because the first-hand evidence from crime scene is gone and the only evidence is in the photographs. In that latter case, all evidence explanation which presumes either "hot" or "cold" is at best speculative and only resolvable indirectly by the logic of other evidence. If firemen are seen in the images walking around something which is presumed to be very very hot without burning and scorching themselves, and are attired in their regular firemen's clothing without any special heat protection which can withstand the high temperatures that is being asserted, then the logic of incongruence automatically indicates the faulty conclusion of heat, and hence identifies the fraudsters. Does it not? Alternately, it indicates that some of the public image-evidence is itself fraudulent and/or misperceived, leading to incorrect conclusions. Which is it? Please prove your point with some cogent analysis which is empirically supported without conjectures or “trust” by way of appeal to authority. I am unfortunately all out of faith in “credentials” as sufficient proof of either authenticity of claimed empiricism, or veracity.
I sincerely believe that any genuine exponent of truth in search of what really happened on 9/11 and seeking to inform the public will appreciate this straightforward challenge from an ordinary person from among the public to authenticate whatever they assert is evidence, rather than be miffed by it. Please begin by authenticating fig 5 or fig 6, as I have already spent considerable time analyzing this and come away completely befuddled on the very basic issue of whether or not this was a high or low temperature event. I am inclined to believe Judy Wood's evidence stream as authentic. Am I being deceived?
Thank you very much for your time.
Zahir Ebrahim
Letter Dated: April 30, 2011 – In the tenth year of 9/11 and none are still the wiser! (published here)
Letter Updated and Reissued: September 11, 2016 – Into the sixteenth year of 9/11 and none are still the wiser!!

Links fixed, fig 5 & 6 added to the original letter September 11, 2016 3208

Zahir Ebrahim's Open Letter to 9/11 Truth Chiefs April 30, 2011

Zahir Ebrahim's Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima'

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Final April 26, 2011 | Addendum April 30, 2011 | Elaboration May 02, 2011 | Augmented Footnote [17] September 16, 2016 | Last Updated September 21, 2016 03:00 pm
[ This detailed comment is from the Preamble of a study based on Judy Wood's 9/11 work which I had started but never found the time to pursue to completion. I have no affiliation with Dr. Judy Wood (or with the 9/11 Truth Movement) nor have I ever met her. I was motivated to make this work in progress public by the book review by Eric Larsen. [1] As the caption below for the image of her book indicates, Judy Wood's work, both the book and her website, are a stupendous compilation of new evidence for me. While I have no opinion on her speculative theories which purport to explain this evidence, I do think that the general idea of a “New Hiroshima” is a more apt characterization of 9/11. Read on. ]
Click on Image for Web content for the book by Dr. Judy Wood – Where Did the Towers Go? Bookcover source URL:
Caption Judy Wood's new book on 9/11 evidence compilation: Where did the towers go?
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, sheriff, 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 specious 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 (see, for instance, Letter to Editor – Journal of 911 Studies [2]), 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? [3] 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 [not included here] 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), 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. [4] 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 A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer - Anatomy of Modern Propaganda Techniques [5]). 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 Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire [6]). 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 Americas with biowarfare and smallpox, 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 simplistic noble minded (and Nobel minded [2]) 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 untampered 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 details in my letter of February 06, 2011 to Judy Wood, What's wrong with this picture, [7] 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? [8], [9], [10])
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
Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM
To: "Dr. Judy Wood"
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 [11], 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. [12] 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 [13]).
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
Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:49 PM
To: "Project"
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 [14]), 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: 9/11 Revisited: 10th Year! Some American Voices [15]) 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 employs 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 DEPS conference [16]), 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. (See my invitation letter of February 10, 2011 to an MIT co-alum researcher who is plugged-in with the 9/11 Truth people, revisiting 9/11 as a techie, for why I also no longer trust Jones et. al.'s narratives either. [17], [18], [19] )
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 question, only to the WHY question, to unraveling the preeminent global narratives, and to protesting in the antiwar demonstrations as a justice activist. [20], [21], [22]
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 blanket destruction which was boldly proclaimed to the world. I will not speculate why it has to be cloaked, only that it has been cloaked like many other weapon systems, and must be kept cloaked for now. 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 Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory [23]). These wonderful experts can serve the agenda for junk science as much as greedy fools and useful idiots often do, and the Global Warming scam is ample evidence of that (see Letter to Editor: Understanding the Political Science behind Global Warming February 07, 2009 [24], and Reflections on Science in the Service of Empire [25]).
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.
I suppose that before February 2011, that statement used to read: A controlled demolition with smoke-and-mirrors was used to execute the New Pearl Harbor to launch “imperial mobilization” for world government.
Dr. Judy Wood's contribution to the revised statement is the “New Hiroshima”. I thank her for that enlightenment. The smoke-and-mirrors bit is now entirely subsumed in the new terminology as its integral component. The rest are due to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carroll Quigley. The latter two have been amply written about on my website. A detailed treatment of “New Hiroshima” 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”. [26] Military expenditure derives its raison d'ĂȘtre 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 [27], 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
Footnotes for further study
[1] A version of this Comment submitted April 18, 2011, for the book review by Eric Larsen, April 17, 2001
[3] Judy Wood's Interview January 18, 2011
[4] Zahir Ebrahim, self-study in unarguably unraveling 9/11 as an inside job for imperial mobilization
[6] Zahir Ebrahim, Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire
[12] See Caltech professor C. H. Papas' classic text on the subject: Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, 1965, 1988. Poynting Vector is an abstraction.
[14] Student ratings (unauthenticated) for Professor Judy Wood, Clemson University, South Carolina
[16] Zahir Ebrahim, DEPS conference letter to Judy Wood, Feburary 04, 2011, op. cit.
[Added September 16, 2016 | Last updated September 21, 2016]
This augmentation to footnote [17] emphasizes the common problem faced by all the HOW detective chiefs of the 9-11 Truth in their respective calls for “New Investigation” of how the WTC towers were destroyed on 9/11. Over the past decade, each of them appears to have gathered around their respective HOW narrative, largely the type-2 demographics identified by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf as the “useless for any form of positive work”. Just like the mainstream flock with whom they had parted company from, identified by Hitler as the type-1 demographics composed of “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”, was, and still is, gathered around the officialdom's narrative. Their common problem – indeed for all calls for “New Investigation” – is epistemology. This analysis examines just one piece of exemplary evidence brought forth by both Steven Jones and Judy Wood, each arguing the opposite thesis, one says it was hot, the other says it was not, to advance the commonsense argument that all HOW exponents, regardless of their personal inclination, must first come to grips with the Epistemology of 9-11. The following question must first be answered: What is evidence? It is expanded upon below.
My earliest cached copy of Steven Jones' online version of his very first "peer-reviewed" "published paper", “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, is available from .
Its timestamp in the PDF Summary is: September 7, 2006 (Created: 9/7/2006 5:04:13 PM, 48 Pages, 1.13 MB, Acrobat Distiller 7.0 Windows). As I observed in my letter to my 9-11 truther co-alum from MIT, I had downloaded four copies of this paper over 2006-2007 not realizing that each time I was saving a slightly different version which had been revised after the advertised publication date noted in the paper's footer: Journal of 9/11 Studies September 2006/Volume 3. This cached version is identical to the one cached and cited by Judy Wood as the source of her fig 6.
Steven Jones has cited this paper and its publication date –– as in the following citation in his subsequent much heralded "peer-reviewed" paper published by Bentham Open in: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40 35 1874-1495/08 2008 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd., titled: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley –– as follows:
"[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008]."
I have in my possession a total of four versions of that paper with that exact same September 2006 date appearing in the footer of the paper, and only one has 47 pages, the others have 48. Examining the paper carefully, it appears that all these versions are actually work-in-progress! A core dump of preliminary ideas at best, being carried out in public as “peer reviewed” “published paper”. And also cited as such. Here are the timestamps of each from the respective PDF Summary:
  • [a] September 7, 2006 (Created: 9/7/2006 5:04:13 PM, 48 Pages, 1.13 MB, Acrobat Distiller 7.0)
  • [b] October 9, 2006 (Created: 10/9/2006 2:40:43 PM, 48 Pages, 1.23 MB, Acrobat Distiller 7.0)
  • [c] November 14, 2006 (Created: 11/14/2006 1:30:21 PM, 48 pages, 4.79 MB, Ghostscript 8.53)
  • [d] January 25, 2007 (Created: 1/25/2007 2:11:11 PM, 47 Pages, 4.77 MB, Ghostscript 8.53)
The fig 6 of Judy Wood is present on page 18 of the first two versions [a] and [b], but it has been substituted by another photograph in versions [c] and [d] without intimating the reason for substitution in the paper.
Here are the Diff images of page 18 between the version cited by Judy Wood (which is identical to [a]) and [b] [c] [d].
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [b]
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [b]
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [c]
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [c]
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [d] - ([a] is on the right)
Caption Diff between Version [a] and [d] - ([a] is on the right)
As one can see, Judy Wood's fig 6 no longer appears either in that 47 page version issued on January 25 2007, or in the one issued before it, on November 14, 2006, but is present in both the September 7, 2006 and October 9, 2006 versions.
Why did Dr. Steven Jones quietly substitute that image in question without annotating any explanation in his paper? Did Jones discover it to be doctored? He gave no citation for that image. The citation link underneath the image,, is evidently for the other image appearing on the top of that page and not the one he hath captioned: 'Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble'. That BBC News report link, as validates, never did contain that image in question. Where did Jones get that image from? He clearly suspected something was awry when he stated in the October 9 2006 version: “I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole.”
The credit is to Judy Wood's scholarly tenacity, or shall we say scholarly paranoia given that she knew she was in the domain of deception, that she did not shy from due diligence and unearthed the discrepancy in color temperature in the photograph on page 18 of the version of Jones' paper she evidently scrutinized and checked. As a diligent scholar, one presumes, she dutifully brought the finding to the attention of her peers in her fig 5 vs fig 6 comparison.
Figure 5. Original image. The fellow with the shovel, wearing a blue shirt, appears to be standing down in this hole.
Source (
Figure 6. This is the image Jones captions “Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.”
Source (p. 18) (
Caption Fig 5 and Fig 6 from Judy Wood's evidence stream Dirt4. Is the color temperature evidence of heat in fig 6? The super-fireman attired in short-sleeves displaying his bare forearms, visible more clearly in fig 5 as the one in blue shirt in the act of shoveling dirt from the rubble while standing in it, doesn't seem to care very much about that heat! Even if both images have unnatural color temperatures, the content of the otherwise identical images at least indicate that the fireman could withstand whatever heat there was in the rubble on his bare forearms. The brightness in the hole, as Jones had himself suggested in the October 9, 2006 version of his paper before making that silent image substitution in the November 14 2006 version, may have been due to bright (white) light.
Regardless of Jones' scholarly motivation for the silent substitution of the image, the color temperature shift in fig 6 in comparison to fig 5, is revealing of another even more significant and egregious matter that cuts to the very heart of the epistemology of 9-11.
Comparing fig 5 and fig 6 makes immediately apparent to even a novice person, how color temperature (and other content) can be trivially altered with Photoshop-like tools in cryptographically unauthenticated digital images unsecurely downloaded from the internet, and how easy it is to fool anyone of anything with photographs, presumably even of real events. In this instance, from the existential evidence of fig 6 and its attempted use by a scientist of Jones' calibre no less, it is clear that the debris can be made to appear hot just by changing the color temperature of the photographs because the public mind is attuned to associating hot with the glow of red from their daily experiences. Given this example, and one worthy example is usually sufficient to establish a rule as well as the exception, how can one be sure of anything about the rest of the photographic evidence of 9/11?
To mitigate such mischief and lend veracity to photographic evidence in court, authentication of images is done by inserting a cryptographic signature into the raw image record itself at the time of image capture in-camera, before the image leaves the camera body. It is the only authentication acceptable in a fair court of law for digital images, and is the holy grail of law-enforcement agencies who present material evidence in such fair courts for its admissibility. Digital camera companies make specialized camera versions with carefully scrutinized verification software capable of such cryptographic authentication of digital images captured by their device; that images remain untampered end to end when presented as evidence.
None of these publicly available images of 9/11 on the internet are authenticated as untampered after the images have left the camera, at least as far as I am aware. Most online as well as published writings use such publicly available unauthenticated images in reports and essays to convey respectable thesis. And propagandists of course do it for psychological warfare operations on the public mind. Judy Wood gave a definition of what Psyops means, quoting the Department of Defense just above that fig 5 vs fig 6 comparison in her Dirt4:
Psyops is an abbreviation for psychological operation.
Definition of Psychological Operations:
'Psychological Operations:  Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense
So, demonstrating “hot” by way of color temperature is wanting of more empirical and material data to substantiate that assertion. The incongruity of the fireman in fig 5 (cited by Judy Wood as sourced from whose Registrar Organization is listed by Whois: Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, email address of Registrant:, not wearing specialized attire for very high temperatures, and instead wearing only a short-sleeved shirt with his forearms bare, shoveling rubble while standing right at the edge, or inside, what is alleged “hot” by Steven Jones, arguably demonstrates that it cannot really be all that hot.
Tugging on just one loose thread unravels the best of knitted wool sweaters!
Here is a blowup of that photograph in fig 5 from the source –– judge for yourself hot, or not hot.
Caption Can that brilliantly glowing substance really be hot like a blast furnace that melts structural steel into molten flowing lava?
Caption Can that brilliantly glowing substance in the rubble really be hot like a blast furnace that melts structural steel into molten flowing lava? The fireman in blue standing at the edge, or almost inside, of that glowing puddle is in short-sleeves, with his forearms bare! If that cauldron is indeed hot to melt structural steel, why isn't the fireman suitably attired for that temperature? In his short-sleeves, why isn't his arms scorched from that heat? Something does not add up. The firemen's oral reports cited by Jones in his paper say the rubble was hot. At least this photograph suggests not that hot, and the source of that bright glow is something else. Jones himself suggested it could have been light inserted into the hole. How to decide? What is evidence?
This analysis once again begs the question: What is evidence? Is an unauthenticated photograph evidence? Is an unauthenticated video recording evidence? Is an oral testimony evidence? Is logical reasoning evidence? Is two plus two making four evidence? Is deductive reasoning applied to data evidence? Is inductive logic applied to data evidence? Is commonsense applied to data evidence? What are the rules of evidence? And who, or which legal body, will decide this? The one who can shout the loudest? Or have the largest or most zealot fan following? Today, the establishmentarians, including their scientists, their logicians, and their experts across the board, reject commonsense and deductive reasoning applied to data as evidence.
When the world witnessed all the floors of a tall building collapse in near free-fall, at virtually gravity acceleration g, they still refuse to accept the commonsense observation that none of the floors experienced any resistance from below, and thus the logical deduction that all resistance beneath all floors must have been removed simultaneously. The conclusion this logical deduction leads to is only singular if two plus two is permitted to make four: the resistance beneath each floor that propped up that floor in its normal state must have been removed for all floors in a controlled manner simultaneously so as to bring the building down symmetrically into its own footprint. Pretty simple logic that takes one immediately to WHO: Who had the means, motive, and opportunity to plan and orchestrate such a precision controlled demolition with military-style secrecy of WTC-7, without the need for any further material evidence from the no longer existent debris field (see 911 The Sacred Cow of Science, ). But that reasoning is outright rejected! It is instead called “conspiracy theory” by the tallest and fairest intellects of the realm.
In an analogous manner, among those who continue to argue the detailed mechanics of the HOW in their dissent with the establishmentarians' version, some also reject what the world also witnessed the same day on their television screens: tall towers comprising millions of tons of concrete-steel structures turning to instant dust in a demolition wave that was also free-fall at gravity acceleration g per floor, or even faster, as it actually appears to be. They reject that the observation that millions of tons of steel-concrete structure turned to instant dust, is even a valid observation --- when it is right before their very eyes (See: Some of the principal data that must be explained, compiled by Judy Wood by observation) --- for that would again immediately take one to examining means, motive and opportunity without seeking further “material evidence” from the no-longer existent debris fields.
The two antagonists fielding opposite narratives seem to have common modus operandi – to avoid, by every means possible, going to means, motive and opportunity, the staple of forensic science, which would automatically identify the WHO: Who has the potential military science and technology capability to mutate millions of tons of steel-concrete structures into instant powdered dust, and plan and orchestrate that never before seen catastrophic decimation of WTC-1 and WTC-2 with military-style secrecy and military-style effectiveness in the most armed to the teeth sole superpower on earth with full control of the narrative? But the self-appointed detectives of dissent space of America still continue to endlessly debate the competing HOW modalities with almost religious fervor. None of them, evidently, have understood the political theory behind 9-11 which also explains their own behavior (see The Political Theory behind 9-11, ).
Thus we see that the determination of rules of evidence and rules of observation must be made ab initio, from first principles that were so forcibly introduced into the Western Mind by the Renaissance philosophers who put emphasis on intellectual reasoning and logic over faith in god's authority figures, as the principal means for understanding the world. They had borrowed that idea from the ancient Hellenic world to finally dispel their Dark Ages. Modern science, as a means for understanding reality, was born when this first principle was applied to empiricism and experimentation to make models and theories to explain reality, which others following the same principles could falsify (prove true or false) by their own observations and experimentation, and thus continually extend the domain of human knowledge. This first principle is the sine qua non of any sensible ex post facto (after the evidence has long been obliterated) scientific investigation of the HOW of 9-11.
But for some reason, faith in authority figures continues to dominate the Science of 9-11. This is also easily explained by The Political Theory behind 9-11 applied to Hitler's demographic classification for engineering both consent as well as dissent in Western Democratic societies that cannot ignore type-2 as Hitler had done under the bayonet of Nazi Socialism (see Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science, ).
And we are right back to the square-one epistemological problem of 9-11.
In the absence of the government having carefully preserved the crime scene, or the material evidence from it for forensic analysis of the real cause of the cataclysmic destruction of the entire WTC complex, all that latter day wannabe investigators and future historians are left with, are these unauthenticated photographs (including television news broadcast videos), and official narratives which have been canonized as “fact” by the fiat of power.
But there is something else left behind too: copious evidence of plans for aggression calling for a “New Pearl Harbor” to prime the public mind for “imperial mobilization”.
As we have unequivocally witnessed, these public photos, regardless of their source, are not beyond Psyops mischief of the social engineers, perception managers, and science hitmen of empire. Which makes logic and reasoning tools, including commonsense, and an acute understanding of the precedents of history to engineer the public mind, applied to whatever we do have, all the more pertinent as “material evidence” by themselves. A legal modus operandi which any shrewd public prosecutor will make a jury mindful of as the litmus test of credulity. It was also the standard established at Nuremberg Military Tribunal when the United States Chief Prosecutor replied to the incredulous protestations of the Nazi High Command that they had not known of Hitler's plans for aggression:
The plans of Adolf Hitler for aggression were just as secret as Mein Kampf, of which over six million copies were published in Germany” (Justice Robert H. Jackson, in his closing speech at Nuremberg, on Friday, 7/26/1946: Morning Session: Part 3, in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal).
The sudden absence of all these multitudes of legal minds that litigious Westerndom, especially the United States of America, is famous for, from the 9-11 scene is again easily explained by the Political Theory behind 9-11. They are all cleverly substituted by endless calls for new “serious investigation” by those handful among the public who suddenly “woke-up” years later and stopped believing in the fairy tales of their government as they had previously done. By that time, the fait accompli of imperial mobilization had already been accomplished! Both Afghanistan and Iraq had been bombed back to pre-industrial times and their civilization lay in ruin. The arc of crisis had been craftily ignited. Fifteen years after 9-11, the fait accompli seeded when these brilliant stewards of dissent were asleep, has destroyed countless Muslim nations, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands – but who is counting – and the world has moved towards a global police state. All explained by the Political Theory behind 9-11. But these type-2 sages of America of course only think in terms of Nobel peace prize for their new god who has now replaced their previous god, for his call for new “serious investigation”:
Press Release Jul 16, 2007
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Contact: Richard Gage, AIA, Founding Member of
SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. ...
Shown below is Mr. Ayres full statement, which will be made available on the website with this press release.
Statement of J. Marx Ayres, MSME, P.E. July 16, 2007
"I am a consulting mechanical engineer with over 55 years of experience in the design and construction of all types of buildings including high-rise office towers. I am an expert in heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection for buildings. I have authored 41 technical papers and I am a chapter author in 3 books covering HVAC systems, building and energy requirements, solar heating and cooling applications, thermal energy storage and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems.
I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct. I have signed his petition calling for the release of all U.S. Government- held information regarding the events of 9/11/2001.
Steven Jones’ call for a “serious investigation” of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges” must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out. Dr. Jones is following in the footsteps of Dr. Linus Pauling of the California Institute of Technology, who rallied his fellow scientists to oppose the development of the Hydrogen Bomb and the testing of nuclear weapons. He was later awarded the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for these efforts."
- ### -
What indeed is that fantastic Nobel prize winning discovery that Jones has brought forth in “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” which this authority figure feels is: “rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research”?
This exemplary color temperature exposĂ© sets a rational precedent, and is equally applicable to the rest of Jones' images in his write-up which he brings up as evidence of “hot”. It is not the color temperature of the photograph, but the effect of the object under consideration on the surrounding, that determines hot or not hot!
To generalize that commonsense, the (visible) effect adjudicates the presence or absence of the (often hidden) cause(s).
To exemplify that commonsense: If one observes in photographic and broadcast television data millions of tons of steel-concrete structure instantly pulverized into powdered dust, it is logical to assume a “force” that caused it. No 'conspiracy theory' there. No speculation there. Only simple logic.
To apply that commonsense: Both fig 5 and fig 6 show not hot because there is no heat effect on the arms of the fireman!
This self-evident logic makes all such unauthenticated photographic evidence where determination of effect on surrounding cannot be made, irrelevant, regardless of how warm or cool the color temperature is made out to be. Applying this logic based forensic yardstick to Jones' other “hot” photos on page 17 of his latest January 25 2007 write-up, makes them irrelevant, since the effect of the supposed heat on the surrounding cannot be ascertained!
There are other sets of imagery data available on the web where the effect on surrounding is immediately visible --- such as the WTC Waterfall captured in the photograph gracing Judy Wood's book cover. The WTC tower is observed to be instantly pulverized into dust top-down, in an ever expanding dust cloud that cascaded like a waterfall. In videos captured of this event which most people on planet earth with an internet connection must have surely seen, its steel-concrete floor structures is observed to almost pulverize into a cloud of dust in mid-air, in what appears to be a precision-timed, precision-controlled, top-down demolition wave which descends floor by floor, in an ordered manner, at an acceleration that simply boggles the mind. The effect on the surroundings by this dust field in which no particular effect of intense heat is seen anywhere, and which is all what appears to have remained of most of the millions of tons of steel-concrete structures that were there moments earlier, was captured by many television news broadcasts of that day.
ABC News had convened a special documentary a couple of years after 9-11, emphasizing this never before witnessed phenomenon of millions of tons of steel-concrete office building instantly pulverized into dust clouds which came rushing out from the epicenter with gale force winds, leaving behind no solid debris other than unburned office paper which was seen to be flying everywhere. There were no other remains of a typical occupied office building in the rubble after the dust had settled. It had also asked why.
Judy Wood's perceptive observations on the effect on the surroundings are curious in so far as she is evidently the lone ranger among the HOW crowd to persistently emphasize examining all the available evidence, and not just bits and pieces of one's preferred evidence in confirmation of one's pet HOW theory. See: Some of the principal data that must be explained, which lists effects besides those captured in photographic imagery. Which of these items is actually “evidence”? How shall one decide that, on which yardstick?
For the yardstick of credulity of photographic imagery, can a forensic scientist reasonably discard all unauthenticated photographic evidence as at best “non-conclusive” when it does not show effect on surroundings, maintain a maybe or circumstantial or something to be explained if other incongruities do not exist in them and the effect on surrounding make the matter self-evident, and at worst as deliberate red herrings, and search for other material evidence of intense heat that reasonable minds may postulate?
What is Jones' other material evidence for intense heat, other than the vicarious oral reports the 9-11 Truth chief assures us exist and make for reliable science?
Right – there is none, because the crime scene is gone!
The HOW problem is mathematically constrained by the removal of the crime scene. Game theory scenario employed in the planning of this dastardly deed would have also predicted that this crime could never be solved in this way in any ex post facto scrutiny if the crime scene and material evidence were quickly cleared away under suitable propaganda cover. And logicians and criminologists would know this. Those who ordered clearing away the crime scene in a hurry certainly understood it. Thus if any type-2 were to “wake-up” after the fact, and demand a new investigation from the government, the game-theoretic planning would have indicated that this crowd could easily be put on this HOW treadmill forever. While fait accompli would ensure the success of the ambitious 9-11 imperial mobilization project of “history's actors”.
Thus make all the demand for new serious investigation you want –– knowing fully well it won't go anywhere –– and occupy the minds and energies of the simpleton, the gullible, the credulous, and the malcontent, with “beneficial cognitive diversity” lest they collectively refocus their public energies on derailing imperial mobilization instead!
Even that derailing is too late. That is the real power of fait accompli. An idea which few among the public ever entertain. It is timelessly captured in these imperial words of Machiavellian wisdom emanating from the Bush White House to the New York Times:
“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Reported by Ron Suskind, quoting a senior Bush White House advisor, New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004)
[18] Professor Steven Jones of BYU officially appointed in 1989 by the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush Sr., as an establishmentarian scientist to lead the DOE investigation into the potentially revolutionizing discovery of Cold Fusion, evidently for the agenda to discredit Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons' research: . This image at time 1:12 of Steven Jones standing behind George H. W. Bush Sr. (second from left) is the smoking gun as far as I am concerned, to permanently establish Dr. Steven Jones as the Establishment's preferred science man: . Here is Professor Martin Fleischmann's Reflections, 2000:
Video titled: 911 - Parallels - Steven Jones sabotaged the 911 truth, as he did with Cold Fusion
Caption Professor Steven Jones of BYU (standing second from left) officially appointed in 1989 by the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush Sr., as an establishmentarian scientist to lead the DOE investigation into the potentially revolutionizing discovery of Cold Fusion. Can a George Bush Sr.'s trusted establishmentarian scientist suddenly become a genuine dissenting scientist against the same establishment in George Bush Jr.'s administration as anything other than controlled opposition?
[19] David Ray Griffin, the author of many famous books on 9/11 and the “Dean of 9/11 Studies” according to many of his prominent cheerleaders who claim inspiration from him, is a self-admitted globalist seeking world government in the most eloquent Newspeak of Orwellian Establishmentarians:
[20] Zahir Ebrahim, Prisoners of the Cave, 2003, Especifically see the Foreword 2005:
[21] Zahir Ebrahim, 9/11 Revisited: 10th Year! Some American Voices, 2011, op. cit.
[22] Zahir Ebrahim, About Me and My Little Jihad
[25] Zahir Ebrahim, Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire,

Elaboration May 02, 2011
The fact that the super terrorism of 9/11 was some form of "controlled demolition" was obvious the very day of September 11, 2001. The words “controlled demolition” were uttered on mainstream television news channel by a well known newsman, Dan Rather of CBS, within minutes of the two World Trade Center towers' cataclysmic and sudden collapse, never to be repeated on any other day on mainstream news. I am a witness to its utterance – on that very day of September 11, 2001. As already observed in my article '911 A Fait Accompli – Pay Attention to Political Science! April 13, 2009' which is cited in footnote [26], Dan Rather repeated that statement once again when WTC-7 – which no airliner had been shown on global television to hit – was silently demolished the same afternoon:
... amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we have all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down,” (watch video clip ).
Furthermore, the fact that even the smoke and mirrors display on world television in near realtime, of two hijacked airliners ramming into the two WTC towers in the most armed to the teeth superpower without interdiction, had already indicated an inside job on 9/11 that same day. Apart from this anomaly being noted immediately by many many skeptics throughout 2001-2003 while the rest of America 'United We Stood' with George W. Bush in their despicable silence, it was also stated in my 2003 manuscript Prisoners of the Cave which no major publisher had accepted to publish. Here is a statement from its Chapter 5, 'The Role of a “Pearl Harbor” in Empire Building':
This analysis actually means only one thing at the moment. In the best of circumstance, the Government of the United States of America is the main suspect, and while evidence is being sought, nothing it says can be trusted given its manifest character of history of deceits and its own vested interest in the crime for “imperial mobilization”, and towards which end it also conveniently rushed to obliterate all the forensic evidence including the crime scene itself. And least of all, its own explanations of 911 cannot be trusted, and must not be accepted by any rational and fair person still in possession of even a modicum of commonsense.”
Therefore, when put in proper perspective, whether it is the airliner hijacking puppetshow and the subsequent smoke and mirrors of them ramming into WTC towers without NORAD and USAF interdiction, or, the sudden catastrophic destruction of the three WTC towers, it was all already obvious to many on Day One that this was an inside job.
Therefore, what then is the primary contribution to 9/11 truth by Steven Jones et. al. beyond what was already obvious on September 11, 2001? In my view, it is primarily three fold:
J1) it is in the furtherance of HOW elaboration of Dan Rather's general and spontaneous observation on the very Day of September 11, 2001, of the three WTC towers “deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down,” with that one word “thermite” (and its derivatives). Not sure what was achieved by introducing HOW theories except to create “beneficial cognitive diversity” as everyone brought their own favorite theories to the mix, and the focus trivially shifted to theorizing the HOW instead of creating a focussed dissent movement which was grounded in the political realities of “imperial mobilization”.
J2) it is in helping to dispel the bs of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports with the excellent first published paper by someone other than themselves: “Fourteen Points of Agreement with official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”. It formally introduced “thermite” with much “peer reviewed” fanfare. This I believe was the first so called “peer reviewed” paper which Steven Jones had published on his own website, Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006/Volume 3, which talked about flowing molten steel and “thermite”, and for which reference to fig 5 vs. fig 6 on its page 18 is made by Judy Wood in her own writeup dirt4 that is cited in footnote [17], drawing attention to the anomalous image in Jones paper. I only became aware of this disturbing fact in February 2011. Before then, my take on Steven Jones et. al.'s work was as follows: This is my letter to Noam Chomsky sending him the PDF of that excellent Fourteen Points paper, April 20, 2008. This is my letter of congratulations to its authors, April 21 2008, following the publication of their Fourteen Points paper by Bentham. This is my Letter to Editor to Bentham Open, April 24, 2008. This is my first series of Letter to Editor to Steven Jones' Journal of 9/11 Studies and to Richard Gage, April 03 to April 21, 2008, trying to refocus their attention from hard science to political science, which they neither published nor acknowledged. It is also cited as footnote [2]. This is my cautionary letter to Kevin Ryan on the NIST Report, August 22, 2008. This is my second Letter to Editor to Steven Jones' Journal of 9/11 Studies, October 12, 2009, a year and a half later, once again trying to refocus their attention to political realities of “imperial mobilization” now rapidly being cemented into one-world government, which once again they neither published nor acknowledged. I gave up at this point. But I still didn't think of them as SHM, only as well-intentioned but perhaps incredibly politically naive technocrats obsessing with a technical curiosity rather than with preventing crimes against humanity. My opinion radically changed when I discovered Steven Jones' role in Cold Fusion as cited in footnote [18], and upon discovering all the unmentioned evidence which Judy Wood brought to the forefront which added yet another layer to their motivation to obfuscate. Then, the bizarre obsession of 9/11 Truth leaders with the HOW all started to make sense as in their deliberately focussing on the low order bits of the matter, the minutiae, and seeding “beneficial cognitive diversity” which only detracted from the people developing a coherent focus on derailing “imperial mobilization”, while the higher order bits accelerated to final fait accompli in world government.
J3) it is in spreading awareness among the silent majority and potentially getting new recruits to the cause of dissent. Among them, my MIT alum internet friend mentioned in footnote [17] who credits his clarity of what happened on 9/11 to the work of Steven Jones several years later. I now believe this may have helped coral many type-2s into Steven Jones' “collection agency”. It is easy to identify type-2: all the zombies who “United We Stand” with empire while more tonnage in munitions was dropped in Afghanistan and Iraq than was dropped in the entire Vietnam war. This “wake up” years later when all the signs were there from day one for anyone with even a modicum of commonsense to grasp, is a characteristic trait of type-2, people who were formally type-1 and suddenly “woke-up”. Type-3 are the ones who were never asleep, who knew from Day One what was going on and didn't need any “waking up”. What is this typification? See the Preamble in Manufacturing Dissent for Hitler's exposition of it straight from Mein Kampf but contextualized for our zeitgeist. Also see America's Profound Shame in the Preface to my book Prisoners of the Cave for the blood that never quite washes off for silent bystanders!
Similarly, if it was already obvious to type-3 folks on Day One that it was an inside job, what then is the primary contribution to 9/11 truth by Judy Wood? In my view, it is also three fold:
W1) Judy Wood's first unique contribution was proving mathematically that Dan Rather was actually correct in his general layman's description that he had so spontaneously uttered multiple times on September 11, 2001 to capture the evidence of his own shocked eyes, in her fantastic April 2005 BBE example which is also referenced in footnote [17]. This example is of such a singular import due to its simplicity and elegance that anyone reading it cannot but help be convinced by it even if their commonsense had taken a vacation on 9/11, and is still on vacation!
W2) Judy Wood's second unique contribution is to bring forth all the evidence and insist that any further details of HOW (beyond Dan Rather's description – although she did not state it this way but that's how I prefer to construe it) must explain ALL the available evidence pertinent to the HOW of 9/11!
W3) Judy Wood's third unique contribution is to singularly challenge Steven Jones et. al.'s narratives of their details of HOW, creating further dissension among the born again patriots of truth and the American way. Just look at the difference though – Steven Jones, an establishmentarian scientist (see footnote [18]), comfortably retired from his job by his own admission, and set up as the lauded dissent chief with an almost fanatic following who want to award him the Nobel prize, while Judy Wood, almost universally reviled and terminated from her university teaching job, marginalized as a conspiracy theorist, and inexplicably deliberately poisoning her own well by calling upon a self-proclaimed “UFO encounteree” (see footnote [7]) in support of her speculative theorizing. She is principally defeated by her own argument. If she concludes 'New Hiroshima' based on her forensic examination of all the publicly available evidence of 9/11, then, that conclusion is also automatically self-limiting. It precludes knowing anything more about this 'New Hiroshima' because this new weapon system would be the most highly prized military and state secret of the realm, far above the Manhattan Project!
As a general rule of social engineering, absurdities encountered in Alice in Wonderland can only happen in real life when the Mighty Wurlitzer's messaging machine has a hand in it some place (please study footnote [5] to acutely comprehend this).
Addendum My response to a reader's comment April 30, 2011
This is in response to the commenter John Scrivener April 29, 2011 1:07 am (Pacific time) who wrote:
Judy Wood's work is an attempt to mystify and mythologize the events of 9/11 ... give me an example of "evidence" from the WTC events of 9/11 that can not be readily explained by the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.” --- The magnetometer reading of the earth's magnetic field.
"have you ever seen the effect of thermite on cars?" --- No I haven't. I have neither experimental nor theoretical experience with explosives.
"How about nanothermite?" -- I never even knew such things existed. Only took Steven Jones' et. al.'s word for it based on their "peer reviewed" work. See footnotes [18] and [17] for why Steven Jones' work, including their evidence-stream, is no longer credible for me. Your mileage may vary depending on your ability to trust "authority" figures. I have zero trust factor. In fact, it is fair to say that I have a negative trust factor.
Technical and political "Experts" fed from the crumbs of empire in establishment's own institutions have to prove to me that they are not disinfo specialists putting hard science as well as political science in the service of empire, rather than me assume they are not just because they play "dissent". Manufactured chiefs are ideally situated to be controlled dissent and gate-keepers to "truth" – in fact, they create the “truths protective layers” until fait accompli when revealing the real truth is inconsequential to reversing all that was wrought while it was being masked and obfuscated. In order to understand this concept, please see footnote [25] and other citations in the footnotes above. They are there for the purpose of further study – and not merely to look erudite and pedantic.
The fact that it was some form of "controlled demolition" was obvious the very day of 9/11. The words “controlled demolition” were uttered on mainstream television news channel by a well known newsman within minutes of the two World Trade Center towers' cataclysmic and sudden collapse, never to be repeated again. I am a witness to its utterance – on that very day. See footnote [26].
So there is nothing, absolutely nothing, added by Jones et. al. to that observation, except their rendition of the specifics of the HOW. But to me, the issue still remains open, provided it has any pertinence at all to unraveling and derailing “imperial mobilization”. Otherwise, in the best case, it is just the intellectual mas***bation of philosophers and glory-seekers who have nothing better to do with their time, and their befooled followers who are genuine people of conscience being taken for a hard ride on the treadmill of inefficacy. In the worst case, it is the most obvious case of “controlled opposition” to ensure that any focus on 9/11 unraveling does not accidentally unlayer any of “truths protective layers”.
HOW was the demolition of the towers actually accomplished? With explosives primarily, as is normally done with other building demolitions and to which the phrase “controlled demolition” commonly refers to in the vernacular that has been made popular, or with something different?
What are the clues and evidence which can explain the HOW. Who has brought forth those clues? What is their credibility? Hitherto, Dan Rather's of CBS statement repeated several times on the very Day of 9/11 remains unsurpassed in it stating the brazenly obvious. What more can someone add to it that is really revealing and value added? Is Jones et. al. the last and final word on it?
If anyone looks at something different, it is very interesting to me that they are immediately marginalized. In fact, that is the most interesting aspect here. It is evidently forbidden to examine evidence-stream which resides outside the purview of "truths" established scholars. This behavior is typically observed of mainstream and how consent is manufactured to get the sheep "United we Stand". That same behavior is evidently repeated in dissentstream to get the dissenting crowd "United we Stand". This fact also underscores my own observation that almost 99% of so called "truth" activists are type-2. What is that typification? If interested, see the Preamble in Manufacturing Dissent, for Hitler's exposition of it straight from Mein Kampf but contextualized for our zeitgeist:
"Paper flying every where ... have you ever blown up a filing cabinet?" -- No, I haven't seen a live "controlled demolition" of an office building in which paper was blown everywhere but the concrete-steel structure and all its office contents turned to fine powder. Conduct an experiment of a 500,000 tons occupied office building to see if that's what happens. The actual crime scene is only preserved in photographs – all the rest of it was “dustified” and/or carted away in hurried removal of all evidence form the crime scene. Therefore, speculations are what are rife here for why the paper is blowing. To say "I don't know", or "I don't believe speculations", or "I don't stand with official explanations", in this case the "official" being the dissent's version of "official", is evidently to be discredited by the officialdom and their circus clowns. Is that a whole lot different than when "official" is the officialdom of the establishment? See footnote [23] for a perceptive understanding of this marginalization phenomenon being rooted in Machiavellian political science.
"And precisely what relevance has Hurricane Erin to the events of 9/11?" -- A very good question indeed. Do you have an answer? Evidently you haven't studied its controlled movements – beeline straight for Manhattan for several days, parked standstill just off shore on the very day of 9/11 without any hurricane warning on newsmedia, and in the evening making a drastic course change in another direction – or you might have wondered as well.
Those who attempt to discredit Judy Wood without addressing the evidence-stream compiled by this researcher, in my view, stand discredited in my eyes. So please let me know which of her evidence compilation is faulty, which is misconstrued, which is misleading, which is fraudulent. Explanations come later. And one can hardly do that if one is ignorant of her work, or has only second-hand knowledge of it, being entirely prejudiced by Jones et. al.'s marginalizing of her. Because I have now studied hours and hours of Jones documentaries and interviews, and have actually caught him playing both an SHM's role, and also brazenly misquoting Judy Wood not to mention marginalizing her in the most condescending manner, I am almost convinced that he is there to play the same role as he did in Cold Fusion as the establishment's science hit man. Therefore, any and all evidence presented by him is suspicious in my eyes.
If that aforementioned premise is correct, then Steven Jones will twist/spin/manage everything to achieve the same purpose as he did in Cold Fusion. 'Study history to know the present', isn't just a literary device of the savants to be quoted mindlessly by the flock; it is the responsibility for preventing its re-enactment in the future. Therefore, those who draw from the Jones' evidence-stream are either tainted themselves in their advocacy/analysis, or part of the scam. I am open to being proved that the premise is wrong. Please begin by countering Judy Wood's evidence stream, and especially the fraud of fig 5 vs. fig 6 noted in footnote [17]. It singularly discredits either Steven Jones, or Judy Wood. Not much more work is required to know who indulges in fraud. Once ascertained, everything else from him or her or both, stand discredited.
And this is precisely that's missing – all the genuine naysayers I have come across haven't read Judy Wood's work on their own, have only second hand knowledge that is full of presumptions seeded by Jones et. al., or don't have the expertise to understand matters beyond broad brushes of generalities. They also remain unfamiliar with Steven Jones' role in scuttling Cold Fusion, with some uncanny need to keep believing his “peer reviewed” papers. I don't understand this presumptive opinion-mongering to ensure that others think the same way – and this is visible even in footnote [17] in my communication with an MIT alum who wrote me: “But, she got fired. I doubt if she could have gotten a job anywhere, at least in academia in the US.” Neither could Socrates. In fact, Socrates was given the hemlock! That gratuitous marginalization of Judy Wood by my co-alum confrere, was very surprising to me. How can my non-techie internet friend determine Judy Wood's qualifications as a mechanical engineering professor and her competence in that field? He is not even an engineer! It is all based on hearsay – not evidence of incompetence, fraud, malfeasance, deception, or being a covert establishmentarian hitman.
This osmotic diffusion of blanket prejudice against those who stand apart, some of them obviously cranks, some deliberately put there to ensure that all such people can be easily dismissed by association of standing apart, is so pervasive that I now guard against my being even subliminally tainted by it. Especially since, as a Muslim, I stand apart and alone from everyone. I challenged the FBI and Homeland Security agents when they visited my home in 2003 when empire was bombing my peoples to smithereens, rather than acquiesce to their demand (see: ). I do not demonize the Jews, nor do I give carte-blanche to manufactured scholars, and nor do I accept the maxim of my antagonists that 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', nor do I accept anyone who echoes my axioms or gratuitously offers sympathy to the oppressions inflicted upon my peoples to ingratiate themselves to us as our friend. I see the white man's burden as being uniformly distributed among hectoring hegemons and their assets – and because of it, I am called many names, from “disgrace to humanity” by the specious darling of dissent, United States Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, for deconstructing his crap (see it here: ), to the latest being “Mossad agent” by the website which purports to embody the spirit of “rebel” but dislikes those who unconform to their exclusive Jew-bashing, for challenging their crap (see it here: ).
More I am putatively labeled, more I know I must be doing something right as a justice activist! Because of that spirit which I feel within me, more I sense people putatively marginalizing Judy Wood, more I tend to take notice of her work. And when I do, I try to remain objective as a scientist and engineer – and I hope this is amply evident from my article above.
Thank you for reading the article and also this additional response comment. I hope it has been useful.
Best wishes,

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

First version published April 18, 2011 | Final version published April 26, 2011 | Last updated 05/02/2011 23:30:06 8691
Links fixed September 11, 2016
Footnote [17] Augmented September 16, 2016 | Footnote [17] Last updated September 21, 2016 03:00 pm 13590

Comment on Judy Wood's 'The New Hiroshima' By Zahir Ebrahim | Project 38/38