10-11-2010, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2010, 05:05 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of Peter Dawson. This is from an interview on 11 November 2006, when I was first becoming acquainted with the research of Judy Wood, Ph.D., a former mechanical engineer from Clemson University who has earned degrees in structural engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials science, which are the most relevant disciplines for understanding what happened to the Twin Towers. She has done more to establish the effects of the attacks on the World Trade Center than anyone else engaged in 9/11 research, as those who visit her web site, http://drjudywood.com, will discover.
I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.
Coming up with new hypotheses is the most difficult part of science and, as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I was impressed that she was "thinking outside of the box", an ability that Peter Dawson apparently lacks. This man comes across as a completely conventional thinker who has, I would surmise, never had an original thought in his life. But, even more importantly, why is he offering an ad hominem attack related to an old interview about 9/11 in relation to my work about the faking of the moon landings? He had to dredge down pretty far to come up with this, not to mention that he offers no reason to think that I--or Judy Wood, for that matter--am wrong!
This is what I would expect of a mediocre mind. I had become aware of their existence years before in conducting research on the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, which appears to have been done using a DEW to overwhelm the electrical system, take out all computerized systems and switch the props to "idle", which caused them to lose forward thrust. At the time, I discovered that the Directed Energy Society was having its 8th annual conference in Hawaii that year. These weapons can be land-based, air-borne, or space-based, including being reflected by mirrors on satellites, which had been done as early as 1996.
So her work was not that far-out even then and certainly is less so today for those interested in the science of 9/11, as Peter Dawson obviously is not. For those interested in more on AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004), my book on Wellstone's death and the probable use of a directed-energy weapon in that case, visit http://assassinationscience.com and the later study, "The NIST Failed Wellstone", http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...tone.shtml which I co-authored with John P. Costella. Michael Ruppert, incidentally, arrived at similar conclusions in his book, CROSSING THE RUBICON (2004). It is far more difficult to figure out what has happened in cases like these if you use methods and techniques whose very existence is not known to the public.
I am convinced that the most widely accepted position about 9/11--that the towers were taken down with thermite/thermate/nano-thermite--is almost certainly wrong, since thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. For thermite to become explosive, it would have to be combined with an explosive, which is also true of toothpaste. I therefore encourage the study of alternative explanations, including the possible use of third or fourth generation nukes (mico or mini), lasers, masers, and other forms of directed energy weapons. See, for example, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", http://911scholars.ning.com, for an outline of my argument.
Coming up with new hypotheses is the most difficult part of science and, as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I was impressed that she was "thinking outside of the box", an ability that Peter Dawson apparently lacks. This man comes across as a completely conventional thinker who has, I would surmise, never had an original thought in his life. But, even more importantly, why is he offering an ad hominem attack related to an old interview about 9/11 in relation to my work about the faking of the moon landings? He had to dredge down pretty far to come up with this, not to mention that he offers no reason to think that I--or Judy Wood, for that matter--am wrong!
This is what I would expect of a mediocre mind. I had become aware of their existence years before in conducting research on the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, which appears to have been done using a DEW to overwhelm the electrical system, take out all computerized systems and switch the props to "idle", which caused them to lose forward thrust. At the time, I discovered that the Directed Energy Society was having its 8th annual conference in Hawaii that year. These weapons can be land-based, air-borne, or space-based, including being reflected by mirrors on satellites, which had been done as early as 1996.
So her work was not that far-out even then and certainly is less so today for those interested in the science of 9/11, as Peter Dawson obviously is not. For those interested in more on AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004), my book on Wellstone's death and the probable use of a directed-energy weapon in that case, visit http://assassinationscience.com and the later study, "The NIST Failed Wellstone", http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...tone.shtml which I co-authored with John P. Costella. Michael Ruppert, incidentally, arrived at similar conclusions in his book, CROSSING THE RUBICON (2004). It is far more difficult to figure out what has happened in cases like these if you use methods and techniques whose very existence is not known to the public.
Peter Dawson Wrote:You are a sorry old sack of shit, Fetzer. You and Judy Wood make a good pair.
Quote: Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”
Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”
Fetzer: “Planes?”
Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”
Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.”