September 19, 2011

Review: Judy Wood "New Hiroshima" WRT Dimitri Khalezov "9/11: Third Truth"

This article is for those that are familiar with Dimitri Khalezov 9/11 testimony and.or Dr. Judy Wood's  theory about 9/11. I want to preface this article saying that i believe Dimitri Khalezov offers the most detailed and most logical explanation of virtually all events of 9/11 in his 2-Part documentary interview called "9/11: The Third Truth". You can watch his interview video here:

Part 1: 9/11: The Third Truth - Dimitri Khalezov (1of2 Full)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo

Part 2: 9/11: The Third Truth - Dimitri Khalezov (2of2 Full)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c39O-ftZboU

When discussing Dimitri Khalezov, people often mention Dr. Judy Wood's "Energy Directed Weapon" theory about 9/11. So rather than simply dismissing Judy Wood's theory, i decided to watch her presentation and make up my own mind. This article outlines various points presented by Judy and offers comments.

One very important point is that Dr. Judy Wood offers a "theory" to what happened on 9/11 whereas Dimitri Khalezov is a in fact a material witness and provides "testimony" (not a theory) to the fact that the WTC towers were demolished using three 150kt underground nuclear devices.


I watched the Judy Wood 2-part video called "New Hiroshima" filmed in 2007 at Madison. Here are the 2 videos i watched:

Part 1: 9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGsuzNmfdOI

Part 2: 9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EX45sQhIOI

Overall, her content in Part 1 was not bad. Her overall presentation was lack luster, but that's not critical so i will focus focus on the material she presented. If you stopped watching Judy after Part 1, and started watching Dimitri, the material she presented would provide Dimitri with a great intro. Also, i found it odd that she used the term "New Hiroshima", which was a nuclear event, even though that was not her claim.

I have organized my commentary on Dr. Judy Wood's "New Hiroshima" 2-part presentation by organizing key points of her presentation into Pros and Cons as follows:

Pros - Comments made by Dr. Judy Wood that either agree with, or provide support to, Dimitri's testimony (i.e. the same comments can be made for Dimitri's testimony)

Cons - Comments made that lack support evidence, any unsubstantiated claims, outright inaccurate comments or claims made by Dr. Judy Wood.

PART 1

Pros
--------------------
  • Building disappears, not collapse @6:30'
  • Nuclear test @7:30'
  • Rotates over and disappears @15'
  • Building didn't hit the ground (again, dust) @15:30'
  • "At least not 110' (she meant "stories") of outer columns" @15:40'
  • Fumes, not smoke, came from the ground
  • World record (of dust) @19:30'
  • Kingdome demolition @20'
  • "Seemed like jet engines shooting upwards" @21'
  • "Fumes, not smoke" @28'
  • See the fire stove image shows fire inside metal stove @41
  • Building #4 (not bad) @34'
Cons
--------------------
  • Demolition wave "ahead" of gravity @16' // That's not actually what we we saw, this is an inaccurate statement
  • Cylindrical cut outs // There was o evidence of this, it was just Judy's comments @23' and 35'
  • "Whole bunch of 24' cylindrical cut outs that coalesced" @31' // Again, no clear evidence
  • Cars spontaneously combust, and instant rust @38:30' // Lack of evidence, just Judy's commentary
  • Cars have "instantly rusted" @40' // Lack of evidence, just her commentary
  • Car on fire but not paper @42' // Failed to show how this was relevant 
  • "rusting", "no door handles" @43' // Failed to show how this was relevant 
  • No molten metal / microwave oven comment @46' // But there is ample evidence of molten metal
PART 2

In Part 2, she continues to focus on "dust", which completely supports Dimitri's explanation, but she starts to introduce strange comments and made-up terms not backed by very much evidence beyond her claims. Part 2 was a letdown.

Pros
--------------------
  • "Fumes, not smoke" @1'
  • "Dust clouds" @5:20'
  • (dust) "dark on top, light on bottom" @5:30' // Dimitri explains this in depth: Crushed zone and Damaged zone
  • Building 6 @7'
  • See the "blue flames" in the diagrams @19' // points to radiation fumes 
  • FBI photo of them scrubbing the streets (toothbrush comment) @30' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
  • Constant scrubbing @31' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
  • "Air monitors" @34' // Dimitri claims they were used to monitor radiation
  • "Tower 1 getting packed with dirt" @34' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
  • Lots of evidence about dirt being brought to Ground Zero from 34' to 40' // supports efforts to contain the radiation
  • Comment by audience about dirt being used at Chernobyl to contain radiation  @42'
  • "Still fuming" @43'
  • Took 1 year to solve a crime @1:04 (vs. 1 hour to solve WTC)
  • Kingdome demolition @1:15'  // Nice comparison of demolitions showing charges going off, yet we don't see charges going off at any WTC building
  • "Strongest building material turned into clouds" clip @1:28'

Cons
--------------------
  • "Looked at data, data told me so" @3:30' // Judy failed to present that data so we can follow her line of thinking
  • "Path train" @7:30 // Interesting, but she failed to provide evidence 
  • "Toasted cars" @ 15' // I put this as a con because she made ongoing commentary about "instant rust" and "toasted" but failed to show evidence to support these claims. We can see dust on damaged cars but "instant rustification" was not proven. She harped on this point throughout her presentation. She also mentioned "it must have been some type of chemical reaction", without proof to support this claim
  • "Missing engine block" #17' // Judy stated this twice and it made no sense both times. The photos showed a damaged car with the hood closed, so her statement was wrong
  • "Toasted car lot" @17' // Not clearly presented, not any explanation was offered
  • "Toasted bodies" 19' // There was no evidence of "toasted bodies", it was just her commentary
  • @22:40' // I found it hard to believe that two ladies in her small audience happen to be in NY on 9/11. Too coincidental for me 
  • Audience member claims "Smell burning bodies" @23' // Again, there was no evidence of this from rescue workers and more importantly, the overall destruction of buildings would have overwhelmed any distinct smell of "burning bodies". I seriously doubt the validity of this statement. And again, it was a random person's statement
  • "fuzzy balls" @27:50' // Judy now starts to invent terms that do not actually describe what is being presented
  • "Molten metal myth" @30' // Judy harps on this point, but it contradicts several firefighters testimony and it contradicts videos and photos we see, also contradicts articles reporting the fires were still burning, plus you can see smoke coming from Ground Zero weeks later. She provides very weak evidence to disprove this fact.
  • "Steel doesn't rust that fast" @33' // She made a baseless claim. We have no idea if that was in fact rust, and we have no idea if it was rusted/colored that way before hand. I would not have point this out, but she harped on this topic so much that it requires comment
  • Judy's explanation about steel getting hot, regarding the equipment "could not get that hot" and will "expand" was total gibberish @44'. // Judy's explanation was misleading and incorrect stating that the large equipment could not possibly handle hot steel 
  • Molten metal @47' // Judy claims that this is disinfo yet multiple reports of molten steel were made by firefighers and we can see many photos of hot steal being pulled from the wreckage. I seriously doubt, and the evidence does not support, that molten metal was disinfo, yet she harped on it without providing any evidence to support her claims.
  • "Good psyops" @53' // Judy spent time discussing psyops as if she was an authority. In fact, her explanation was, i quote: "if you're going to pull a good psyops, you start out with saying something honest. Because the first impression of someone, they're wondering, is this person someone i can trust or not. They say the right thing "ah, i'm gonna trust them." And then they move into something that's kind of odd. That's just a good rule of thumb. The issue is, this comment can be applied to Judy's presentation. Part 1 of her presentation, she made accurate observations which most people could agree with. But now in Part 2, she presents exactly this "kind of odd" information using made-up terms and statements about molten metal that contradict various evidence. It was a very bizarre statement to make during her presentation on "materials and structural engineering".
  • "This particular one is what i call a pysops video. It's to re-enforce the 'molten metal myth' that got introduced somehow at some point. I wanna make it clear that in no way do i think any of the emergency workers were lying when they said they saw molten metal. They were conditioned that, and everybody was saying that, everyone kept assuming thats what that was, and just moved on, and it became this myth" @53' // I have a serious problem with her statements about this clip. She provides no evidence to disprove that there was not molten lava, which means that she is sharing her opinion, not fact. I find it strange that she stresses this point so vigorously yet provides little to no evidence to support it. In fact, it goes against the testimony of firefighters that were clearly standing on the rubble. 
  • "No fires below" @59' // She fails to provide evidence to support her claim and evidence that is available contradicts her statement.
  • "Instant rust" @1:06 // She offers no evidence of this happening. She offers an unclear photo and her statement as evidence. 
  • "Bright orange rust" @1:08 // Again, an unsubstantiated claim. It's very unclear if it is in fact rust. We can see dust, but that's the only thing we can confirm. She offers no explanation and no evidence.
  • "You can tell when a building is ready to go" @1:13 // Big statement wrong on many levels. No, people can't actually tell when a building is ready to collapse unless they have special knowledge of it happening.
  • "Soap suds" @1:13 // Ongoing use of made-up terms added confusion and did not actually describe what was being presented
  • "Lathering up smoke rings" @1:16 // She offers no explanation nor evidence as to what these actually were nor what caused them
  • "Dust" @1:18' // Simple explanation, the wind was blowing the dust and fumes all over the place (down draft, up draft, etc.). She made a big deal about how the dust and smoke were traveling yet it was easily explained by wind blowing. She seemed to be hinting at something, yet offered no alternative explanation.
  • "Lathering up" @1:23' // I see no "lathering" of any sort. I see a building that was pulverized to dust that's about to fall down
  • "Fuzzy blobs" @1:25'
  • "Lathering up material" @1:26 // At this point, the more she spoke, the less credible she became
  • "Most people are unable to talk about it"  1:30' to 1:36'  // Judy presents no evidence, just a few photos and a story
  • "Fumes, no bent steal" @1:38 // We can see bent steal in countless photos.

In summary, Judy Wood made fairly good observations in Part 1 of the event and Ground Zero itself (i.e. massive amounts of dust, fumes/not smoke, building came down to dust, etc.) but failed to deliver evidence in trying to offer her explanation in Part 2. She focused on "toasted cars", "24' diameter holes", "instant rust", "some sort of chemical reaction", etc. without providing evidence to support her observations and claims. Her observations are very much up for debate. Her introduction of made-up terms to describe events that did not match what she was presenting was a fail. Terms like, "lathering" or "lathering up material" or "lathering up sequence" or "soap suds" or "fuzzy blobs" were introduced  with no support evidence, nor any explanation as to what created them. Again, it was just her commentary. That was a fail and was in fact a deal breaker for accepting her commentary beyond Part 1.

An extremely important fact to note is that Dr. Judy Wood offers a "theory" about 9/11, whereas Dimitri Khalezov is a "material witness" and provides testimony to the fact that the WTC towers were demolished using three 150kt built-in underground nuclear devices. Judy makes some good observations, but fails to offer substantial evidence to explain what exactly happened to the buildings. Watch both presentations and decide for yourself.

2 comments:

  1. My problem with Judy Wood is exactly this: SHE points out microscopic findings of the dust as being thermite or thermate. I believe the findings COULD as easily be from parts of the building materials and office equipment, having been through NUCLEAR demo. I also think she does not understand OR has not explained, at all, the difference between underground-nukes and above-ground nukes. It's a completely different scenario, and to my mind, only Dimitri has completely explained all of it.
    AS I have said, elsewhere, I watched the towers go up, and on 9.11, when i saw them "come down", I immediately knew something was VERY WRONG. I could not, back then, consider that we had witnessed any sort of nuclear demolition, but since then and since watching Dimitri's videos (and reading all of his books), it makes sense. Only it makes sense.
    I can see how many or even most Americans would not want to believe this, as it is incredibly hard to swallow-- UNLESS you saw it happen and knew, immediately, it could not be anything else.
    I was confused for probably six years over what it could be. Then, I heard Dimitri. I actually cried when I first watched his videos... and I watched all twenty-six, straight-through. Thus began my voyage with Dimitri Khalezov, the only man who has told this truth-- the ONLY truth, regardless of what anyone thinks the rationale may be, the fact of underground nuclear demolition cannot be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Darn. I thought I would have a chance to preview my comment, but after signing on and then having to go through the "i am not a bot" non-word-nonsense, I missed it. So, if there are typos, etc..., people will have to get over it!

    ReplyDelete