A Penny For Your Thoughts? The Often Absurd Wood-Jenkins Interview
Interview of Proponents of Opposing 9/11 “Mechanisms” Duking It Out, The Often Absurd Wood/Jenkins Interview
by The Anonymous Physicist
I recently saw the videos, cited below, for the first time. They are supposedly of the interview “9/11truther” Greg Jenkins, PhD [Physics] did of DEW proponent, Judy Wood, PhD [Materials Engineering Science] on 1/10/2007, at a 9/11 “truth” conference arranged by James Fetzer, PhD [history and philosophy of science] and associates.
Here is Part I of IV youtube videos. Make sure to see all four parts-- they are both humorous and instructive. (I would ignore the photographic pseudo-analysis at the beginning of Part I.) We can see that the interview seems to be cordial, with Wood and Jenkins smiling at each other at times. At other times, each appears on the verge of laughing. Note that some DEW proponents say Wood was tricked, accosted, or hijacked to do the interviews. Clearly she didn’t have to do it (or did she?), and could have stopped at any time. In Part IV, she does get up and leave.
But at first, Jenkins reads off her C.V., and then asks Wood to give an “overview of the proposed types of weapons used” for the demolition of the WTC towers. (Note first that this occurs at 3:33 [naturally]. IMO, this timing was the purpose for adding the photographic pseudo-analysis at the beginning. Wood looks troubled and replies, “We really haven’t gotten into listing them yet… just energy weapons.” Jenkins continues to press her, “In what form?” Wood replies, “Um…I don’t… [looking away & shrugging helplessly] I don’t think we even needed to find them…what we did was assemble all the pictures and evidence that we trusted [I would like to know who is “we” (if you know what I mean)?]. Here Wood comes off very bad, NOT knowing how to answer the number one question about “DEW.” This poor response is surprising, because one would think the #1 question about one’s “field” would have its “creator” with the answer either known, or prepared, unless this was not supposed to be asked? But her not being able to answer intelligently is very telling, or perhaps not caring to have an answer to this is also telling. Or there is no good answer, as there is nothing to “DEW,” as far as 9/11 is concerned.
The rest of the four parts contain the following. Jenkins, at times, comes off looking very bad. He says the WTC dust size was an average of 70 microns. My analysis (of Z.P. Bazant’s “work” here) showed that this is a lie and a fraud. We don’t even know the average dust size because dust sizes smaller than 2.5 microns were all lumped together-- when the technology allowed the USGS scientists to determine this down to 10 nanometers. If there were 10 nanometer size dust, it both skews this bogus, purported average, and forces the destruction mechanism to be nukes. Jenkins, at one point is obviously and massively lying about the “debris radius”, likely taken from the lies in the papers by Bazant or NIST. He does not say where he gets his 6X the radius of the towers, and Wood says a million times that, as ultrafine particles went far and wide. And Wood is much more correct here. Jenkins apparently knows well what ultrafine particles prove-- nukes-- and squirms to get out of that discussion. When he is either caught in a lie or a topic he wishes to avoid, he blinks excessively, looks askance, or touches his nose. Jenkins keeps insisting debris only went down, not up. (I guess they never showed him the satellite pictures, or pictures of streets a mile away.)
It goes back and forth, with one looking/sounding ridiculous, then the other. At one point, Wood smilingly admits to inventing a new word, dustification, and says “poof” as part of her “understanding” regarding the WTC destruction. It gets funnier when Wood purports that a standard microwave oven is involved in her “analysis” on the “dustification” of the WTC. In this regard, she says heat something up and “it will go poof,” and Jenkins corrects her with, you mean “it will evaporate.” But Wood insists on using her term “poof” repeatedly. Now this is somewhat surprising, as Wood is being interviewed by a scientist/physicist; and being videoed implies it is for mass viewing. So why use the baby talk under these conditions? Unless, again, one is ordered to. Similarly, Wood (in Part III) calls the outwardly exploding and then falling debris, a “snowball.” Now this may seem like more baby talk, but I think the raison d’etre for her “work” and baby talk is so that people don’t call what is in that photo, something else, indicated here. Wood, I guess, would call the two photos “snowballs”, do you? The related articles I have written here (wtcdemolition.blogspot.com), here (wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com), and here (bloglines.com/blog/spooked911) include exposing all three Intel Hangouts of OCT, DEW and thermite.
Several times, Jenkins calls the towers’ destructions “collapses.” Wood incredulously, and smilingly, repeats “Collapse?” Almost as if she means to tell him, “Hey Greg, did you forget that you are supposed to be a proponent of that other hangout-- thermite explosions did it?” I too thought that Jenkins was a vociferous member of “Scholars for 911 truth” created by James Fetzer and Steven Jones, and that Jenkins has had articles supporting Jones’ thermite hangout. The only ones who use the term “collapse” are the proponents of the O.C.T. So maybe Jenkins forgot his script, and the interview ends soon after that, with Wood seeming to have had enough. Of course, I wouldn’t blame her if she were genuinely perturbed to find a supposed “9/11truther” use the term “collapse.”
A word on Fetzer here. I am well familiar with him, having read, years ago, all his books on the Assassination of President Kennedy. They are pseudo-masterpieces of gate-keeping and limited hangout! He gave away his own raison d’etre in one of them, when he denounced Bill Cooper for revealing that the fatal head shot was, of course, fired by Secret Service driver, William Greer-- which millions of people have seen on the Zapruder film. Clearly Fetzer’s job, with his JFK books, conferences, etc. was to try to hide the Ultimate Truth of the Kennedy Assassination. So it came as no surprise to me, to see Fetzer inserted into “9/11truth”. And to see him variously aligned first with the thermite proponent, then the DEW proponent--any hangout, but all the while trying AGAIN to hide the Ultimate Truths of 9/11-- the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath! The most humorous thing about Fetzer in 911truth is when he “lectures” on gate-keeping and dis-information. Talk about inserting a[n intel] fox to guard the chickens. Many now in 911truth have figured Fetzer out for themselves. And I hope my articles have helped make the source of the 9/11 hangouts-- thermite and DEW-- also clear to those really interested in the truth.
Here Wood proponents highlight the worst moments that Jenkins had during the interview. It’s pretty funny at times. Naturally its length is nine minutes and 33 seconds. The entire interview though reaches its peak of ludicrousness when Jenkins says to Wood “nothing goes up”; and Wood says to Jenkins that the only thing that went down was that someone had “a penny” on a ledge that fell over!? So maybe the Op was to have both these “alternatives” look ridiculous, and thus send people back to the OCT-- of which Jenkins gives away is where his heart really is.
Conclusion: Both Wood and Jenkins look/sound absurd at times because both their hangouts are untenable. Each is fraught with lies and/or vacuity. Both Wood and Jenkins come off looking ludicrous, at times, when each ignores the evidence-- including videos, and photos (including from orbit)-- that much material exploded outward, and then down; and much other material went up and away. But DEW proponents should stop saying Wood was accosted or practically kidnapped as she first seems happy to be there, and didn’t have to do it (or did she?). Wood could have either left at any time, or not have consented to go off and get videotaped. In that light, was the interview facilitated by none other than Fetzer?
This is like Jeff Hill’s phone interviews of alleged “plane hit” eyewitnesses, or video-takers. On the surface this looks great, as he appears to be exposing these people. But somehow, even when he makes it known he is a supposed adversary to those who he is phoning, as he is a “no-planer” (as I am, as all those videos sure are nothing but physically impossible, and “bad, special effects”/CGI) his subjects say they will hang up, but curiously, virtually never do. Have you not hung up on a pest in a second or two? How long would it take you to hang up on a drunken adversary calling you in the wee hours of the morning? Unless both parties, in such interviews, were ordered to do the interview? And sounding or appearing stupid with baby talk (Wood), or telephonically accosting someone in the middle of the night when drunk, makes the whole thing seem ridiculous to the wider audience-- often ending their interest in 911truth!! Just something for the wise to consider. The Wood/Jenkins interview can be construed as lending new meaning to the phrase, “A penny for your thoughts.” IMO, that’s the sum value of both “DEW” and thermite!
I have tried to inform people of the insidious ways of the intel agencies. Recall my article on “investigative reporter” John Miller who “got an interview” with Osama bin Laden in the late 1990’s? Miller turned out to be deeply connected to the FBI/CIA and was a godson to the real Mafia Godfather (Costello) as an infant! So the interviewer and the interviewee in many of these things are known to each other, and/or ordered by their same supervisor to do the interview. Be skeptical of every single interview (whether, in text in a book, or on video) in the conspiracy field! But once you understand this, you can see through it, and go beyond the surface, to the thinking of the intel agencies. This is sometimes good for a laugh or two, or it may help counter what you realize the real purpose is.
by The Anonymous Physicist
I recently saw the videos, cited below, for the first time. They are supposedly of the interview “9/11truther” Greg Jenkins, PhD [Physics] did of DEW proponent, Judy Wood, PhD [Materials Engineering Science] on 1/10/2007, at a 9/11 “truth” conference arranged by James Fetzer, PhD [history and philosophy of science] and associates.
Here is Part I of IV youtube videos. Make sure to see all four parts-- they are both humorous and instructive. (I would ignore the photographic pseudo-analysis at the beginning of Part I.) We can see that the interview seems to be cordial, with Wood and Jenkins smiling at each other at times. At other times, each appears on the verge of laughing. Note that some DEW proponents say Wood was tricked, accosted, or hijacked to do the interviews. Clearly she didn’t have to do it (or did she?), and could have stopped at any time. In Part IV, she does get up and leave.
But at first, Jenkins reads off her C.V., and then asks Wood to give an “overview of the proposed types of weapons used” for the demolition of the WTC towers. (Note first that this occurs at 3:33 [naturally]. IMO, this timing was the purpose for adding the photographic pseudo-analysis at the beginning. Wood looks troubled and replies, “We really haven’t gotten into listing them yet… just energy weapons.” Jenkins continues to press her, “In what form?” Wood replies, “Um…I don’t… [looking away & shrugging helplessly] I don’t think we even needed to find them…what we did was assemble all the pictures and evidence that we trusted [I would like to know who is “we” (if you know what I mean)?]. Here Wood comes off very bad, NOT knowing how to answer the number one question about “DEW.” This poor response is surprising, because one would think the #1 question about one’s “field” would have its “creator” with the answer either known, or prepared, unless this was not supposed to be asked? But her not being able to answer intelligently is very telling, or perhaps not caring to have an answer to this is also telling. Or there is no good answer, as there is nothing to “DEW,” as far as 9/11 is concerned.
The rest of the four parts contain the following. Jenkins, at times, comes off looking very bad. He says the WTC dust size was an average of 70 microns. My analysis (of Z.P. Bazant’s “work” here) showed that this is a lie and a fraud. We don’t even know the average dust size because dust sizes smaller than 2.5 microns were all lumped together-- when the technology allowed the USGS scientists to determine this down to 10 nanometers. If there were 10 nanometer size dust, it both skews this bogus, purported average, and forces the destruction mechanism to be nukes. Jenkins, at one point is obviously and massively lying about the “debris radius”, likely taken from the lies in the papers by Bazant or NIST. He does not say where he gets his 6X the radius of the towers, and Wood says a million times that, as ultrafine particles went far and wide. And Wood is much more correct here. Jenkins apparently knows well what ultrafine particles prove-- nukes-- and squirms to get out of that discussion. When he is either caught in a lie or a topic he wishes to avoid, he blinks excessively, looks askance, or touches his nose. Jenkins keeps insisting debris only went down, not up. (I guess they never showed him the satellite pictures, or pictures of streets a mile away.)
It goes back and forth, with one looking/sounding ridiculous, then the other. At one point, Wood smilingly admits to inventing a new word, dustification, and says “poof” as part of her “understanding” regarding the WTC destruction. It gets funnier when Wood purports that a standard microwave oven is involved in her “analysis” on the “dustification” of the WTC. In this regard, she says heat something up and “it will go poof,” and Jenkins corrects her with, you mean “it will evaporate.” But Wood insists on using her term “poof” repeatedly. Now this is somewhat surprising, as Wood is being interviewed by a scientist/physicist; and being videoed implies it is for mass viewing. So why use the baby talk under these conditions? Unless, again, one is ordered to. Similarly, Wood (in Part III) calls the outwardly exploding and then falling debris, a “snowball.” Now this may seem like more baby talk, but I think the raison d’etre for her “work” and baby talk is so that people don’t call what is in that photo, something else, indicated here. Wood, I guess, would call the two photos “snowballs”, do you? The related articles I have written here (wtcdemolition.blogspot.com), here (wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com), and here (bloglines.com/blog/spooked911) include exposing all three Intel Hangouts of OCT, DEW and thermite.
Several times, Jenkins calls the towers’ destructions “collapses.” Wood incredulously, and smilingly, repeats “Collapse?” Almost as if she means to tell him, “Hey Greg, did you forget that you are supposed to be a proponent of that other hangout-- thermite explosions did it?” I too thought that Jenkins was a vociferous member of “Scholars for 911 truth” created by James Fetzer and Steven Jones, and that Jenkins has had articles supporting Jones’ thermite hangout. The only ones who use the term “collapse” are the proponents of the O.C.T. So maybe Jenkins forgot his script, and the interview ends soon after that, with Wood seeming to have had enough. Of course, I wouldn’t blame her if she were genuinely perturbed to find a supposed “9/11truther” use the term “collapse.”
A word on Fetzer here. I am well familiar with him, having read, years ago, all his books on the Assassination of President Kennedy. They are pseudo-masterpieces of gate-keeping and limited hangout! He gave away his own raison d’etre in one of them, when he denounced Bill Cooper for revealing that the fatal head shot was, of course, fired by Secret Service driver, William Greer-- which millions of people have seen on the Zapruder film. Clearly Fetzer’s job, with his JFK books, conferences, etc. was to try to hide the Ultimate Truth of the Kennedy Assassination. So it came as no surprise to me, to see Fetzer inserted into “9/11truth”. And to see him variously aligned first with the thermite proponent, then the DEW proponent--any hangout, but all the while trying AGAIN to hide the Ultimate Truths of 9/11-- the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath! The most humorous thing about Fetzer in 911truth is when he “lectures” on gate-keeping and dis-information. Talk about inserting a[n intel] fox to guard the chickens. Many now in 911truth have figured Fetzer out for themselves. And I hope my articles have helped make the source of the 9/11 hangouts-- thermite and DEW-- also clear to those really interested in the truth.
Here Wood proponents highlight the worst moments that Jenkins had during the interview. It’s pretty funny at times. Naturally its length is nine minutes and 33 seconds. The entire interview though reaches its peak of ludicrousness when Jenkins says to Wood “nothing goes up”; and Wood says to Jenkins that the only thing that went down was that someone had “a penny” on a ledge that fell over!? So maybe the Op was to have both these “alternatives” look ridiculous, and thus send people back to the OCT-- of which Jenkins gives away is where his heart really is.
Conclusion: Both Wood and Jenkins look/sound absurd at times because both their hangouts are untenable. Each is fraught with lies and/or vacuity. Both Wood and Jenkins come off looking ludicrous, at times, when each ignores the evidence-- including videos, and photos (including from orbit)-- that much material exploded outward, and then down; and much other material went up and away. But DEW proponents should stop saying Wood was accosted or practically kidnapped as she first seems happy to be there, and didn’t have to do it (or did she?). Wood could have either left at any time, or not have consented to go off and get videotaped. In that light, was the interview facilitated by none other than Fetzer?
This is like Jeff Hill’s phone interviews of alleged “plane hit” eyewitnesses, or video-takers. On the surface this looks great, as he appears to be exposing these people. But somehow, even when he makes it known he is a supposed adversary to those who he is phoning, as he is a “no-planer” (as I am, as all those videos sure are nothing but physically impossible, and “bad, special effects”/CGI) his subjects say they will hang up, but curiously, virtually never do. Have you not hung up on a pest in a second or two? How long would it take you to hang up on a drunken adversary calling you in the wee hours of the morning? Unless both parties, in such interviews, were ordered to do the interview? And sounding or appearing stupid with baby talk (Wood), or telephonically accosting someone in the middle of the night when drunk, makes the whole thing seem ridiculous to the wider audience-- often ending their interest in 911truth!! Just something for the wise to consider. The Wood/Jenkins interview can be construed as lending new meaning to the phrase, “A penny for your thoughts.” IMO, that’s the sum value of both “DEW” and thermite!
I have tried to inform people of the insidious ways of the intel agencies. Recall my article on “investigative reporter” John Miller who “got an interview” with Osama bin Laden in the late 1990’s? Miller turned out to be deeply connected to the FBI/CIA and was a godson to the real Mafia Godfather (Costello) as an infant! So the interviewer and the interviewee in many of these things are known to each other, and/or ordered by their same supervisor to do the interview. Be skeptical of every single interview (whether, in text in a book, or on video) in the conspiracy field! But once you understand this, you can see through it, and go beyond the surface, to the thinking of the intel agencies. This is sometimes good for a laugh or two, or it may help counter what you realize the real purpose is.
posted by spooked at 7:13 AM
<< Home