Hi Ed, Peter, and Susan, it sometimes seems that the 9-11 activists
who are smart, courageous, and honest are few and far between.Â
Has anyone besides me noticed how this has rolled out? This
buffoon, Mister Thomas Potter, sent me an unsolicited e-mail
full of DEW, Judy "fraud" Wood balderdash. My reply is attached
below but the long and excellent analysis of Doctor Kendrick and my
reply analogizing "fraud" Wood's propaganda opus to a "shit
sandwich" were not included.
Have we not seen these same tactics over and over again with the
Fetzer Bozons? It's all designed to be a huge diversion and
mind-numbing waste of time... et voilà ! ...here we are.
It's so funny that Potter would say, "Your actions [Ed] along with
Dennis Mitrzyk, and Peter Wakefield Sault remind me of school
children sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA, LA,
LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" because that is precisely what Mohan Rao
did yesterday when i tried to talk with him about this!
On a personal note to Mohan, who just happens to live in the Andes
near me, i have this to say:Â Congratulations, your performance of a
grown man running around with his fingers in his ears going "na, na,
na, na..." like a spoiled five-year old (i'm not making this up!)
has garnered you an Academy Award Nomination for your role in "Home
Alone 5: Alone in the Dark with Scary Aunt Judy "fraud" Wood" and
your disrespectful treatment of me has earned you a coveted place on
"Galen's Shun List".Â
Mohan, the bottom line for me is once someone has shown themselves
to be in " bad faith",
i don't want anything more to do with them. You don't like my
energy? ...well guess what? ...i don't like your energy either, and
i want nothing more to do with you. And no, i'm not going to
pretend like we're "buddies" because we're not and i don't believe
in "convenient" lies. As is my policy, your shunning does not
extend to your son or wife unless they decide to imitate your
duplicitous treatment of me. There was just so much wrong with your
behavior towards me yesterday that i'm not willing to even begin
outlining it here.
By the way, Mohan, you have several times insisted you've
seen me mad. I've insisted you've never seen me mad. So,
you're calling me a liar. Let me tell you something, if you were to
actually see me angry, though i doubt that this will ever
happen, there would be no denying it. I occasionally have lost my
temper over the years, so i know what it feels like. Trust me, no
one in this peaceful town has ever seen me angry and i prefer to
keep it that way. This is precisely why i have a Shun List. Once i
realize i'm at odds with someone and they demonstrate pathological
hypocrisy and "bad faith", i'd rather just have nothing more to do
with them. I don't wish you ill, i just wish not to interact with
you anymore.
For truth and justice -- galenÂ
PS: Yes Potter, my legal name is Dennis Joseph Mitrzyk. I don't
think that's a big secret. I'm sure your bosses know.
On 10/10/2012 7:18 AM, Ed Kendrick wrote:
"The Evidence" is said to be unique to DEW, however, toasted cars,
building materials turned to dust can be explained by thermitics
used in combination with high-velocity explosives. Â Allegations of
steel turned to dust are unproven--and poor quality video
evidence, upon seeing the NIST videos, is clearly seen not to
support the conclusion that steel was turned to dust. Â See
my previous unanswered points which I will not take time to
copy/paste into this rebuttal. Â
Potter remains silent (ignorant?) about what constitutes the
scientific method and "irrefutable evidence". Â He seems not to
realize that the Judy Wood DEW explanation is a hypothesis.
  " LA, LA, LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR
YOU!" Â In the obvious ignoring of every point that has been
made, Potter's accusing others of willful ignoring is a big
lie called "projection".
Fortunately, we have 10 disciplined scientists (Jones,
Harrit, et. al.) who have published a paper that has yet to
be refuted--proving the presence of nano-thermite and
byproducts (iron spherules) in the World Trade Center dust.
Neither Wood, nor Hightower dispute the finding of
nano-thermite and iron spherules with a scientific analysis
of equal or greater persuasion. Â The biggest disappointment
of Judy Wood and Mark Hightower is their entry on the scene
by throwing out the nano-thermite discovery as if it didn't
matter and is irrelevant in explaining what happened.
 Hightower might have started with courteous congratulations
to Jones/Harrit and noted simply and correctly that higher
blast velocities were required than nano-thermite could
produce. Â Instead, both Hightower and Wood introduced their
work with rejection of the Jones/Harrit (Bentham) report.Â
The Judy Wood DEW explanation is a hypothesis that has
yet to be tested and reported upon in the scientific
literature. Â If DEW is obvious as alleged, surely, there
are twenty scientists who see the "obvious" DEW evidence
and are willing to put their professional reputations on
the line by performing testing and reporting the results
in a scientific paper..
And since Potter cannot articulate what he alleges is
obvious and ignores substantive refutation, the best
characterization of Potter so far is "book salesman"
(assuming he has good intentions) and the more likely
characterization is "disinfo agent".
Ed K
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM,
Peter Wakefield Sault <peter.sault@...>
wrote:
AÂ man who
uses the verb 'to dustify' wants me to believe in
ray guns from Outer Space.
Â
Peter
Â
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Potter [mailto: mr_thomas_potter@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:46
AM
To: 'Ed Kendrick'
Cc: 'Mohan Rao', 'Marti Oakley', 'Zan
Overall', 'Wendy Campbell', 'Jerry Mazza',
'Stephen Lendman',
'Adrian Salbuchi', 'T. Mark Hightower', 'Tim
Titrud', 'Criminal Zionist Slooth', '9-11
NeXuS',
'Peter Wakefield Sault', 'Susan Clarke'
Subject: Re: Wood is a Total Fraud!
...Re: Cartoons/Dr. Judy Wood
"The
first glaring
error is
claiming Dr.
Wood's
hypothesis to
be
irrefutable."
Dear Ed,
Dr. Judy Wood
does not
present
conjecture or
a hypothesis.
She presents
overwhelming,
conclusive,
and
indisputable
evidence that
leads to the
conclusion of
a Directed
Energy Weapon
"dustifing"
the whole
World Trade
Center
Complex. You
cannot convict
someone of a
crime unless
you know what
crime has been
committed. I
encourage you
to read WHERE
DID THE TOWERS
GO? Your
actions along
with Dennis
Mitrzyk, and
Peter
Wakefield
Sault remind
me of school
children
sticking their
fingers in
their ears and
shouting LA,
LA, LA, LA I
CAN'T HEAR
YOU! And I
mean that in
the nicest
possible way
dearie.
Why am I
thinking about
Dr. Christian
Szell from the
1976 movie
Marathon Man?
http://youtu.be/VaYj90BNFP4
Sincerely,
Thomas Potter
--- On Tue,
10/9/12, Ed
Kendrick <whole2th@...>
wrote:
From: Ed
Kendrick <whole2th@...>
Subject: Re:
Wood is a
Total Fraud!
...Re:
Cartoons/Dr.
Judy Wood
To: "Thomas
Potter" <mr_thomas_potter@...>
Cc: "Mohan
Rao" <mohaninthesky@...>,
"Marti Oakley"
<ppj1@...>, "Zan
Overall" <zn365@...>,
"Wendy
Campbell" <info@...>,
"Judy
Kemecsei" <judyk8@...>,
"Jerry Mazza"
<gvmaz@...>,
"Stephen
Lendman" <lendmanstephen@...>,
"Adrian
Salbuchi" <arsalbuchi@...>,
"T. Mark
Hightower"
<T.M.Hightower@...>,
"Tim Titrud"
<oregontt@...>,
"Criminal
Zionist
Slooth" <taboo_but_true@...>,
"9-11 NeXuS"
<9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>,
"Peter
Wakefield
Sault" <peter.sault@...>,
"Susan Clarke"
<s.1234567@...>
Date: Tuesday,
October 9,
2012, 3:52 PM
My
previous reply
was courteous
and formed in
a manner of
scientific
methodology
per Mohan's
polite
request. Â Your
reply does not
have such
politeness and
is deserving
of an in-kind
response (or
even better,
no response).
Â
The
scientific
method
(hypothesis-->theory-->scientific
fact) is
missing in
your argument.
 Sophistry is
your game, Mr.
Potter.
The first
glaring error
is claiming
Dr. Wood's
hypothesis to
be
irrefutable.
My how
you botch the
science with
your middle
school
analogies!
It is
sychophants of
Dr. Wood like
you who
convince me
that Dr. Wood
is a
distraction to
the already
well-development
controlled
demolition
theory.
As many
realize, the
more we divert
our energies
from WHO did
9/11, the
longer these
enemies of
mankind have
to consolidate
their holdings
and plunder
new
territories
based upon the
lies of 9/11.
We all
agree that
9/11 was not
done by those
who are
claimed to
have done it.
Your
sincerity and
strategic
sense (your
intention)
will be
apparent as
you either
continue a
sophistic
argument or
engage WHO did
9/11 with the
vengange and
energy that
the crime
deserves.
And, in
the spirit of
intention, Mr.
Potter, please
explain how a
proof of DEW
makes any
difference at
all in WHO did
9/11--and how
we might IN
PRESENT
TIME--approach
those with
motive, means,
opportunity
and the
complicity of
Congress/media/Hollywood,
heads of state
and others.
 How does this
argument about
HOW change the
WHO--and
especially,
WHY SHOULD WE
BE DRAWN TO
THIS
DISTRACTION
WHEN WE COULD
NOW BE
PURSUING
INDICTMENTS,
ARRESTS and
TRIALS which
would
facilitate
understanding
about the HOW?
Dr. Ed
Kendrick
ReDiscover911.com
Development
Group
Charter
Member of
Medical
Professionals
for 9/11 Truth
On Tue,
Oct 9, 2012 at
12:34 PM,
Thomas Potter
<mr_thomas_potter@...>
wrote:
Dear
Mr. Rao,
Thank you for
pointing out
that Mr.
Dennis Joseph
Mitrzyk's
personal
attack was
instigated as
a means to
ignore the the
evidence that
not only a
Directed
Energy Weapon
exists but
that it was
demonstrated
for the whole
world to seeon
September 11,
2001. The
integrity,
irrefutability,
and solidity
of Dr. Judy
Wood's
research,
however, as
well as its
importance,
have not
protected it
from programs
of denial,
disinformation,
falsehood, and
smear. In
light of the
seemingly
indefatigable
attack-and-disinformation
campaign
mounted
against it,
her research
and book will
outlive us all
and hold a
singular
position in
world history.
For those who
have
difficulty
comprehending
this fact,
remind them
that "Empirical
evidence is
the truth that
theory must
mimic". It
isn't the
other way
around. Dr.
Judy Wood
presents
evidence that
leads to the
conclusion of
a Directed
Energy Weapon
used to
selectively "dustify"
buildings with
a WTC prefix.
She does
not present a
theory.
To solve a
problem, we
must first
begin with
defining the
problem. Here
is a simple
quiz:
1. Were the
towers once
there? (yes or
no)
2. Are the
towers still
there? (yes or
no)
3. Did most
(over 50%) of
the towers
turn to dust?
(yes or no)
Choose the
question that
corresponds to
their answer
to #3 above:
4. (a) If your
answer to
question #3
was "no,"
Please review
the empirical
evidence
contained in
WHERE DID THE
TOWERS GO?
more carefully
or find
someone who
can.
4. (b) If your
answer to
question #3
was "yes,"
Does there
exist a
mechanism or
technology
capable of
doing this?
(yes or no)
==> If your
answer to
question #4b
was "yes," we
are in
agreement.
==> If your
answer to
question #4b
was "no,"
please explain
your
contradiction,
claiming
something
occurred that
was impossible
to occur.
When "white
man" first
arrived on the
American
continent with
firearms,
indigenous
people did not
need to know
the serial
numbers of
their weapons
to understand
what they can
do. They
didn't need to
have seen such
weapons in
order to know
that there
exists a
weapon that
can fire a
piece of metal
fast enough to
kill their
brother.
Likewise, by
the end of the
day on August
6, 1945, the
people living
near
Hiroshima,
Japan, did not
need to
understand how
a nuclear bomb
works in order
to know that
there exists a
technology
that can
produce
enormous
amounts of
heat or to
know that
there exists a
super-duper
Kinetic Energy
Weapon (KEW)
that is
capable of
destroying an
entire city.
1.) Did an
unknown
(secret)
technology
kill Native
Americans and
Japanese
civilians?
Yes, both
groups of
people were
killed with an
unknown
(secret)
technology.
2.) Was a
demonstration
of the unknown
(secret)
technology
proof that it
existed? Yes,
both groups of
people knew
that the
unknown
(secret)
technology
existed from
witnessing its
demonstration.
3.) Did both
groups of
people need to
know how the
unknown
(secret)
technology
worked to know
that it
existed? No,
neither group
of people
needed know
how the
unknown
(secret)
technology
worked to know
it existed.
4.) Was an
unknown
(secret)
technology
demonstrated
on September
11, 2001 in
New York City?
Yes, the
empirical
evidence
proves that an
unknown
(secret)
technology was
demonstrated.
5.) Was a
demonstration
of the unknown
(secret)
technology on
September 11,
2001 in New
York City
proof that it
existed? Yes,
we know that
the unknown
(secret)
technology
exists from
witnessing its
demonstration.
In your short
list of
evidence you
mentioned
Hurricane Erin
which is
covered in
Chapter 18
(pages
395-412) of
WHERE DID THE
TOWERS GO? I
find this
subject of
particular
interest.
This is the
introduction
to the
chapter:
"It was a
beautiful
early-autumn
morning in New
York City.
September 11,
2001, started
out calm, with
pleasant
temperatures
and
crystalline
blue skies.
Some had taken
time to do
early morning
errands. But
very few of
those people,
in fact very
few among the
entire
population of
New York City,
knew that a
massive
hurricane was
located at
that very same
time just off
the shore of
Long Island.
That storm was
Hurricane
Erin, as seen
in Figure
411:"
Why was
Hurricane Erin
traveling
straight for
NYC from
September
3rd-11th 2001,
yet it was not
reported on by
any major
media
broadcast in
that area? Most
people are
totally
unaware that
Hurricane Erin
came closest
to New York
City and
reached its
largest size
on 9/11.
Hurricane Erin
was slightly
larger than
Hurricane
Katrina (i.e.
Kinetic Energy
as measured by
Accumulated
Cyclone Energy
Index*), and
hurricanes
rarely head
straight for
NYC, so why
wasn't it
reported on by
any major
corporate
media station?
Furthermore,
why was
Hurricane Erin
still not
reported on
when it
reached its
closest point
to NYC on the
morning of
September
11th, just
before it
diverted from
its
straight-line
trajectory by
suddenly
turning and
heading out to
sea? How
were
meteorologists
absolutely
certain that
this hurricane
would make a
sharp
right-hand
turn away from
New York City?
Not only is
New York City
near sea
level, but so
is most of
Long Island.
Evacuation
from those
areas would be
a mammoth
undertaking
and could not
be organized
at a moment's
notice and yet
the public
remained
uninformed.
The data shows
that Erin
slowed down as
it approached
New York City
and then
remained
almost
stationary
during the
morning of
9/11.
Immediately
after the
World Trade
Center complex
was attacked,
Erin began to
move away from
New York City.
Coincidentally,
Hurricane Erin
was studied
more than any
other
hurricane had
been studied
before, and
more was
learned from
it than had
been learned
from any
hurricane
before it.
NASA Makes
A Heated 3-D
Look Into
Hurricane
Erin's Eye
Hurricane Erin
raced across
the North
Atlantic and
along the
eastern
seaboard in
September
2001. She was
used as an
experiment for
a study to
improve
hurricane
tracking and
intensity
predictions,
allowing
meteorologists
to provide
more accurate
and timely
warnings to
the public.
The mission
originated
from the Naval
Air Station in
Jacksonville,
Fla. The
mission united
researchers
from 10
universities,
five NASA
centers and
the National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration.
CAMEX-4 is a
series of
field research
investigations
to study
tropical
cyclones —
storms
commonly known
as hurricanes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051007090048.htm
Mission
Summary -
Hurricane Erin
http://web.archive.org/web/20040116023331/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/HFP2001/Mission_Sum_010910H.pdf
9/11
Morning
Weather
Reports | NYC
Not Warned of
Approaching
Hurricane Erin
http://www.youtube.com/v/1xWjdYnpxUg
Geraldo
Rivera“If Only
a Hurricane
Had Come on
9/11″ at 00:49
Even veteran
hurricane
sleuth Geraldo
Rivera didn't
know about
Hurricane Erin
as this
September 3rd,
2010,
broadcast of
Fox &
Friends
demonstrates!!!
http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/container/1272/580/?layout=&content_type=content_item&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=281VDD09VN4RZ6VL&widget_type_cid=svp&referrer=
*The
accumulated
cyclone energy
index (ACE)
for Hurricane
Erin was
HIGHER than
the ACE index
for Hurricane
Katrina. This
subject is
covered in
Chapter 18,
section E,
page 405 of
WHERE DID THE
TOWERS GO?
Accumulated
cyclone energy
(ACE) is a
measure used
by the
National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA) to
express the
activity of
individual
tropical
cyclones and
entire
tropical
cyclone
seasons,
particularly
the North
Atlantic
hurricane
season. It
uses an
approximation
of the energy
used by a
tropical
system over
its lifetime
and is
calculated
every six-hour
period.
Kinetic energy
is
proportional
to the square
of velocity,
and by adding
together the
energy per
some interval
of time, the
accumulated
energy is
found. As the
duration of a
storm
increases,
more values
are summed and
the ACE also
increases such
that
longer-duration
storms may
accumulate a
larger ACE
than
more-powerful
storms of
lesser
duration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Potter
--- On Tue,
10/9/12, Mohan
Rao <mohaninthesky@...>
wrote:
From: Mohan
Rao <mohaninthesky@...>
Subject: Re:
Wood is a
Total Fraud!
...Re:
Cartoons/Dr.
Judy Wood
To: "galen"
<denzen@...>
Cc: "Thomas
Potter" <mr_thomas_potter@...>,
"Marti Oakley"
<ppj1@...>,
"Dr Edward J
Kendrick" <whole2th@...>, "Zan
Overall" <zn365@...>, "Dr Tom
Tvedten" <tomtvedtenmd@...>,
"Wendy
Campbell" <wendy@...>,
"Judy
Kemecsei" <judyk8@...>,
"Jerry Mazza"
<gvmaz@...>,
"Stephen
Lendman" <lendmanstephen@...>,
"Adrian
Salbuchi" <arsalbuchi@...>, "T.
Mark
Hightower"
<T.M.Hightower@...>,
"Tim Titrud"
<oregontt@...>,
"DeZionizer"
<dezionizer@...>,
"Criminal
Zionist
Slooth" <taboo_but_true@...>,
"9-11 NeXuS"
<9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>,
"Peter
Wakefield
Sault" <peter.sault@...>,
"Susan Clarke"
<s.1234567@...>
Date: Tuesday,
October 9,
2012, 1:35 AM
My
feeling is
that we should
not attack
Thomas P. on a
personal level.
We should look
at the
evidence and
not resort to
personal
attacks,
obviously.
I think we can
all agree on
this point.
Just to throw
in my two
cents, I
recently
finished
reading Where
Did The Towers
Go and I have
to say, the
evidence is
very solid (no
pun intended.)
I wanted to
find any holes
in her
analysis so I
read it
slowly,
very careful
to understand
each and every
point she made.
It is 500
pages with
many pictures
and several
diagrams.
With my
bachelors
degree in
materials
science and
engineering, I
was able to
understand
everything she
presented. Not
too difficult
for someone
with a BS in
any science or
engineering
field.
I am sure that
anyone who
reads her book
would agree -
the evidence,
without any
analysis,
stands on its
own. I
encourage
anyone
interested in
this topic to
check it out.
Before
reading the
book, I was
very skeptical
of any claims
that went
beyond the
generally
agreed upon
idea that some
kind of
explosives
were used.
It obviously
wasn't the
planes that
caused it, so
it must have
been
explosives,
right?
[By the way,
before reading
her book, I
read Steven
Jone's
arguments
against Wood's
book and
thought he had
a reasonable
argument.
After reading
her book, I
feel it is
obvious he is
being
disingenuous.]
After looking
at the
evidence, not
necessarily
any analysis
of pieces of
evidence, just
the evidence
itself, it
is clear that
no type of
explosives
could have
been be used.
This is based
on the simple
formula for a
falling body,
time = root of
(height over
1/2 G), and
the fact the
buildings took
around 10
seconds to
completely
collapse
(video and
seismic
evidence.)
If each floor
waited for the
floor above to
touch it
before it
started moving
down, it would
take over 96
seconds for
all 110 floors
to reach
bottom. This
is assuming
the floors
offer no
resistance
(resistance
would increase
the time
considerably.)
If you
are generous
and assume
that, say,
every tenth
floor gives
away so the
building
collapses in
10-floor
packages, then
it would still
take over 36
seconds.
Any explosives,
whether
dynamite,
thermate or
mini-nukes,Â
would had to
have started
the explosions
on each
collapsing
floor about
2.4 seconds before
the
10-floor
package above
reached it.
The videos we
have all seen
over and over
again have
shown a single
collapse wave,
not one with
2.4 second
gaps between
huge
explosions.
On the
particular
topic of
thermite and
thermate, it
is my
understanding
that chemical
residue cannot
actually be
positively
identified
because it is
simply a
mixture a
metal and a
metal oxide,
like Al and
Fe2O3, and the
addition of
sulfur and
barium nitrate
in thermate. With
or without the
use of
thermite/thermate,
you would
expect to find
both aluminum
and iron oxide
in the dust because
the outer skin
wheatchex are
aluminum and
the core
columns are
steel.
There are so
many anomalies
that indicate
a directed
energy weapon
was used. If
you read the
book, it's too
hard to refute
the idea.
I believe
that the only
way you could
honestly
disagree with
her findings
in the book is
to not read
it.
Here's a short
list of
evidence that
must be
explained:
- collapse
in about 10
seconds
- cylindrical
holes in WTC 6
about 25feet
in diameterÂ
- flipped
over cars in
between
upright cars
- cars
that looked
burnt but were
not heat
damaged, up to
a half mile
away from
the towers
- engine
blocks
completely
destroyed but
not by heat
- seismic
data
- extreme
magnetic
anomalies in
Alaska
coinciding
with the
attacks
- unusual
amounts of
dust
- large
amounts of
0.10 micron
size dust (unusually
small)
- Strange
occurrence,
media
reporting and
behavior of
Hurricane Erin
- no damage
to the fragile
"bathtub" that
keeps out the
Hudson River
- the very
unusual
circumstances
with the
attempted
repair of
Bankers Trust
building
- the huge
volume of dirt
brought in and
out of the
site
- the list
goes on...
If anyone
would like to
respond to
this, please
keep it
scientific and
friendly. I
don't wish to
be called
star-struck or
an idiot! LOL!
Galen, I
highly
recommend that
you review
Wood's
evidence
before stating
that it is
false because
of someone
else's
opinion,
someone who
may not be
honest. I know
we all want to
get to the
truth and are
really on the
same side, so
we should work
together as
much as
possible,
respecting our
differences
and learning
from each
other.
I also
appreciate
your efforts
in seeking and
understanding
the truth
behind the
massive
amounts of
disinformation.
I would like
to create a
slide
presentation
on the
evidence of a
directed,
free-energy
weapon and
would like to
run it past
you, Galen, to
see what you
think of it. I
would
appreciate
your honest
critique and
suggestions.
With respect
and honest
curiosity,
Mohan
On Mon,
Oct 8, 2012 at
7:03 PM, galen
<denzen@...>
wrote:
Thomas,
apparently, in
your mind, the
fact that both
thermite and
nano-thermite
were found in
the debris of
the WTC is not
the kind of
empirical
evidence that
counts. The
fact that this
evidence was
published by
an
international
team of
scientists,
all of whom
having the PhD
degree that
seems to have
you
star-struck by
Wood, doesn't
seem to
constitute
solid evidence
to you.
Wood is a
total fraud
whose sole
purpose is to
divert people
away from the
"smoking gun"
of
nano-thermite,
a "smoking
gun" that
points
straight at
the head of
Mossad,
Israel, and
Global
Zionism.
You're
obviously an
idiot. This
is not
something i'm
willing to
debate with
you so please
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Message over 64k, truncated.)
|
