In this short presentation, psychologists speak out about the need for reconciliation through truth regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001. These ideas are fully applicable to our current moment.
At Planet Waves, I am followed around by a copy team — two copy editors, an astrology fact checker, a copy chief to approve and coordinate edits, and a production assistant who also proofreads. We run that on a strict schedule. Producing a Planet Waves article is a time consuming and not inexpensive endeavor.
To get letter-perfect copy takes a group effort.
So as you can see, I care.
At Substack, I am on my own. The project has no budget and no set schedule; and therefore, no editing team awaiting my copy.
Usually Substack letters go out with several errors. Today, the red underlining was off for some reason, and I was bleary-eyed, so it was a mess. But the web edition gets the corrections, while people fixate on the email rather than clicking through.
I always fix them in the web edition, though it can take an hour or so.
Thank you for your offer. I will keep you in mind.
Personal request, would you please pay for your subscription?
I have absolutely unique content and a spiritual angle I just don’t see anywhere else. Despite my typos, I put a tremendous about of work into my articles there.
If you are already paying through Substack, thank you for your consideration — and for your polite letter.
"In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills."
— from New World Vistas, by the US Air Force
"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms."
Unfortunately, the A&E Truth people, who I followed and believed this past 17 years, has a problem: Dr. Judy Wood. Her meticulous evidence, which took her something like seven years to document and analyze, refutes their evidence - strongly. And they don't want to acknowledge it, and have simply obfuscated and smeared her assertions. This is not how the real truth behaves. Wood does not claim anything regarding the Who, or the Why of 9/11 - only the What Happened. And A&E actively discourages people from looking at what she has uncovered. It was hard for me, but I have come to understand A&E as a dialectic: a lie with grains of truth, a prepared rabbit hole to catch those of us seeking truth, only to veer us off in a slightly-safer direction. If we truly desire the truth, we will be willing to look at all the evidence, and to consider it thoughtfully. Dr. Wood has no agenda other than empirical evidence and data collection. As in all crime scenes, first you have to establish What happened, before you can determine How, or Who.
Sarah, first you have to establish what did NOT happen, and that is where AE911 starts.
How do you refute the fact that steel structures do not fall at freefall speed, because there is something underneath them? That is the giveaway — freefall speed. Additionally, how does Wood explain WTC7, which was never struck by an airplane? If an office fire and a little damage can take down a skyscraper, we better inspect them all.
If is refuting controlled demolition and substituting a directed energy weapon, they are on the same page: it was not airplanes. It was not jet fuel.
I don't refute the fact that steel structures don't fall at freefall speed. The problem is, they mostly turned to dust instead. Most of the buildings blew away in a stream of dust that could be seen from 50,000 feet - this is not controversial - we all saw this with our own eyes. What the buildings did not do, was collapse - the amount of debris left was a tiny percentage of the mass of those buildings. Wood addressed Building 7. The statement you repeated is an excellent example of one of the truths that gets inserted and then re-directed. All I am asking for, is for people to take a look at what she says, at her explanation of What happened, and to be prepared to look objectively at their own assumptions. I do not dispute that evil did this, and we all have our suspicions as to Who [they] are. But it IS important that we understand exactly what happened that day. It wasn't three buildings that were destroyed that day - it was ALL the buildings of WTC - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. All. And did you know there was a hurricane sitting offshore that day, and that it behaved in extremely strange ways? Did you see the photos where steel beams disintegrated in mid-air? That people disintegrated? (Not burned, not crushed.) There is so, so much I didn't know until I learned What really happened.
Sarah, as I I am doing here, please present some specific examples of documentation that do not require a research team to go through. Two or three will suffice. Thank you.
Okay, a glance at her website does that. The book is dense, to be sure, but well worth your time when you get a few hours. There's a quick slideshow here called Evidence in Brief to start with: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dustification/
one error -- the "decorative aluminum cladding" was not aluminum and it was not decorative — it was structural. The building was held up by the core AND the steel skin. The skin was 4 inches thick at the base, and half an inch thick at the top, as a building is held up from below.
She goes deeply into the evidence in her book - it's meticulous, and she explains each and every shot and piece of evidence over many years of investigation. I cannot do that for you here in a comments section. But I do hope people will begin to take a look at what she says, as I think it matters very much that we understand What happened. I was totally startled by this, because I was just as comfortable with the A&E narrative as most people are. But like everything else the past three years, it's been an exercise in learning to see how my mind has been captured.
Okay you added to your comment while I was writing. Yes they should be on the same page, but unfortunately they have actively tried to discourage people from listening to Dr. Wood - why is that? Why would they discourage real evidence from being looked at? The reason I have come to see them as a smoke-and-mirrors dialectic (and keep in mind I have been promoting A&E for at least 15 years now myself), is that they have tried to discredit someone who has no agenda, who is simply presenting evidence that goes against their narrative.
I was not aware of this controversy. Personally, I feel that it's quite enough that people understand that the government theory is not true. Then we can talk about the alternatives. If the government theory is not true, then they were complicit. Now, show me the murder weapon. I know that directed energy weapons exist — you can find out that they exist directly from the Army. They are an admitted program. Does Wood suggest that these were space-based?
Well, she proposes that all the evidence points to a directed energy weapon, and she documents that evidence fully. But she holds herself to a very strict standard as to speculation about Who, or Why - I don't think she mentions space, although in MY personal opinion it clearly points to that, and that the energy from the directed hurricane was gathered and used. Honestly it's taken me about a year now to get my head around what this means. I was able to understand intellectually what she was saying no problem, once I got out of my own way, but what it MEANS is terrifying. The power [they] have, or had. My god.
"In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills."
— from New World Vistas, by the US Air Force
"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms."
My problem with the 9/11 false flag is that just about everyone who can think knows by now that it was a false flag. How much difference does "people being informed" make?
The resulting (un)Patriot(ic) Act, completely unsubstantiated, is still in effect...
For fun, look at the cartoon on top of this article:
I strongly suggest watching this. Judy Wood is a credible witness.
https://www.youtube.com/user/911EmpiricalEvidence
AND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZJZRxBrS4I
Thank you, Eric & Sarah, for this repartee. I really learned a lot today. The truth will make you free.
Diana, thank you for being open to it!! Believe me, it's not every day that I actually get this kind of response. Usually people attaaack. :)
Those are not very bright people. What Wood is pointing out is plain as day - and nearly everyone missed it.
Hi Martha
At Planet Waves, I am followed around by a copy team — two copy editors, an astrology fact checker, a copy chief to approve and coordinate edits, and a production assistant who also proofreads. We run that on a strict schedule. Producing a Planet Waves article is a time consuming and not inexpensive endeavor.
To get letter-perfect copy takes a group effort.
So as you can see, I care.
At Substack, I am on my own. The project has no budget and no set schedule; and therefore, no editing team awaiting my copy.
Usually Substack letters go out with several errors. Today, the red underlining was off for some reason, and I was bleary-eyed, so it was a mess. But the web edition gets the corrections, while people fixate on the email rather than clicking through.
I always fix them in the web edition, though it can take an hour or so.
Thank you for your offer. I will keep you in mind.
Personal request, would you please pay for your subscription?
I have absolutely unique content and a spiritual angle I just don’t see anywhere else. Despite my typos, I put a tremendous about of work into my articles there.
If you are already paying through Substack, thank you for your consideration — and for your polite letter.
efc
Both of these are from c. 1997
"In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills."
— from New World Vistas, by the US Air Force
"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms."
— Gen Joseph Ashy, of the US Space Command
Unfortunately, the A&E Truth people, who I followed and believed this past 17 years, has a problem: Dr. Judy Wood. Her meticulous evidence, which took her something like seven years to document and analyze, refutes their evidence - strongly. And they don't want to acknowledge it, and have simply obfuscated and smeared her assertions. This is not how the real truth behaves. Wood does not claim anything regarding the Who, or the Why of 9/11 - only the What Happened. And A&E actively discourages people from looking at what she has uncovered. It was hard for me, but I have come to understand A&E as a dialectic: a lie with grains of truth, a prepared rabbit hole to catch those of us seeking truth, only to veer us off in a slightly-safer direction. If we truly desire the truth, we will be willing to look at all the evidence, and to consider it thoughtfully. Dr. Wood has no agenda other than empirical evidence and data collection. As in all crime scenes, first you have to establish What happened, before you can determine How, or Who.
https://www.youtube.com/user/911EmpiricalEvidence
https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/
https://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
Sarah, first you have to establish what did NOT happen, and that is where AE911 starts.
How do you refute the fact that steel structures do not fall at freefall speed, because there is something underneath them? That is the giveaway — freefall speed. Additionally, how does Wood explain WTC7, which was never struck by an airplane? If an office fire and a little damage can take down a skyscraper, we better inspect them all.
If is refuting controlled demolition and substituting a directed energy weapon, they are on the same page: it was not airplanes. It was not jet fuel.
I don't refute the fact that steel structures don't fall at freefall speed. The problem is, they mostly turned to dust instead. Most of the buildings blew away in a stream of dust that could be seen from 50,000 feet - this is not controversial - we all saw this with our own eyes. What the buildings did not do, was collapse - the amount of debris left was a tiny percentage of the mass of those buildings. Wood addressed Building 7. The statement you repeated is an excellent example of one of the truths that gets inserted and then re-directed. All I am asking for, is for people to take a look at what she says, at her explanation of What happened, and to be prepared to look objectively at their own assumptions. I do not dispute that evil did this, and we all have our suspicions as to Who [they] are. But it IS important that we understand exactly what happened that day. It wasn't three buildings that were destroyed that day - it was ALL the buildings of WTC - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. All. And did you know there was a hurricane sitting offshore that day, and that it behaved in extremely strange ways? Did you see the photos where steel beams disintegrated in mid-air? That people disintegrated? (Not burned, not crushed.) There is so, so much I didn't know until I learned What really happened.
Sarah, as I I am doing here, please present some specific examples of documentation that do not require a research team to go through. Two or three will suffice. Thank you.
The image that stopped me in my tracks was Slide 8, under Dustification.
I get it. Assuming these are authentic photos, which I do, the controlled demolition theory has a real problem.
Do you know, you are one of only two people I have ever showed this to who has actually considered it with a curious mind.
Okay, a glance at her website does that. The book is dense, to be sure, but well worth your time when you get a few hours. There's a quick slideshow here called Evidence in Brief to start with: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dustification/
one error -- the "decorative aluminum cladding" was not aluminum and it was not decorative — it was structural. The building was held up by the core AND the steel skin. The skin was 4 inches thick at the base, and half an inch thick at the top, as a building is held up from below.
Clearly, that is not ordinary controlled demolition.
How were those shots taken?
She goes deeply into the evidence in her book - it's meticulous, and she explains each and every shot and piece of evidence over many years of investigation. I cannot do that for you here in a comments section. But I do hope people will begin to take a look at what she says, as I think it matters very much that we understand What happened. I was totally startled by this, because I was just as comfortable with the A&E narrative as most people are. But like everything else the past three years, it's been an exercise in learning to see how my mind has been captured.
Okay you added to your comment while I was writing. Yes they should be on the same page, but unfortunately they have actively tried to discourage people from listening to Dr. Wood - why is that? Why would they discourage real evidence from being looked at? The reason I have come to see them as a smoke-and-mirrors dialectic (and keep in mind I have been promoting A&E for at least 15 years now myself), is that they have tried to discredit someone who has no agenda, who is simply presenting evidence that goes against their narrative.
I was not aware of this controversy. Personally, I feel that it's quite enough that people understand that the government theory is not true. Then we can talk about the alternatives. If the government theory is not true, then they were complicit. Now, show me the murder weapon. I know that directed energy weapons exist — you can find out that they exist directly from the Army. They are an admitted program. Does Wood suggest that these were space-based?
Well, she proposes that all the evidence points to a directed energy weapon, and she documents that evidence fully. But she holds herself to a very strict standard as to speculation about Who, or Why - I don't think she mentions space, although in MY personal opinion it clearly points to that, and that the energy from the directed hurricane was gathered and used. Honestly it's taken me about a year now to get my head around what this means. I was able to understand intellectually what she was saying no problem, once I got out of my own way, but what it MEANS is terrifying. The power [they] have, or had. My god.
Both of these are from c. 1997
"In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills."
— from New World Vistas, by the US Air Force
"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms."
— Gen Joseph Ashy, of the US Space Command
Wow. I was unaware of those quotes, thank you.
My problem with the 9/11 false flag is that just about everyone who can think knows by now that it was a false flag. How much difference does "people being informed" make?
The resulting (un)Patriot(ic) Act, completely unsubstantiated, is still in effect...
For fun, look at the cartoon on top of this article:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/teacher-who-is-causing-energy-shortages