The Wonders of Clay

People have been eating the Earth for as long as we have been here. There are many benefits of eating clay. Detoxification from radiation exposure is one.


Vitality Herbs & Clay


Magnetic Clay Baths


About Clay

There is No Authority Greater, than the Evidence of Your Own Experience.

By John Lamb Lash

Selected Comments transcribed
from Part Two of the RedIce Interview.
July 21, 2011

I have great respect, for the sleuths, detectives, investigators and researchers who have meticulously looked into the past, and have tried to figure out, how could humanity reach the psychotic nightmare that we appear to be in today?

And how could this massive mind control scheme have been established?

The event of 9/11 is like a riddle, presented to humanity. That our own madness, has presented us with a riddle. Our psychosis as a species, our alienation from the divine source, has driven us into a psychotic state. And that psychotic state has blown up in our face, with a riddle. And we cannot get to solution unless we solve that riddle.

We are coming around to the tenth anniversary [of 9/11]. And what I see happening, is that there is going to be an orchestrated and manipulated attempt to absolutely crush the 9/11 truth movement. And there are very devious things going on. There are people who are betraying the movement, who were probably planted there to do so in the first place.

But that is not how I see it playing out. I see the 9/11 event exploding. And I will tell you why. Because we have been provided a fuse: to blow the 9/11 riddle right open, so that it blows a hole in the human psyche. So that we can move out of psychosis, and into a sane way of life. We have been provided a fuse. And the fuse is lit, and it is burning. And that fuse, is the work of Dr. Judy Wood.

From it's inception, the 9/11 truth movement, and especially from the third year or so, became a controlled opposition and was deeply infiltrated/ penetrated by the co-intelpro.

The proof of this, is the response/ position taken by Stephen Jones, and Richard Gage regarding the work of Dr. Judy Wood. By the way that they respond to the evidence presented in her book; and the evidence is evidence- her book has more evidence about 9/11 than anything ever written, or probably ever will be. She does not speculate. She does not theorize. She presents the evidence of what we actually see there, and they will not face that evidence.

And that proves that they are co-intelpro: they are part of a controlled opposition. So I would suggest, that when we correct our perception about 9/11, based on the fantastic work, and truly sober and scientific work of Judy Wood, we have a breakthrough towards the correction of our species. But we have to get through 9/11. We can never put it behind us. We have to get through it.

The 9/11 truth movement, (which is controlled opposition) claims the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, from thermite based explosions.

Well, it is just not true. I just said, remember: "There is no authority greater, than the evidence of your own experience." So, it is not true to say: That the buildings fell down because of controlled demolition, because the buildings did not fall down. That is the truth. If they did, there would have been 110 stories of rubble. And there isn't. There was at most 10- 15%?! Absolutely most: 12 stories of rubble. Where are the other 80 of 90 stories of rubble!?

Everyone saw what appeared to be the buildings falling down because of the way the floors seemed to be removed as the buildings disappeared. But actually what happened was, the buildings disappeared. And they disappeared in front of everyone's eyes. So no matter what you think about "cgi missiles", or "thermite" or other theories, they could not turn steel and concrete into dust.

Judy Wood's evidence, and her case, leads to one irrefutable, brilliant, clear conclusion: that the 9/11 events where done by the use of free-energy devices, that are capable of disintegrating the molecular structure of matter, and turning it to dust right in front of your eyes. And if you don't believe me, look at the photographs in her book. They are photographs of the buildings actually turning to dust! And everyone knows that, what was all the dust? Why didn't the paper burn?

She shows. Irrefutably, that the only thing we know of, [that could do this] is free energy. Now, in order for us as individuals, as a society, to realize this fantastic opportunity, of correction, to realize that it's an opportunity, and what kind of opportunity it is, we can take the riddle of 9/11. The way that we deal with this event is key to taking responsibility for life on earth, for taking responsibility for the future.

And I think it's absolutely clear to anyone, scientist or non scientist, that the inference of Dr. Judy Wood's work is that these devices already exist: this means that some human beings, have the knowledge of free energy physics. And they know the laws and principles, and they know how to construct these devices. But it so happens unfortunately, that those people are using them as a weapon against the rest of the human race. And that they are genocidally insane. That is the worst possible thing that could happen on this planet.

Only by facing 9/11, can we deal with it, not by putting it behind us, not by forgetting about it, not by being appeased by the authorities who are now going to try to bury it, and entomb it. And not by being tricked by the co-intelpro, controlled opposition.

If we forget about it or if we give up, were saying we have no control, and no responsibility for correcting what went wrong in human society. And I'm saying, no way! It's not going to go away in Sept. 2011. I see the possibility of an opportunity for a breakthrough, that [the riddle of] 9/11 really presents, for solution.

None of the secrecy, or manipulation and deception that we see on a mass scale on this planet, could take place, if the 'infection' had not taken place. When the source of the infection has been lanced, and the source of infection is identified, then the great healing of humanity can occur.

The solution is twofold: as presented by the challenge of 9/11. One responsibility is to recognize and face the facts: that those buildings did not fall. That they were turned to dust by free energy devices.

The inference therefore is, that free energy devices exist, and this is the moment for our civilization to claim that technology and find it and bring it out. Because with a free energy technology in this world, we are not going to have a prefect world, but we will have a much fairer world. And an opportunity to create a cooperative and compassionate society of mutual aid.

[bracketed text added for clarity]

Thanks To RedIce Radio

The Bum on the Rods, and the Bum on the Plush

by Utah Phillips

Well, let's sing one for Fryin' Pan Jack, whose alive, and the oldest of the old out there in Albany, Oregon. Fryin' Pan Jack settled out, off of the trains; a great tramp.

He got scared, he always told me: "If I get afraid to walk into a railroad yard, a makeup yard, it'll be time to quit." He used to carry a spike wall handle in his bindle, his bedroll, 'his balloon' he called it. To 'fend off' the Ne'er-do-well's. - Ya know, the way it's gotten to be now on the skids- young, mean, drunks and drug money. And so, they prey off the old poor, down under the railroad bridges.

And so, they tend to settle out and stay in one place, where they feel safe you see. He feels safe in this bar over in Albany, Oregon. You wanna find Fryin' Pan Jack, that's where you look for him.

We shared a camp down there in Oroville at the foot of the Feather River canyon, comin' out of Keedy on the western pacific. Keedy, up atop of the canyons, had us a wooden water tower, it's never been torn down, and you can camp under it. Anybody ever been there? On the High Sierra? That's beautiful. Jack and I were in that camp,

That's when [Fryin' Pan Jack] said to me - you know, he'd been tramping since 1927 - he said, "I told myself in '27, if I cannot dictate the conditions of my labor, I will henceforth cease to work." Hah! You don't have to go to college to figure these things out, no sir!

He said, "I learned when I was young that the only true life I had was the life of my brain. But if it's true the only real life I have is the life of my brain, what sense does it make to hand that brain to somebody for eight hours a day for their particular use, on the presumption that at the end of the day they will give it back in an unmutilated condition?"

"Fat chance!"

So he built that big Montana bedroll, started piping the stem, panhandling the... Head full of words, and songs, he didn't write songs, and poems... he found them. And scattered them abroad for people like me to find. Put us to work again.

He was old enough to remember the sleigh rods under the boxcars, riding the
rods. Fryin' Pan Jack; the two bums.


the bum on the rods is hunted down as an enemy of mankind
the other is driven around to his club, is feted, wined, and dined

and they who curse the bum on the rods as the essence of all that's bad
will greet the other with a winning smile and extend the hand so glad

the bum on the rods is a social flea who gets an occasional bite
the bum on the plush is a social leech, bloodsucking day and night

the bum on the rods is a load so light that his weight we scarcely feel
but it takes the labor of dozens of folks to furnish the other a meal

as long as we sanction the bum on the plush, the other will always be there
but rid ourselves of the bum on the plush, and the other will disappear

and make an intelligent, organized kick: get rid of the wasted crush
don't worry about the bum on the rods - get rid of the bum on the plush

There is Scarcely Any Greater Revelation…

Selected Comments From:
An Interview with Jerry Leaphart
Conducted by Morgan Reynolds
Oct. 2010


Morgan Reynolds: Who is Jerry Leaphart? In other words, your short biography.

Jerry Leaphart: I am a practicing lawyer. I’ve been practicing law now for the better part of 40 years. I graduated from New York University School of Law in 1971.

When I went to law school, I fully expected that at some point in my career I would probably be what is called an activist attorney. That is why I went to law school, that is how I perceived myself. But then a funny thing happened along the way; and that is that life comes along and the requirement to earn a living and raise a family happens; and that is what happened to me.

And as a result I spent the first 20 years of my legal career essentially as a corporate lawyer. And not only was I a corporate lawyer, but I was a corporate lawyer in the oil industry, during which time I essentially did the best I could as a corporate lawyer, knowing that at an internal level it was not really what I wanted to do with my career.

Nonetheless, I engaged in corporate law for about as long as I could, during which time I acquired a fair amount of experience in the international side of the oil business, and worked in various countries around the world. Pretty much on every inhabited continent.

And then in 1993, I had had enough. And from that point forward I did embark on an activist legal career, becoming essentially a litigator, or trial lawyer in pursuit of various causes, some of which were very personal to the clients I represented, others were more generally directed toward the issue that I was representing.

That brings us Morgan to the year 2007, by which time I had the good fortune and privilege to meet up with you and also with Dr. Judy Wood.

By that time I had come to the recognition that the common storyline of 9/11 was false. And as an activist attorney and essentially as a citizen, I found myself in the position of just simply not being able to live with, on the one hand, the recognition that the common storyline was false and, on the other, not doing anything about it; or just accepting it as a fait accompli, or accepting it as something I could not do anything about.

And what I meant when I said, that I had the good fortune and privilege of meeting you and Dr. Judy Wood and Edward Haas, among others whose names I will also mention during the course of this interview, was that I was not alone in knowing the common storyline was false and having the commitment and the willingness to do something about it.

So as these things tend to develop, when people of like mind learn of one another, they often figure out ways in which they can combine their various areas of expertise and join together and take group action.

Morgan, that is essentially what you and Dr. Wood and I and Edward Haas did at a certain point in time. We put our various areas of expertise together and we figured out a way in which to challenge the common storyline of 9/11 in various ways; using legal process to do so. And I’m very pleased with the fact that we did that, and I’m also very pleased with the outcome.

The thing that you learn as an activist attorney, is that the concept of winning, losing, victory, and defeat, take on a meaning that is sometimes counter intuitive. Usually when you go into any situation where an outcome tied to it involves some notion of winning or losing, and you tend to think of winning as 'getting a specific victory' in the way that victory is traditionally defined, or conversely a loss in the way that loss is traditionally defined.

That is not how life actually works. I mean we can all think of examples of how winning turns out to be a loss and vice versa. There is nothing uncommon about that, for example, even in everyday sports where there is always a definite win and a very definite loss, it’s often said that losing hurts worse than winning feels good.

What that tells us, is that when you’re in a competitive situation trying to get some outcome or another, it’s inherently a stressful, aggravating process, and often what you have to do to win requires a greater sacrifice than what the loser may sustain.

Let’s take it back to the origin of the Olympics. What happened? Yes, some guy who ran from wherever it was to the next town over and he made it. However, he then dropped dead. This is all just a metaphor for saying that winning is not always what we think it is, and losing is not always what we think it is.

The success of the cases that we pursued in federal court, and also administratively through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was that we put the issue, in your case Morgan, we squarely put the issue that there were no Boeing 767 jetliners involved in the episode of destruction in NYC on 9/11, into the public record, accompanied by a significant degree of proof.

We also put into the public record the fact that NIST had circumscribed their investigation of the event to begin at the point of impact, or of explosion at the Twin Towers and to end, at the point that the towers had only just begun to be destroyed. That was fraud.

NIST defined the timeline of its investigation so as to exclude having to account for whether there were planes or not, and they stopped their investigation prior to the actual episode of destruction. We put that into the public record, called it by its right name, that is, we called it fraud. And there it is.

Basically, what happened on 9/11 was never properly established or confirmed by any reliable, publicly funded, investigatory process. Not ever, up to and including the present.

So the first thing to understand is that the events of 9/11 have not ever been explained in a governmentally funded, forensic investigatory process. We know that perhaps starting in the year 2002 the Congressional Investigations on the matter essentially accomplished nothing, except to offend the victims’ family members who at that time were strenuously calling for an investigation into the matter.

That then led to the so called 9/11 Commission which was operative during the years 2003..., ultimately issuing the 9/11 Commission Report in the year 2004 which we now know on the basis of books published by active members of the Commission, that essentially the Commission determined nothing and publicly acknowledged that what happened on 9/11 as presented by witnesses in the Commission hearings, is false.

The next… at about the same time you had a preliminary, underfunded, voluntarily staffed investigation conducted by some engineers associated with FEMA. The Federal Emergency Management Administration got themselves associated..., resulting in an inconclusive report about what had happened in New York.

That then led to Congress enacting a law that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) undertake a study to determine why and how the towers of the WTC complex got destroyed. That was NIST’s mandate.

Now by the year 2005 NIST had first issued a preliminary report on what destroyed the twin towers. And as it turns out, there was an administrative process that allowed members of the public to comment upon the NIST report and to officially request corrections to errors that seemed apparent in this report. And that is what you and Dr. Wood, and Mr. Haas, each independently did by submitting what are called Requests For Correction to the NIST report.

Your Request For Correction (RFC) focused on what we all refer to as the “no planes claim." Dr. Wood’s RFC focused on her proof that the means of destruction of the WTC were brought on by the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). That is to say: secretive, high-tech weaponry, that produced the visually unprecedented effects that we saw. That is, basically having two 110-story buildings together with a third building, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, [disappear].

Bottom line: Those buildings disappeared leaving virtually no trace; by way of a destructive process that cannot be explained on the basis of simple gravity and simple kerosene being the destructive components.

So, then Edward Haas independently challenged the story on the basis of the methodology by NIST to come to its conclusions. So you had three separate challenges to the common storyline within the context of what NIST was mandated to do. Ultimately, we determined that what NIST had done was actually fraudulent.

They used a technique that is not uncommon in science fraud. The technique that they used was basically to define their objectives in such a way as to make sure that they basically did not investigate what happened.

NIST set up its investigation so that literally… the starting point was the moment after the alleged jetliners hit the towers, which literally meant: that they did not have to confirm that jetliners hit the towers; and the fact of the matter is: no jetliners did hit those towers.

And then they concluded their investigation at the point where or when the towers
were about to be destroyed. Here you have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.

And that is science fraud. Now, what we also then determined, as is often the case in government endeavors, is that NIST contracts out most of the work and so the endeavor becomes a so-called 'public-private partnership' where the lines of responsibility and control in the project, are blurred or obscured; if not just totally eradicated. Such that it’s impossible to determine who actually was in charge of what.

But in any event, the NIST project that engaged in this science fraud, investigating any and everything except what actually happened; was led by two giants of the military-industrial complex. And I think, one of the unique contributions made to the entire process of determining what happened on 9/11 was the fact that you and Dr. Wood identified the following two companies: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Applied Research Associates Corporation (ARA), as companies who essentially had contracts with NIST. And whose contributions to the NIST project were greater than that of any of the other contractors, primarily because those two companies had more of their employees involved with the NIST project than did any of the others.

Now SAIC and ARA are each companies that have a great deal of involvement in the development, the manufacture, the testing of the lethality effects, and other involvement in precisely the causes of the destruction of the WTC; namely: directed energy weaponry and the use of military psychological operations. That is to say, operations that use media and other sources like high-tech holography and other forms of illusion to create psychological operations or what are called “psyops.”

There is scarcely any greater revelation… If you have to boil down Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Wood’s contributions to the world of determining of what happened on 9/11, than that which was accomplished in the identification of SAIC and ARA for their participation in the NIST project and for the implication that that had in connection with the weapons development that those companies are involved with, and the actual causes of the destruction and deception taking place on 9/11.

Now, an element here that is essential, especially on the no planes side, is the ability of the MIC to conduct its operations in secret. You have undoubtedly received the criticism countless times that, well, all of this sounds well and good but for something like that to happen, too many people would have to be in on it and it could not be kept secret.

Well that is false, because the secrecy apparatus associated with military operations involves security clearance procedures, and involves compartmentalization of information such that you can have an operation take place where only a handful of people, or fewer might actually know what is going on.

Case in point: it just so happens that on 9/11, certain military exercises were taking place involving nothing short of an actual exercise simulating the 'hijacking of aircraft'. That was taking place on 9/11, OK? Now, one of the individuals who was singled out by the 9/11 Commission for being less than truthful, to put it no more harshly than that, was General Larry Arnold.

Now, among the literature put out by those who support the common storyline of 9/11, is a book entitled “Touching History” by Lynn Spencer. Lynn Spencer was motivated to write her book based squarely on her recognition that the 9/11 Commission Report was inadequate. And so Lynn Spencer set about the task of finding out a bit more about what had actually happened; as it related to the FAA and NORAD and essentially the defense apparatus of the U.S.

Lynn Spencer’s concern was that 9/11 Commission had not really adequately
explained how a jetliner could be hijacked and successfully avoid detection such that they could reach their targets in three of four alleged instances. I’m going to give you a brief quote concerning Larry Arnold. Larry Arnold was basically the NORAD commander who was actually in charge of the military exercises taking place that day. Now, Lynn Spencer’s book says, “Even as NORAD’s commander for the continental United States, Arnold is not privy to everything concerning the exercise.”

So, here you have a specific recognition or acknowledgment, I should say, that Major General Larry Arnold who is heading up the military exercise involving 'simulated' hijacking of jetliners on 9/11; he himself is not privy to everything that is to transpire in connection with the exercise. So the point that I have made here is confirmed. That there are very few people who may have actually known what was to happen and how it was to be done on 9/11.

The Washington Post put out an investigative piece entitled, “Top Secret America,” that did provide some useful information about how the secrecy apparatus works. The Washington Post article essentially reminded us that the admonition back in January 1961 by then departing President Dwight Eisenhower, warning us about the undue, and growing influence of the military-industrial complex was, and remains a warning that we have to take seriously.

I think in some of the documents submitted in your court case, the Eisenhower admonition warning us about the military industrial complex was quoted. You essentially did your duty. You took the Eisenhower admonition warning us against the power, the influence and the capability of the military industrial complex to conduct operations in secret motivated by their desire to make profit, very seriously. And that is what you did, and that is what we must continue to do as we seek to implant in the public consciousness the awareness of what actually transpired on 9/11.

Reynolds: To fast forward this a little bit, in all three cases, well, I know in Dr. Wood's case and mine, they were very well argued; and I was very impressed with the documentation, and of course I hoped the defendants would be put under oath and, oh my goodness, what a field of joy that would have been, but we didn’t get there. In fact, Judge Daniels dismissed our cases with prejudice. And while I wasn’t surprised, it was very disappointing of course. Then Dr. Wood’s case was taken to the Appellate level and you were able to argue orally, at least in brief, and then it was rejected. It was apparently listened to by the court with respect, but it was rejected there. And then you took it to the Supreme Court where it was denied the writ of certiorari. And that was only in January, 2010, so you’ve had a chance to reflect on these cases, and you’ve already given us summaries.

I think we had to try this. It was a wonderful battle if you will, and we certainly did not get really close, but comment on the quality of Judge Daniels’ decision which I was very disappointed with, it was very dismissive and prejudicial and, as I understood it from you, the Court was supposed to treat our positive facts as acceptable or correct until found otherwise and proceed on the basis of law, whether there was jurisdiction and the like.

Leaphart: I certainly am not going to… nothing I say is to be heard or understood as criticism of either the court or judge per se. Suffice it to say that we considered that the judge’s decision was legally incorrect, and that is why in the case of Dr. Wood, it was appealed. Now what we also need to point out here, is that the judge consolidated the three cases, yours, that of Dr. Judy Wood, and that of Edward Haas; essentially into one case or one decision. And he did that on his own. That is not treatment that was requested, the court just did that sui sponte. The legal phrase used that means that the court is doing something on its own volition, and not at the request of one or the other of the parties.

So basically and ultimately a decision was made to craft one appeal. And Dr. Wood’s case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, and then as you noted
ultimately to the US Supreme Court.

Now legally speaking, I’m going to just ask that it be understood that I’m giving a very brief summary here and not addressing the underlying, more technical legal issues associated either the decision or the appeal. The court records are a matter of public record. I know that a lot of the documents have been posted up on various websites and various discussion forums.

One of the things a lot of people look for was whether or not these cases would be
treated as frivolous, and therefore would result in sanctions or penalties being imposed upon either of the parties, or the attorney representing the party. And what I can tell you is that while that outcome does sometimes happen in connection with activist cases, and perhaps in some cases that sought to challenge the explanation of 9/11, I can tell you very fully and clearly that the defendants in cases that yourself, Dr. Wood and Ed Haas brought; - actively sought - to get sanctions, and sought to require you and us to be held liable for expenses. But the court denied all of those motions. And at the end of the day we were found to have at least 'passed muster', in presenting meritorious claims.

You do not have to win a lawsuit to have a meritorious claim. In fact, your case was not determined on its merits. As you noted, we could have made a tremendous lot of progress in unraveling 9/11 had we been given the opportunity to take depositions of SAIC and ARA personnel. That is what we were seeking to do. Small wonder, then, that SAIC and ARA defended their cases so vigorously.

In any event, we did not get to that stage, which literally means the merits of the cases simply were not decided one way or another by the court. And, as I said, you were not required to pay a penny of expense because the defendants’ attempts to get sanctions or to get the cases to be considered sufficiently frivolous so that you would be required to pay their expenses, were all denied, every step of the way.

Reynolds: That is a powerful and heartening point, Jerry, and the critics of Dr. Wood, Dr. Reynolds and Ed Haas, in that order, since Dr. Wood’s work has come under the most fierce fire on these forums, claim that the dismissal with prejudice is sufficient to show the frivolity of the cases, but that’s not true.

Leaphart: That was their back-up position. They knew that the defendants sought to get us to pay their expenses, and have sanctions imposed, but they also were aware that the defendants’ attempt to do that failed. They acknowledged it.

Reynolds: Now here’s another point that I’d like you to address. Our critics in the 9/11 research and education industry argue, that is, they say that these cases somehow preempt other legal actions to bring other legal actions to bring justice in the whole 9/11 hoax. Why does this forestall other legal suits?

Leaphart: In my view, and without benefit of knowing specifically what they’re claiming, but those claims are contradicted by the fact that there has been other 9/11 litigation. I don’t think there’s been enough 9/11-related litigation, for sure, Morgan.

Reynolds: I agree.

Leaphart: But the only thing that I can say about claims of that nature is that factually it’s shown to be not true and legally my going-in position is that it is simply incorrect. I think all I can do is state that claim in general terms here in the absence, you know, a specific discussion with someone who is making that claim.

Let me also say here that insofar as other people who are making claims about 9/11 that challenge the common storyline on one hand but who on the other hand disagree
with you or disagree with Dr. Wood, Morgan, I don’t have any truck with those people, so to speak. I do not get into arguments with other people who are challenging the common storyline of 9/11. I don’t get into argumentation whether you are right and they are wrong or vice versa.

There is room among those who challenge the common storyline of 9/11 for different approaches to be taken. My argument is not with other proponents of challenging the
common storyline. My argument is with the common storyline and that’s where I’m focusing.

Reynolds: OK, of course I wonder why we haven’t had more 9/11 suits, etc., by some of our scientific rivals in the 9/11 skeptic industry but I don’t think we need to address that here.

Leaphart: There is something here, if I could, that I would like to get out on the table so to speak and that is, that it’s said that 9/11 is essentially an emotional issue centered on what people believe, and what people hold to be true. I don’t challenge what people believe. People are free to believe whatever it is they have a need to believe for as long as they can believe it. The issue here that I think we need to have common recognition of, is that the events of 9/11 have not ever been officially explained and/or confirmed in a reliably run, forensic investigation that has been made part of the public record.

Reynolds: And on the contrary, they hid evidence, planted evidence, — we can prove this — and destroyed evidence. They block investigation wherever they find it necessary.

Leaphart: That is correct Morgan. So the one thing that can be and needs to be factually pursued, whatever your belief about 9/11 is, that belief is not substantiated by a reliable, factual, forensic determination of what happened, with the only exception being that which you and Dr. Wood put into the public record in your challenges to the NIST report.

I submit to you Morgan that your Request For Correction and the RFC put forward by Dr. Wood were each comprehensive and done in accordance with forensic examination practices that make what you and Dr. Wood published the only publicly accessible information found on a governmental website as to what happened on 9/11. As you know your RFC and that of Dr. Wood are each a part of the public website found at the NIST, so what you did is part of the public record and contained on a governmental website.

Reynolds: So that is an important element of your argument that we have at least a partial victory, if not the full victory we would ultimately seek. Let’s go to the more general…

Leaphart: There is something more that should be commented upon quickly and that is your reference to the discovery process. You are quite correct that had your case survived the motion to dismiss, then, in that event, we would have been able to question SAIC and ARA.

Now something that did not get mentioned definitively enough in the early part of the discussion was that you did not sue the government claiming that they had covered up 9/11. That was not the approach that you took. You and Dr. Wood, as I said earlier, [sued the contractors of the NIST report]. I really want people to register SAIC and ARA.

Reynolds: By the way, SAIC is a top 10 DoD contractor, and is...

Leaphart: …CIA’s spelled backwards. People really do need to take some time to research SAIC and ARA. ARA on its website, Morgan, had two images that were used to describe their “capabilities,” keeping in mind that ARA is essentially a weapons manufacturer. They manufacture WMDs, (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and they manufacture a variety of Directed Energy Weaponry and essentially there’s a pipeline between DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and ARA.

That’s what “applied research” means. DARPA does the advanced research and then ARA manufactures the goodies. OK? Now, on ARA’s website, they had two images that looked for all the world like an admission as to what had destroyed the World Trade Center, they had one photo showing buildings that looked a lot like the World Trade Center being destroyed, saying this is what we can do. Another image used a color combination of orange, black and gray where the twin towers were depicted in orange and the immediate surrounding area pictured in black and gray, essentially posing the question, look what we can do, make the World Trade Center disappear and not harm the surrounding buildings. That’s what happened.

Reynolds: Yes, and of course the intelligence services and military around the world knew what was going down right away when they saw this. This was a signal: here’s what we can do to you.

Leaphart: That I think is essentially correct Morgan. What happened here is a manifestation of advanced weaponry that we as part of the general public know little about. That is why I cannot emphasize too much, the need to take your time, learn about SAIC, learn about ARA.

Those are the entities you would have been questioning had your cases gone forward. And it is quite likely that in the process of questioning we would have been able to reconfirm the truth of your claim. The discovery process could have served to bring about the kind of victories that we would normally define as victories.

Reynolds: Because these were civil suits and you only need a preponderance of evidence and we would have wanted a jury trial of course but... We could follow this a long way but what occurs to me is “stonewall.” They couldn’t just say, “No comment”. I mean they would end up perjuring themselves, I would imagine. But we as interrogators, we know so much about this, we would be tripping them up. It would have been just a phenomenal thing to get these people under oath subject to perjury charges.

Leaphart: That is correct. I think an outcome that was likely here was that: had you [the cases] survived the motion to dismiss, and by the way, the cases that you and Dr. Wood brought are called Qui Tam cases. Well, guess what Morgan? It’s not unusual for Qui Tam cases to be dismissed. I can’t give you the statistics on the number of such cases that are dismissed but anecdotally I can say that the majority of such cases are dismissed.

It is very difficult to get a Qui Tam case beyond the dismissal stage and that is because procedurally they demand a level initial proof, and it’s not just a question of the quantum of proof, but the proof has to come from a certain limited range of sources. Otherwise, even if you have the information on them, if it doesn’t come from a source that was not previously known to the government, you still cannot proceed with your case.

Reynolds: But of course we argued that we were, and I think very persuasively, original relaters…

Leaphart: Original source.

Reynolds: Original source. And the Qui Tam is really a whistle-blowing legislation or law.

Leaphart: It’s a whistle-blowing form of legislation and it represents a compromise between on the one hand the need for the public to have a way to make sure the government is not being defrauded but at the same time the reason given for the difficulty of taking that path is that the law does not want to be seen as encouraging just anyone and everyone to making these claims at the drop of a hat.

So on the one hand it’s important under the law to have a procedure where citizens can advance the interest of detecting fraud in governmental work but on the other hand the law has made a decision to make such cases difficult to pass the initial threshold.

Now, one of the interesting things that happened during the course of the appeal of Dr. Wood’s case, was that the Qui Tam law was changed and it was made in some respects a little less difficult to proceed on, and... drum roll, some of the provisions of the Qui Tam law were made retroactive to cases that were pending as of the day that your cases were pending. So technically had the appeal on Dr. Wood’s case succeeded, your case could have been reinstated. And you had the very unusual occurrence of a law being retroactively changed.

Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, which I’m not, I would stake out a claim that the law was changed in order to help you.

Now bear in mind another point that should be made here Morgan, and that is while you and Dr. Wood and others appeared to have a lot of critics who show up in various places around the internet, it should be understood and specifically mentioned that you and Dr. Wood have a lot of supporters. There are a lot of people inside government who know, inside government and industry, who know that the common storyline of 9/11 is false, who know that the claim that jetliners were involved on 9/11 is not proven and likely false on the basis of a psyop using TV to project false images. They know that.

But at the same time not everyone wants to be an activist, in fact very few people want to do that precisely because of the financial and other sacrifices that it entails and people are literally forced to go along to get along, not to mention keep their jobs.

But you and I both know that you’ve gotten a lot of confidential messages of support that encourage you to keep at it but which are done on the basis of confidentiality and/or anonymity.

Because people are not in a position where they can come forward on these things plus based on the highly compartmentalized approach used to protect information within the MIC, there are a lot of people who really can only suspect or have a part of the picture and who really do not enough information that they can come forward with clinching information and that is done by design. That is essentially the system you’re up against.

Reynolds: Yes, one kind of metaphor or parallel would be the Soviet Union which everybody within it knew within a few decades, surely, that it was all a lie about the workers’ paradise and yet people went through the motions for decades more before it fell of its own infirmities and the general public knows that there is a lot of rot at the top and maybe we’re approaching the point some serious changes if only because of the financial follies. Maybe 9/11 will catch lightning in bottle. We’ve already gone from the cases to a more general assessment of the 9/11 scam, and I’d like you to look backward.

Leaphart: Sooner or later the facade that keeps the common storyline intact is going to break. But I do not have a crystal and I do not know of anyone who has one. I don’t think it’s possible to predict future human events.

Reynolds: One of our problems of course is that we have an alleged independent press but they are 'shills' by and large and lapdogs employed by the corporate media, an echo chamber for the government, visible or invisible.

Leaphart: That’s correct. Going back again to the concept of belief, it is difficult to come to grips with the fact that the common storyline of 9/11 is false because in so doing it’s literally an event that has the potential to be cathartic.

It would basically require that people then consider the inference that someone within the realm of entities that we trust implicitly; basically betrayed us in ways that are not possible, probably for the majority of people to confront. It requires too much in the way of a fundamental reassessment of things that we hold dear.

Reynolds: But once realized at the individual level, you’re saying that often or in every case it would be cathartic, the truth will set you free.

Leaphart: That’s correct. So it’s essentially a question of time: where sooner or later a tipping point will likely be reached, where the truth of what was done to us on 9/11 will manifest in a way, and as you mentioned, it could be in conjunction with other issues, such as the financial crisis and the potential that that crisis has in and of itself to result in catharsis within the society.

So I think 9/11 is certainly one of those potentialities when the tipping point comes, where there are enough people who have the recognition that the common storyline is false, and who can no longer mentally or emotionally deny it or set it aside or in some way convince themselves that no action on their part is needed, when those two things happen you have basically conditions set in motion that could lead to social change in a meaningful way.

I do think ultimately here that 9/11 will be a part of the next wave of change (if you will) that people in our society are going to have to confront or come to grips with. The financial crisis certainly holds real potential to manifest in catharsis within the next year and I think that in conjunction with that, 9/11 could very well continue to be part of that [process], although as you said it is now some 9 years later.

I think that what you and I and Dr. Wood and our close colleagues in this... and I said at the very outset I would mention some other names and one of them is Andrew Johnson and another is our friend, and I’m not going to mention his last name because I haven’t spoken with him recently, our friend Russ. We are probably going to need to meet and determine whether we can accomplish a more comprehensive publication of the work that has been done and the information that has been garnered.

I know that a couple of books have been written and we all know that it’s difficult to get information like this published even if it is written, but I think that is probably the next indicated step for us. We’ve got to do a more comprehensive job of publishing the information that we have, and that’s not easy. There is a vast amount of information and the process of editing it down and putting it into a publishable format is just simply not easy but I foresee that that is something that needs to be done.

Reynolds: OK, very good. I appreciate all the great work you have done and we all hope and pray and work for more success down the road. Every day, I believe, we are making advances in terms of knowledge and spreading the word. I think that a very high percentage of Americans know that there is something terribly wrong with the official 9/11 storyline; and it is probably higher than a few of these public surveys have indicated and where there’s life there’s hope.

Leaphart: That’s absolutely correct and keep in mind, Morgan, that our duty to draw attention to this also gives pause for concern about the possibility of other such events being done to us. That too is a very real measure of success of the endeavor that you and Dr. Wood have undertaken here. I think that you’ve literally made it more difficult for a psyop operation of that type to be done to us again.

Reynolds: I think that that’s a very powerful point. More and more people are in the know, only a handful, I would guess something under five percent of the population on 9/11 knew almost immediately that this was a scam, a false-flag attack, and today I would guess it would be more like one in three or very high fraction would know.

Leaphart: Yes, correct and there have been other temptations that have come along to try something like that and I think that’s going to continue to be the case. We have got to be vigilant here. Now is the time for all true patriots to come to the aid of their country.

Reynolds: Yes, the enemy within is still powerful. Thank you Jerry Leaphart for all your wonderful work and this interview today.

Leaphart: Thank you for asking me Morgan. As usual, awfully good to be in touch with you and, as I said just a few moments ago, I think we’ve got a little more work that we’ve got to set about doing.

Reynolds: Yes, I agree. Thank you.

Leaphart: OK Morgan, thank you.

[bracketed text added for clarity]

Original Text

"9/11 Proves the Existence of Free Energy Technology on this Planet" -John Lamb Lash

John Lamb Lash has stepped up to the plate to break through with the true truth about 9/11. He has proposed a challenge to the crop circle wizards out there who have the same free energy technologies as were used on 9/11. Give Us a Sign. Help the World Realize Free Energy Technology is What Really Happened.

Two Quotes from John Lamb Lash:

"9/11 was an Event, considered as a Psyops, that has caused more Mental Destruction than Any Other Single Event in the Whole of Human History. It is a Psyops Directed to Common Sense, to Human Reasoning, to Logic. It is a Psyops Intended to Absolutely Destroy and Demolish Human Sanity and the Logical Workings of the Human Mind."

"Ten years after September 2001 comes the unparalleled opportunity for a breakthrough, the moment when "9/11 truth" is finally seen in scientific veracity and a dream comes true: the dream of free energy. Here is a challenge to own the truth that can set us free as a species. May the (crop circle) wizards give us a sign." -August 30, 2011"

Jerry Leaphart's 2007 Madison Wisconsin Presentation (selected comments)

The Norm is: Go along to get along... You start raising questions about 9/11 and chances are, someone in your family, or someone who has a significant relationship to you, might tell you not to do that. And they might tell you that for a variety of reasons, and not the least of which: they might consider them self to be in danger. Someone might say to you: "What, are you trying to get me killed?"

Because the implications of 9/11 are quite clear. This is not going to go over anyone's head. It is an instantaneous recognition that, if you raise questions about this, particularly if you link 9/11 to the use of high tech weapons; of which there are only two sources. One is the Military Apparatus of the United States that comes under and within a strict chain of command (DOD). And then there's the other one, that comes under the auspices of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). That is not even within the strict control of the military chain of command.

After all, the Generals do not manufacture high tech weapons. Certain Corporations do. And as this presentation gets underway, you will see that what we have attempted to do from a legal perspective, is to take this issue of the involvement of the Military Industrial Complex from the general to the very specific.

In other words, we are at the point in developing the legal approach to this issue, of naming names; and inviting them, under compulsion, to come into court, and to answer some questions that we might have...

And it is my honor as an attorney, to work with the lady, the researcher, the scientist, the person, who just preceded me at this podium, Dr. Judy Wood. She has taken the presentation that you just heard [The New Hiroshima] and put it into the form of a Legal Request. Actually, she has put it in the form of two, Legal Requests, one of which depends on, or results from the other.

The first legal approach is called a process of Requesting Corrections under the Data Quality Act. This act results from industry wanting a way to limit their exposure to governmental regulations. The Data Quality Act (DQA) itself indicates that anyone dealing or involved with governmental agencies in the process of reporting information, or data, must do so in a way that adheres to certain quality standards. The reason that industry had in mind for the DQA, was that they had a way of contesting or calling into questions regulations as they were promulgated.

Now, as many of you know, the task of reporting on what caused the destruction of the WTC was given over to an agency of the US Department of Commerce, called the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST. And it took NIST from 2002, until the end of 2005 to come up with a report; with what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers: WTC 1 & 2. [NCSTAR1]

The process for utilizing the Data Quality Act, means that you submit to NIST: Requests for Corrections. In other words, you say to them, the data you presented (in NCSTAR1) is inaccurate, and here's why. So correct it. So what we have done with Dr. Wood's work, is we have said: here are examples of data, that are readily available, that are clear on their face; that in your report on what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers, you did not take into consideration. And as you have seen, that is a considerable amount of data.

Now it is fair and accurate to say that the report that NIST issued on the destruction of the twin towers left out virtually each and every element of evidence that Dr. Judy Wood just presented over the course of the last three hours. Not one element of that evidence did NIST go near, much less explain.

As a matter of fact, although it was NIST's task to explain what caused the destruction of the WTC, they didn't do that. They said, that was the question or the objective of the report, but then they went through a process that said-

"You know what? All we really have to do, is to tell you what happened from the point that the supposed jet liners crashed into the buildings. Up to that point where it looked like the buildings were going to begin to come down, and then... everything that happened after that point... Was Inevitable. Period. End of story. Stop the Report. And that's it."

And that was what they did.

So everything from: The lathering process. To the speed of the destruction. To the absence of any appreciable debris pile. To the appearance of steel being turned to dust. And of concrete, re-bar and everything else being pulverized. Also the appearance of cylindrical and perpendicular holes. And the appearance of toasted cars, incongruent distances from the WTC site.

None of it was explained or touched upon by NIST, and Dr. Judy Wood said so, and requested that NIST retract the whole darn thing, and do it again. Only this time do it without the use of the services of the MIC if you would please.

NIST, like most governmental agencies relies upon contractors to do certain of its work.

Well, alright, who should be a Prime Contractor for doing an Investigation of the Destruction of a Building?

You go to the companies who specialize in Psyops and in the development of Directed Energy Weapons.

Because that is who they (NIST) used.

How many of you know of these companies?

SAIC - Science Applications International Corp
based in San Diego, California

ARA - Applied Research Associates
based in Albuquerque, New Mexico

We have all seen how, from beginning to end, and on a continuing basis, 9/11 is quintessentially a Psychological Operation. And it was carried out, in all probability, based on what the evidence appears to suggest, and what the evidence confirms: With the use of Hi-Tech Weaponry.

We have all heard of the concepts of 'soft evidence' and 'hard evidence'. Now a third approach that is actually central to the work that I am doing with Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds is: 'Admissible Evidence.' In the context of what goes on in court and legal proceedings, we need: 'Admissible Evidence'. That's why- photographs, but photographs of a certain type can be used, but not every photograph can be used.

You have to be able to authenticate the photograph by making sure that you know the source, and that you are in a position to make a declaration that the photograph is an accurate depiction of what it claims to show. And a great deal of care is being shown and has been done to make sure that the photo and video information and evidence that is important to their claims, can be used as evidence.

One of the main reasons why this request for correction was submitted was actually to pave the way for another kind of of action. A kind of action that is based upon, or stems from the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, individual people can bring lawsuits on behalf of the US Government. They are known as Qui Tam cases.

The Qui Tam process is used most often in connection with healthcare. Basically it says, that the US Government (as a customer) has been defrauded by someone who did business with or received money from the US Government, and if the person who brings this claim, (who is referred to as the relater) is successful, then that money is clawed back, and the contractor has to pay a stiff penalty.

The issue with respect to the use of Qui Tam cases is that, if you as an individual have information that monies have been paid to, or collected by a contractor on the basis of either fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, than you can go through the process of bringing a Qui Tam action.

However, in order for a Qui Tam case to get very far, you are very quickly going to run into an obstacle that is called Original Source Doctrine. This is how, the Data Quality Act comes into play.

Here you have two researchers saying something. What are they saying? They are saying that the NIST report is false and fraudulent. Using those words. False and Fraudulent.

Who prepared the NIST report?

Well, if you look at the NIST website, it lists all of the contractors who were involved; and not only does it list the contractors by name, (of the company) but it list the contractors by name, and by the name of the of the persons who worked for the contractors who were assigned to the NIST project. Guess which two companies had by far, the most people assigned to the NIST project?

ARA and SAIC

ARA has hardened test facilities all over the place, with it's principle headquarters right around the block from a Joint Military Organization, or JTO, know as the Directed Energy Directorate.

SAIC is annually in the top ten of defense dept and US Government contractors despite having relatively few employees: less than six thousand. And of the employees that SAIC has, they have more employees with top, and high government security clearances / classifications than any other company on the planet. And ARA almost certainly, comes in second in that respect.

How many have heard of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS)? The organization dates from 1999. There came a point in time when a number of companies decided there should be DEPS. Among the founding sponsors of of the organization are SAIC and ARA.

The DEPS has a rather comprehensive website and I commend it to you. They have a series of PDF booklets that I highly commend to you.

In Fact, I consider the DEPS list of sponsors to be sort of a Rosetta Stone telling you, if you want to know: who are the key members of the MIC? Well, look at the sponsors of the DEPS which you can find on their web site; and that is who they are.

Now, from a legal point of view, if you have a question that you need answered, then you go to the people you have reason to believe have the expertise to know how to answer your question.Do you remember Dr. Judy Wood's 'Bubbler' slide?

Why not send that photograph off to the DEPS and ask them? And you say, "Dear Madam, Greetings, How are you? Attached please find the photograph of the destructive process associated with the WTC. Please review this photo and at your convenience, please let us know if this destructive process is consistent with the effects of Directed Energy Weapons."

And what you say in the next paragraph, is that, "We seek only information in the public domain." If you are a person who might be covered by 32 CFR part 154; which is the part dealing with how you get, and more importantly how you can loose your security classification, if you have one. And you can loose it at the drop of a hat.

Now Dave went so far as to ask the person here who has that security clearance to reveal themselves. But Dave, they can't do that. If they identify them self, they will loose their security classification, and if they loose their clearance, they will loose their job. It's as simple as that. And that is a very serious thing.

So we know that writing this letter is a dicey thing; because we are basically asking you to admit that the MIC, pulled 9/11. We are not naive, and we would be silly to pretend otherwise. This is not a joke, but we don't expect: "Yes it was, and this is the name of device used, and the serial numbers of the parts pursuant to the list." We don't expect that.

But this is done in all seriousness and it has to be thought through to the level of making requests that you have a right to make, through the procedures that you have the right to use, in the places that you have the right to use them. And if you get an answer, fine, and if you don't, then you've done what you could.

So, you get a reply from the DEPS that does not say yes; but guess what? It doesn't say no. It does not treat your request as though it is frivolous, it states that you've raised a very interesting question. And that's what it says.

And that's what you'd expect it to say. But what you do not expect it to say is: "How dare you ask this question?" You don't expect that, because you have a right to ask that question. You don't expect it to say: "Your question is frivolous", because it is not frivolous. Because the evidence speaks for itself.

If you have a better explanation for 'Bubbler', than give it.

If you are of the mind that 'Bubbler' could be caused by the combination of: a supposed impact by a hollow aluminum tube jetliner, big though it may be, it is still hollow and aluminum. And steel is still steel. And kerosene is still kerosene. And gravity is still gravity. And those forces, singularly, or in combination one with the other, in any mixture, or in any order, are simply insufficient to have caused the level, the degree, and the totality of the destruction that we saw, and can present.

So the DEPS has indicated that it would be available for further inquiry and discussion from Dr. Wood that would be requested, and we would have expected no less.

Now what this tells you is that: If the hypothesis that the Apparatus of the US Government has been taken over by forces that are responsive to no one; then the ordinary citizens and people who work for US Government agencies at any but the highest levels, are probably no different then anyone assembled here, this afternoon or listening to us, on the radio.

They are as concerned as you are. They don't know what to do any more than any of us as individuals, knows what to do. But there is a good chance, that many of them, if not almost all of them, would be as willing to be of assistance in the process, of getting ourselves relieved or liberated from, that which has taken us over, as any of us are.

The only issue is that it's their livelihood, so they can't do things in a precipitous way. And it wouldn't work anyway, they'd just get fired or have an accident.

So the problem that we confront is on that order of magnitude. It is too big for any one of us. But it is not too big for all of us, working together.

Bubbler

The Iconic Photograph, dubbed the "Bubbler" by Dr. Judy Wood. The North Tower of the World Trade Center turning to dust.

Many folks refer to the drinking fountain as the bubbler.

I see a curious similarity in the cascading effect.

Take note. Dr. Judy Wood presents evidence of the cause of 'bubbler' -

Evidence of Advanced, Top Secret, Directed Energy Weapons.

"If you have a better explanation for 'Bubbler', [than the explanation given by Dr. Judy Wood] then give it." - Jerry Leaphart, Esq.

The pile left unaccounted for...

A photograph, of the intact World Trade Center Twin Towers, and the Marriott Hotel from Dr. Judy Wood's 2007 Request For Change.

Take note of the amount of material that must be accounted for.

Where Did The Towers Go?

Dr. Judy Wood on Coast to Coast AM

Selected From May, 2011 Interview
Transcript of first 17 minutes or so.
WhereDidTheTowersGo? Coast to Coast Am:

Quoted Text - G. Nori
Quote Free Text- Dr. Judy Wood

"Probably One of The Most Comprehensive Works I've Ever Read, Where Did the Towers Go? By Dr. Judy Wood, PhD."

"Dr. Judy Wood Is a former professor of Mechanical Engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization, and materials engineering science."

"She has applied her expertise to a Forensic Study, of more than forty thousand images, hundreds of video clips, and a large volume of Witness Testimony (under oath) pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex."

"How and when did you get involved in this research [Dr. Wood]?"

On 9/11 the story didn't make sense to me... And when I saw these buildings appear to unravel like a sweater - buildings don't do that. And I looked at my colleagues, we were in the back of the conference room looking on the big screen television.

I looked at them like - 'This is kinda a joke - like, ya know - 'war of the worlds' - the video presentation of it?' And they looked at me like I was nuts.

And I quickly learned that you can't talk about certain things. You are not allowed to question things out loud. But - Am I going crazy, or is the rest of the world? I'm objective, right? But how would you know?

So I started making some calculations about how long it would take the towers to go away, and what I would anticipate. And No, something didn't add up. But no one else seemed too bothered by it.

And I tried to put it aside, for awhile, and do my work. But then it got to the point where I couldn't set it aside any longer. Because, whose job is it to say: 'Hey, something here is not right!' Do you just go along with the herd or do you stop and speak out?

And I remember the day I said that to my mother, and she said: 'If you speak out, you won't have a job anymore.' And I said: 'If I don't, no one will.' And I still feel that to be the case.

"Well, you've got incredible expertise [Dr.] Judy. You've got the kind of background that engineers need, to talk about what you're going to be talking about with us here tonight."

"At this point, when you talk to people, [Dr.] Judy, what do they say?"

Well it matters where they're coming from, and how comfortable they are speaking out.

How I feel about these events, is: There is an Official Story, and there is Always Another Story. So, that when the 'Official' one no longer works, then there is the 'back up' one. Umm, Neither One is the Actual Story. There is Always Another Story, if you look at events over time.

But people will tend to go along with whoever is around them. So if you get someone by them self, and they feel it is ok to voice their opinion, and (to) say: 'Well, I don't think something's quite right.' Then, they're open to listening to what you have to say.

"Alright, so the story is: the planes hit the buildings, and they burned, and the steel beams burned, and weight of the buildings just toppled down on every floor and down it came. As an Engineer, give me your Thoughts on that."

It's one hundred and ten stories. Think of these floors pancaking down, slapping together: Boom, Boom, Boom! Now clap your hands together for each floor pancaking down. How Many Times can you clap you're hands together in Eight Seconds? Not: One Hundred and Ten times.

"No Way."

The 'Unraveling' of the building is incredibly fast. And the biggest thing that hit me was: Where Did It Go? Where did the Buildings Go? There's nothing much left. A few beams and columns here and there, not much above ground level.

"Was the building Pulverized?"

I call it Dustified. And I have this unique vocabulary, and I get a lot of grief for it. But, it is actually More Scientific than assigning a name of a Known Phenomenon to an Unknown Characteristic that you come across.

For example: Smoke. Smoke is what you get from Fires. If you don't Know What The Stuff Is in the air, Don't Call it Smoke. So I call it 'Fumes.' Just a Generic Term for 'Something' - Something Hazy, in the air.

Well for the buildings - This is a New Process we have not seen before. So, I call it 'Dustification' - The Building Turned to Dust.

"Now, what would turn something like that into dust?"

That's a Good Question.

"Let's rule out, A plane hitting the building. Should not turn the buildings into dust, correct?"

Correct.

"What about some kind of Controlled Demolition?"

That doesn't turn the building to powder either. They turned to powder in mid-air. You can see images of pieces of steel flying through the air, melting like ice cream, trailing dust...

"There was some residue of Thermite found. What is it? And What does that mean?"

Thermite melts things. It has a tremendous amount of heat for a short period of time. The buildings didn't melt. They didn't burn up. They didn't crash down. They turned to powder in midair. Thermite can't do that.

"Are you saying that the planes that hit the towers, might have been just a diversion? Just something for people to see?"

Something else Happened to the building(s). Planes cannot cause buildings to turn into: Powder in midair. And neither can bombs and neither can... You can rule out a whole list of things.

Even if you severed all the columns in the building like you do in Controlled Demolition, and slammed the building down to the ground -

"You're still gonna have the parts, the pieces right?"

Exactly. And also its Gonna Make A BOOM when it hits the ground! Its gonna Make A THUD....

"A Huge Thud."

But there was Not a Significant Seismic Signal that would be consistent with that size (of a) Building Hitting the Ground! That's another aspect of it.

"Why is it important to consider the Physical Evidence and the Science of 9/11?"

Without (Science) you just have Guess Work. You just have Speculation. For Example: Building Seven. It 'Looked like a Controlled Demolition.' Well, that doesn't mean it was. It's like Physical Evidence in a murder investigation. You can't say: 'Well, I thought that this person shot this person cause that's what it looked like they did.' Well, there was no gun? Oh. There's no bullet holes? Oh.

When you prove something in court, I never really appreciated why they had to make a connection with every single detail. Because otherwise you're just trying them on assumption. If you can see there are no bullet holes in the body, how can you say this guy was shot to death with a gun? And so, with the building 'collapsing' - If it makes No Seismic Signal, how can it have collapsed?

"That's a good point."

"This is a very packed, extremely concise research book. I have never seen something so detailed In All My Life. This Book Alone Should Have Been Delivered to the 9/11 Commission."

8/5/11: Edited: spelling, punctuation.

Out of the Blues

By John Trudell




In the dream of the living
predator arrives- out of the blues
surviving what nightmares do
centuries ruled by predator mind

the people, held in bondage-
the people pray to freedom, as freedom cries
a man waits in a cage, a man calls to justice-
justice lies

in the dream of the living, lies change
genocide remains- earth pillagers
governments conspire in the theft

the killing of the tribes
lostness, masquerading as law
ten little indians backwards
then there are none

predator arrives, out of the blues
desperation crawls over our skin
an advancing glacier, gauging scars
deep into our psychic soul

centuries cruel by predator mind
something eating at you: the meal that lasts and lasts
some holes are openings thru the wall
some holes are holes: careful you don't fall

the past isn't always kind-
a problem with tomorrow
the past isn't far behind

surviving what nightmares do
soul journeys, into industrial night
normalicy- a sure sign, of low self esteem

insanities in the face of torture and dreams
ancient wind, ancient light
ancestor stars, reach from the great beyond
extending a helping thought

the people held in bondage
the people pray to freedom, as freedom cries
a man waits in a cage-
a man calls to justice, but justice lies

centuries cruel by predator mind
lord and satan, generals of war
people sacrificed in tears and blood

stone masons- busy building walls
instant faces, double faces, empty faces
makin' people feel- much more alone

in the dream of the living
some violence ugly and mean
some violence sterile and clean

predator words- fall from lips of cold and ice
lives pulled through the needle
anyway you thread it, is a rattling chain

in the place were all minds meet
genetic memories- resist slavery
continuation is evolutionary need
ancestrial power encoded in the DNA

ancient voice sings, of the peoples' way
in the dream of the living-
ancestor stars - reach from the great beyond

the people held in bondage
the people pray to freedom as freedom cries
a man waits in a cage, a man calls to justice-
but justice lies

in the dream of the living
predator arrives
out of the blues

Disbelief - September 9th, 1999

Another Chapter in the World Wide War on Fake Terrorism




A fatal bomb blast in a Moscow apartment building ignites a fury of questions about terrorism, shadow politics, and post-Soviet intrigue in Disbelief; a film as much about the high art of political deception as it is about violence and human tragedy. The bombing on September 9, 1999, of a nine-story working-class apartment complex in Moscow was quickly blamed on Chechen terrorists. But was it their crime? Or did the Russian secret service deflect its own responsibility for the bombing on the Chechens' to heighten national fear and hysteria and justify Russia's subsequent military attack on the breakaway republic? "Deploying all the suspense and drama of a sophisticated murder mystery, Nekrasov has created one of the most compelling and captivating films of the year”

It seems to be the same story, everywhere you look.

An Open Letter to The Electric Universe Thinkers at the Thunderbolts.info Community:‏

Hello Folks-

I am writing this letter to you, because I have great respect for the work being done here. As Wallace Thornhill has stated: “From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature."

The understanding that electrical connections are fundamental to the physical world, is a key to grasping how the Twin Towers, and many other buildings, cars, and other physical matter, 'came apart' on September 11th 2001, an event which has 'altered the world as we know it'. As such, we all have rights, and responsibilities to investigate, discuss and come to some type of understanding of such events, as they most definitely and directly affect our world.

I understand that the topic of 9/11 is very sensitive. For this reason I have been polite and open to those engaging in discussion. Now coming up on the ten year anniversary, and out of respect for the victims, and families/friends affected, (i.e. my significant other lost a friend that day) we should all be able to reasonably debate/discuss this topic in a scientific manner. My posts on the Thunderbolts forum have been just that, reasonable and scientific. Backed up with data and first hand information from many sources.

Recently, this topic has been subjected to treatment that is, to say the least, disheartening. I thought, due to the history and nature of the subject matter concerning the Electric Universe, that the forum would be open, empirical, and science/evidence based. Apparently, this is Not the Case, as a certain member/administrator has been allowed to attack myself, and post misleading, misdirecting, and erroneous material, and then Lock the thread down.

Further, the fact that the book "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" is now in print, and was written by the highly qualified Judy Wood BA, MS, and PhD, only lends more credibility to the topic in general. By following the evidence, the good doctor has brought new light to a highly controversial and contested topic. Dr. Wood's research, like that of Immanuel Velikovsky, has started some 'fires', but her candle of investigation is carried solely for illumination.

Surely, those genuinely interested in this topic can research the author's conclusions and offer critical commentary, rather than accusing those who find merit in her investigation of "working to discredit Electric Universe theory" and other such ad hominem attacks. Such emotionally charged attacks "could only serve to polarize the Thunderbolts group." So why is an administrator of the forum engaging in such attacks?

This also makes me wonder why the thread (regarding the book) was removed from the 'Future of Science' board, (where I originally posted it) and moved to the 'New Insights and Mad Ideas' board. The 'Future of Science' board states: 'The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences.' Clearly, this was the proper place to post.

I am compelled to write this, as I feel you folks keenly understand, that this treatment of Dr. Wood and the material she presents, is eerily similar to the way Dr. Velikovsky was treated. (Connecting dots that some would prefer remain unconnected.) And indeed, the Electric Universe topic is- by and large, still treated to this very day. Infuriating and sad to be sure, but downright hypocritical for it to happen in this manner. Here of all places. :(

What would Immanuel Say? Perhaps he might say, "that the battle is over, the critics have won." I would hope that is not the case here at Thunderbolts, for, as I believe- "No matter the outcome of this battle, the time of reckoning is at hand. The voice of Velikovsky's ghost will be heard." A new 'heretic-pioneer' has emerged- her name is Doctor Judy Wood.

Even a cursory look at some of the undisputed scientific information and photos presented by myself will show that this topic is indeed related to the Electric Universe, and is therefore relevant to the forum. Just a bit of research into the work of John Hutchison, with his Tesla coils, Van de Graaff generators, and electro-magnetic spectrum/frequency modulation experiments; and the interest of the military in his work- Well, the evidence speaks all for itself...

The most striking aspect of this whole episode, however, is that Dr. Wood is the only person to actually have conducted an open, forensic, scientific investigation, and gone on the legal record, filing a Qui Tam Lawsuit regarding the events of 9/11, and the destruction of the Twin Towers. This suit ultimately went all the way to the Supreme Court before they upheld the erroneous, and illegal, dismissal by the 'Honorable' Judge George B. Daniels. Outrageous!

I hope that you all can find time to read the thread, and the accompanying links. At least to the point of being able to discern who is spreading mis-information. Deliberately or Otherwise. It will not be a waste of your time, as the events of 9/11 and those that have followed as a direct result have clearly affected us all, and will continue doing so.

In closing, I think that Dr. Judy Wood is the modern day Velikovsky. As there is a concentrated, orchestrated attack on her work and person. I am very saddened to see her work attacked and dismissed in this fashion by a senior member/administrator of the Thunderbolts community. This person is either maliciously misinformed, (and quite rude) and refuses to look at data outside their own personal viewpoint, or is a professional dis-informant. As discussion has been ended, I am forced to write this appeal to "the better angels of our nature" in the spirit of openness and fairness.

Please, take as much time as you need, if you wish to respond, and check the facts for yourself. The one thing I had not yet gotten into, except for the quote from the book, "Last Man Down", by Richard Picciotto, are the first responder and survivor testimonies. There is even more compelling evidence in these testimonials, which supports the work of Dr. Judy Wood. Here is a link to an archived database of such testimonials:

Directory Listing of New York Times 9/11 Accounts Analysis


Thank you for your attention, and all the best,

Sincerely

M. Edward Godward

P.S. For the record, I would like to state that overall, I am very grateful for Thunderbolts, and for all those who make it what it is. Also, for the information and perspective the community has brought to my awareness, and for the space to post what I have posted. For those reasons, I urge you all, not to come away from this open letter with ANY negative feelings. A wise person once said: "The fruits of progress are sown with the seeds of discontent."

Relevant Thunderbolts Forum Threads:

Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology


Tesla, Hutchison Effect, and Dr. Judy Wood

Propaganda War Machine News Media Orchestrated Psy-Op Continues to Spin the American Public

This past week, we were again, as a population, treated to another round of bald faced lies in the main stream media. 'The mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks, the news claimed, was killed in a shootout in Pakistan.

Funny, that. Too bad most people in the USA are trusting of this bullshit. Why, you can go here and find out for yourself that the FBI has never had any information linking OBL to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Cindy Sheehan, a prominent antiwar activist, has stated publicly, that "If You Believe The Newest Death Of Osama Bin Laden you're stupid!". Well, I myself would not go quite that far. What I would say, however, is that if you believe the latest dis-information being propagated by the propaganda- war machine- news media, then you are naive, all too trusting, and maliciously misinformed.

This is how the modern military industrial fascist, corp-gov, media conglomerate works folks. A whole lot of money is being made, fighting the bogey man, that has been propped up for us in the name of global terror.

Al Qaeda, was created by the CIA back in the seventies to counter the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This is fact. The name- 'Al Qaeda', actually refers to the toilet in Arabic. Do you really think that an Islamic, jihadist, terrorist organization, bent on acts of terror around the world, would chose as it's namesake, a reference to the crapper? More like Al-CIA-Duh if you ask me.

Even Dick Cheney, has admitted, that- "We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.".

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, was also quoted back a few years ago that "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the tel-lie-vision watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." .

This is War Business as usual in this current dis-information age we live in. The Corp-Gov Media complex is so intertwined that it is impossible to discern where 'democratically' elected officials leave off, and the big money interests that put them in office pick up. They will tell US (the american public) whatever they want in order to keep people in fear, and supporting the next new war.

It is sad, but this situation is not new. Back in 1783, then Secretary of State William Marcy understood the dangers of standing armies. Dwight Eisenhower, warned US in his farewell address, and Tomas Jefferson, elucidated the root of the problem. But you have a choice. You can chose to step off the gravy train, stop lending your intellectual support to a war on 'fake terror' and start to think for yourself.

Isn't it about time that we all did?

Industrial Hemp

Industrial hemp contains less than 1% of THC- the psychoactive component of marijuana. Trying to get high on industrial hemp is akin to trying to get drunk on non alcohol beer.

Hemp may well be the world's strongest and most durable natural plant fiber. It has been used to make cloth and rope for over 10,000 years. Hemp was the first crop ever cultivated for textile production.

Hemp cloth is stronger, longer lasting, more resistant to mildew, and cheaper to produce than cloth made of cotton. Hemp ropes are known for their strength and durability. The original Levi Strauss jeans were made from a hempen canvas. Even Old Glory was made from hemp fiber. A 44 gun frigate like “Old Ironsides” took over 60 tons of hemp for rigging, including an anchor cable 25 inches in circumference.

Hemp can be used to make virtually anything that is currently made of cotton, timber, or petroleum. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper. Until 1883, more than 75% of the world's paper was made with hemp fiber.

In 1937 Popular Science magazine called hemp "The New Billion Dollar Crop."

Then the big money people struck out to protect their interests. Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst led the crusade to ban hemp. Hearst owned millions of acres of prime timber land and a machine that simplified the process of making paper from hemp had just been invented. Hearst used his power as a publisher to create public panic about the evils of hemp and marijuana.

Another big money player Pierre DuPont held patent rights to the sulfuric acid wood pulp paper process. In 1937 DuPont patented nylon rope made from synthetic petrochemicals. Along with Dupont's backer Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon the big money people prevailed and near the end of 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act.

By placing a prohibitively high tax on hemp production it destroyed the industry. This was done to protect these big money interests of the timber, petrochemical, and cotton industries.

Hemp was briefly re-legalized during W.W.II. The U.S. government produced the movie Hemp for Victory to encourage farmers to grow hemp. Even 4H clubs were asked to grow hemp to help their country in wartime. The parachute that saved George H.W. Bush's life in World War II was made of hemp fiber.

Henry Ford dreamed that someday automobiles would be grown from the soil. In 1941 the Ford motor company produced an experimental automobile with a plastic body composed of 70% cellulose fibers from hemp. The car body could absorb blows 10 times as great as steel without denting. The car was designed to run on hemp fuel. Because of the ban on both hemp and alcohol the car was never mass produced.

Industrial hemp can replace cotton. Cotton is typically grown with large amounts of chemicals that are harmful to people, wildlife and the entire environment. Over 25% of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton. Hemp grows well in a wide variety of climates and soils. It requires far less fertilizer and pesticides than most commercial crops.

All parts of the hemp plant are useful. Hemp can be used to produce everything from fuel to soap. The oil from hemp seeds has the highest percentage of essential fatty acids and the lowest percentage of saturated fats.

Industrial hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield. It can replace wood fiber and help save our forests. Trees take approximately 20 years to mature - hemp takes 4 months. Paper made from hemp lasts for centuries, compared to 25-80 years for paper made from wood pulp.

Hemp is the perfect source for fuel. It produces more biomass than any other plant. If we had to pay at the pump for all the military costs to keep the oil flowing clean burning alcohol fuel produced from hemp would be a bargain.

Today industrial hemp is cultivated in Canada, China, Russia, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, England, Poland and many other Eastern European countries.

We should all support the re-legalization of industrial hemp farming in the United States and the rest of the world.. a sustainable, renewable, natural, safe effective and reliable solution to many of civilizations ills.

Link to Original

Hemp: Lifeline to the Future

The Emperor Wears No Clothes