The analysis and commentary provided as addendum to the transcript further strays from points made by Judy Wood. It's really simple. Judy is simply one scientist among many to start from the beginning, look at the available evidence, and conclude that the report issued from the 9/11 Commission is not sound. As such Greg Jenkins starts out seemingly as her peer in that regard, a fellow debunker of the mainstream explanations. Jenkins eventually turns to debunk her as he pretentiously diverts the conversation into taking potential detail of her speculation too seriously. Personally, I found much to respect in Wood's admission as scientist in expressing the degree in potential of how much we don't know. She displayed herself quite vulnerably to fellow debunkers as she mentioned the possibility of technology existing that is not fully known to her, you or me. As a result she fell prey to her peers' attempts to use making her look like a fool as means to their own false legitimacy. Imagine yourself to be a Japanese scientist in Hiroshima on August 10th of 1945, and you were being interviewed as to what just happened. Imagine trying to describe not just your rudimentary understanding of nuclear physics, but speculating what kind of weapons might potentially be built with such technology, and all the while the majority of those around you not yet even believing that there actually exists such a concept of nuclear physics. Imagine you are in a crowd of protesters rallying against government legislation in the mid 90s, and your skin begins to feel as though it's burning. You might immediately surmise that security forces have learned how to vaporize pepper spray and disseminate it from a stealth source. Imagine the immediate reaction from others if you speculated that it might not be pepper gas at all but a microwave beam emanating from what appears to be a radio antenna on top of a van. Woods is not a loony but a rare scientist bold enough to scientifically and humbly express the notion that perhaps the part of the equation yet underestimated is how much we don't yet know. I find her to be a diamond in the rough, perhaps the most sane of the bunch, a scientist not yet fallen prey to her own ego.
May we leave the shed door open...
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -William Paley
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: