9/11

image

Why is the large and conclusive body of evidence from 9/11 actively being censored by the corporate media, Wikipedia, and numerous 9/11 “Truth” groups?

One of the primary reasons the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 that Dr. Judy Wood has assembled has not gotten the attention it deserves, is because of censorship. The large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 that Dr. Judy Wood has assembled is being censored, not just at the mainstream levels, such as by Wikipedia and the corporate media, but also by many “truth” groups within the 9/11 “Truth” Movement. One of the individuals partaking in this censorship of evidence is Mr. Richard Gage, the leader of AE911Truth. Although he is not a scientist, he is indeed helping this censorship, and this is addressed in #2 below. Here are a few examples: 

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=108890969175538&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1

Photo #1 is a screen shot showing the Wikipedia page I had created about Dr. Judy Wood, shortly after it was deleted (it was deleted within 12 hours of being created).

Why was I quickly censored when I tried to create a Dr. Judy Wood Wikipedia page using her long list of 20+ peer-reviewed engineering publications? Why was I quickly censored when I tried to add Dr. Judy Wood’s name and website to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page? How come David Ray Griffin and other less qualified researchers are mentioned multiple times on the page, yet I wasn’t even allowed to add one sentence about Dr. Judy Wood? When I tried to appeal the decision, a small group of moderators controlled the discussion and told me that if I appealed it again my account would be locked. According to Wikipedia policy, deletion-appeal discussions are to remain open for public comment and review for 5-7 days before a final decision is made, but my appeal was given a final decision by a small group of rude admins within 12 hours of the onset of my appeal, and the discussion was prematurely closed. After some research, I realized this was a violation of Wikipedia’s policy, so I appealed it again, and my account was locked as a result. Below is an odd comment that one of the opposing moderators made to me in a private chat after my Dr. Judy Wood article was deleted:

“I would give Judy Woods a rest, seriously. Your own credibility over the topic has put her and you on the radar of a number of people and even if you came up with really good references from the NYTimes or Bloomberg you wouldn’t be able to create the article anyways – the name is has been blocked for a while. If you really want to pursue it then I’d suggest creating a private page of your own to develop it. Nobody would fiddle with it and you can craft it until its acceptable. I could help you there. But the comments of the others are still very valid.–Hooperbloob (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)”

You can read all the details and see actual screen shots of my Wikipedia incident here: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=60 

2. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=451248698273095&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1

Photo #2 discusses my censorship by ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth), a prominent 9/11 “Truth” organization. In Spring of 2010 during my first year of medical school, I messaged Richard Gage of AE911Truth to ask him if he knew about the large sum of important physical evidence that Dr. Judy Wood has discovered, and as a result, I was silently banned from AE911Truth, despite the fact that I have donated over $100 dollars to Richard Gage and his organization over the course of my ~1 year membership. As of the morning of March 4th 2010, my name was removed from the AE911Truth petition and my profile was deleted, so it appears that my account has been fully banned from the group simply for sharing evidence with Richard Gage in one private email. It is important to point out that I did not post any information about Dr. Judy Wood in my AE911Truth profile. I had only recently discovered Dr. Judy Wood, and soon after that I decided to send Mr. Gage the single email to ask him for his opinion about the evidence Dr. Wood has discovered. The spontaneous banning of a well-behaved AE911Truth supporter and donor is very concerning to me, because I have not done anything wrong by asking Richard Gage if he is aware of the large sum of empirical evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, yet AE911Truth has banned me simply for trying to help without ever replying to my email. Furthermore, soon after I began posting on internet blogs and forums about what AE911Truth had done to me, it was then that I finally received a reply, from AE911Truth ‘Volunteer Coordinator’ Mark Graham, offering me a refund of my past donations because an AE911Truth member had noticed I was publicly sharing my story.

If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration. Just over a year later, I had the chance to confront Mr. Gage at an AE911Truth presentation in Peoria, IL where I was attending medical school. If you click the AE911Truth image above, you will see the links to the two-part video recording of our encounter, during which I recorded Mr. Gage admitting to me that thermite does not explain the empirical evidence from 9/11, and that he has not studied the important NYC seismographic data. In addition, I recorded him lying to the public and making excuses for why he chooses to ignore the large sum of empirical evidence from 9/11 that thermite does not explain.

You can read more about my story and see the actual email from AE911Truth’s Mark Graham at this link: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=60 

3. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=108890895842212&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1

Photo #3 shows a small, partial list of the 9/11 “Truth” forums that have banned me or removed posts of mine just for posting or discussing the large body of evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered. It seems these groups are more interested in pushing the unscientific “explosives did it” story rather than discussing the empirical evidence from 9/11. Explosives of any kind do not come close to explaining the empirical evidence from 9/11, so why are they pushing unscientific theories while censoring all of the evidence that must be explained? These forums appear to be corrupt, as any real “truth” group would be interested in discussing the evidence, rather than censoring it. 

I hope that helps you understand one of the primary reasons why the world is finding out about the empirical evidence from 9/11 so slowly. It appears to be picking up speed, so hopefully this important information will continue to spread.

In Spring of 2010 during my first year of medical school, I messaged Richard Gage of AE911Truth to ask him if he knew about the large sum of important physical evidence that Dr. Judy Wood has discovered, and as a result, I was silently banned from AE911Truth, despite the fact that I have donated over $100 dollars to Richard Gage and his organization over the course of my ~1 year membership. As of the morning of March 4th 2010, my name was removed from the AE911Truth petition and my profile was deleted, so it appears that my account has been fully banned from the group simply for sharing evidence with Richard Gage in one private email. It is important to point out that I did not post any information about Dr. Judy Wood in my AE911Truth profile. I had only recently discovered Dr. Judy Wood, and soon after that I decided to send Mr. Gage the single email to ask him for his opinion about the evidence Dr. Wood has discovered. The spontaneous banning of a well-behaved AE911Truth supporter and donor is very concerning to me, because I have not done anything wrong by asking Richard Gage if he is aware of the large sum of empirical evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, yet AE911Truth has banned me simply for trying to help without ever replying to my email. Furthermore, soon after I began posting on internet blogs and forums about what AE911Truth had done to me, it was then that I finally received a reply, from AE911Truth ‘Volunteer Coordinator’ Mark Graham, offering me a refund of my past donations because an AE911Truth member had noticed I was publicly sharing my story.

If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration. Below is the two-part video recording of when I later confronted Mr. Gage in Peoria, IL:

Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 1/2): Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 1/2)

Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 2/2): Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 2/2)

When I confronted Mr. Gage in Peoria, I found it very concerning to see him implying and/or stating things such as, “I don’t understand the NYC seismographic data, I’ve never studied it,” and “I know that 1,400+ mangled cars cannot be explained [by thermite], I don’t know what can explain that”, and “I don’t want to ask questions that will raise more questions, I [only] want to ask questions that will motivate people to ask for a new investigation”, and “it’s up to you [public] to do something with this evidence and act on it, because I am working 80 hours per week managing this organization and no attorney has stepped up yet” (I wonder if Richard Gage forgot about James Gourley, the legal attorney, supporter of AE911Truth and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Studies?), and other related statements. 

Mr. Gage also lied to his audience during my confrontation, stating that I had posted information about Dr. Judy Wood in my AE911Truth profile, and this is untrue. I had only recently found out about Dr. Judy Wood, and shortly after was when I sent Mr. Gage the one and only email that resulted in the silent banning of my account. I never even tried to post any information in my AE911Truth profile about Dr. Judy Wood, or the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 that she has assembled, yet Mr. Gage told his audience that my profile was “censored” for posting “confusing information” in it. It is a blatant lie to claim that I posted such information in my profile, because I never did. Another blatant lie is the idea that my profile were merely “censored”, when in fact my entire account was banned and my name was removed from the AE911Truth petition. These are blatant lies, but this dishonesty is still not as important as the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, so please do not let this information distract you from the empirical evidence. 

Why is Mr. Gage ignoring so much important evidence? Why is Mr. Gage promoting an unscientific, discrediting theory that does not come close to explaining all of the evidence from 9/11? Why did Mr. Gage silently delete my AE911Truth account simply for asking about evidence in an email, and then lie to his audience about it? There is only a small amount of weak evidence, mostly personal testimony, which suggests that thermite or explosives were used on 9/11. In contrast, there is a very large, robust body of both empirical and testimonial evidence suggesting that explosives were not used on 9/11. Most importantly, the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 can be explained by one thing, and one thing only, a general class of weaponry known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). 

You can read more about my story and see the actual email from AE911Truth’s Mark Graham at this link: http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=60 

As a scientist and physician, it would be unscientific of me to agree with an opinion that is not consistent with the large and conclusive body of empirical evidence from 9/11, such as the opinion that thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/super-thermite was used to destroy the WTC buildings. Similarly, it would be unscientific of me to agree with NIST, or with the ‘9/11 Commission Report’, for this same reason. Perhaps we can all agree that the ‘official story’ of 9/11 is inaccurate and dishonest, but that is not what we are discussing.

Explosives of any kind, including thermite, are a very unscientific and poor explanation for what happened on 9/11. Since many people still don’t understand why that is the case, I have pasted an explanation below that I typed up a while ago, along with some very important factual links for you to review, which may help you understand this. Explosives/thermite would be disproven in a court of law very rapidly because they are not supported by the large body of evidence from 9/11, and this would set a legal precedent that could potentially prevent justice from ever being obtained. Please study the following information.

There is only a small amount of weak evidence, mostly personal testimony, which suggests that thermite or explosives were used on 9/11. In contrast, there is a very large, robust body of both empirical and testimonial evidence suggesting that explosives were NOT used on 9/11. Most importantly, the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 can be explained by one thing, and one thing only, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’.

This table briefly summarizes and compares the various explanations that attempt to address the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, taken from Dr. Judy Wood’s presentation at the 2012 ‘Breakthrough Energy Movement’ conference in Holland.

Source: http://drjudywood.com/ & http://vimeo.com/57923364

Thermite or explosives of any kind do not come close to explaining all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, so it would not stand up in a court of law for very long since it is not supported by the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11. Again, most evidence in support of thermite or explosives is testimonial in nature, such as witnesses “hearing explosions” or “seeing molten liquid”. Testimonial evidence is the weakest form of evidence because people are often mistaken, biased, and/or repeating things they heard from others. Please keep in mind that loud, explosive noises can be caused by many things, and it is very likely that items were independently exploding as the buildings were transformed to dust. Please also keep in mind that glowing objects or liquids do not directly imply hot or molten steel, as many objects can glow or melt under lower stresses and temperatures. As for the tiny amount of empirical evidence for thermite, such as the Bentham Open Access ‘peer-reviewed’ study that allegedly found thermite in WTC dust samples, this could be explained by many common, logical things, some of which are discussed at the links below.

Thermic Lances Used To Cut Steel Beams during WTC Ground Zero Cleanup | 9/11 Myths: Thermic Lances Used To Cut Steel Beams during WTC Ground Zero Cleanup | 9/11 Myths

Copper thermite is used for creating electric joints in building construction (‘cadwelding’): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding

Cad Weld – Copper Ground to Rebar: Cad Weld – Copper Ground to Rebar

Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html

Bentham Open Access Publishing Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/

Bentham Science Publishing Editors Quit After Fake Paper Accepted: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/bentham-editors-resign.html

No Thermite on 9/11?! | Thermite Does NOT Explain the Evidence! No Thermite on 9/11?! | Thermite Does NOT Explain the Evidence

WTC Steel Columns Cut at Angles During 9/11 Ground Zero Cleanup | 9/11 Myths: WTC Steel Columns Cut at Angles During 9/11 Ground Zero Cleanup | 9/11 Myths

9/11 Ground Zero Molten Steel or Work Lights? | 9/11 Myths: 9/11 Ground Zero Molten Steel or Work Lights? | 9/11 Myths

9/11 “Pull It” WTC Building Demolition via Pulling Cables | 9/11 Myths: 9/11 “Pull It” WTC Building Demolition via Pulling Cables | 9/11 Myths

9/11 WTC Explosive Demolition is NOT Supported by the Evidence | 9/11 Myths: 9/11 WTC Explosive Demolition is NOT Supported by the Evidence | 9/11 Myths

Andrew Johnson’s Evidence-Packed ‘Thermite Free 9/11’ page: http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/

Even Richard Gage, the leader of AE911Truth, admitted to me that thermite does not explain the empirical evidence from 9/11, and that he has not studied the important NYC seismographic data. In addition, he lies to the public and refuses to address the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 that thermite does not explain. Luckily, I got his suspicious behavior and responses on video when I questioned him at a presentation in Peoria, IL when I was attending medical school there. See for yourself (he admits to those things in Part 2):

Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 1/2): Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 1/2)

Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 2/2): Richard Gage Questioned at AE911Truth Presentation (4/12/2011) by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (Part 2/2)

The large body of empirical evidence from 9/11 is overwhelmingly conclusive, because there is only one thing that can explain it all, and nothing else comes close. Only the general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW) can explain all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, and it does so completely and irrefutably. In other words, a general type of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ was used to transform the WTC buildings mostly into dust in midair on 9/11, and this conclusion is irrefutable because the large body of publicly available, easily verifiable, empirical evidence from 9/11 shows us this beyond any reasonable doubt. Jetfuel, airliners, explosives of any kind, and all other types of destructive forces are not even remotely consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, but directed energy weapons are overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence.

Although it is possible that other methods may have been used to help destroy the WTC towers in addition to directed energy, this seems to be very unlikely, because the general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ can account for ALL of the anomalous destruction that occurred on 9/11 (while nothing else comes close to doing so). Based on the conclusive body of empirical evidence from 9/11, and the important concept known as ‘Occam’s Razor’, there is no scientific reason to conclude that other methods of destruction were used on 9/11 in addition to directed energy.

Sincerely,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D. 
PGY1 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology 

Photo Credit: Adam Dwyer (http://debamboozled.com/)
Full Size: http://debamboozled.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/2013-12-01-911-truth-bad-at-math1.png

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s