|Click on pictures to enlarge
If someone tells you that this (Greg Jenkins) video discredits the "truth movement,"
then ask them why they are promoting it.
For those interested in actual presentations by Dr. Wood, please see the videos here. It is curious why anyone claiming to be interested in the "truth" would not be interested in promoting actual presentations made by Dr. Wood, instead of manipulated hit pieces. This behavior is akin to drawing a mustache and devil horns on a photo of Dr. Wood and then claiming to have "debunked" her research. Several articles have been written about this event that has been referred to as petty intellectual vandalism.
|Figure 1. After the towers are destroyed, the dust cloud rolls along the ground and some of it moves upward. It does not appear to be moving horizontally or downward. The southeast tip of Manhattan is covered in white dust.
(9/11/01 entered) Source
|Figure 2. Why does Greg Jenkins appear to have an agenda to convince us this didn't exist?
(9/12/01) Source: space imaging
Email from Steven E. Jones to Greg Jenkins, Recruiting the Hit Piece
The ambush "interview" with Greg Jenkins is here: (mp3).
The audio gives a different impression of the event.
What is the motivation of Greg Jenkins to do a surprise (ambush) "interview" of someone at a time approaching midnight, after they had driven 600 milesunder the belief they were only there to be a supportive member of an audience? Apparently Steven Jones approves of such tactics.
At a time approaching midnight, Dr. Wood did not agree to discuss or "defend" anything. Is this what Steven Jones considers to be "science"? Is this what Steven Jones considers to be "truth"? Do respectable researchers recruit well-funded psyops hit pieces for a "peer-reviewed scientific journal?" Is such behavior ethical? What does it say about such a "journal"?
Dr. Wood is promoting evidence. She has never stated where the components of this system are located. She has only addressed the evidence. We note that Steven Jones has failed to address the evidence and instead, spreads false information about the researchers who actually are addressing the evidence.
[Apparently Greg Jenkins was bragging about having received this email from Steven Jones and emailed it to the entire dc911truth.org mail list. A recipient of this email forwarded it to me and several others.]
Email sent from Steven E. Jones to Greg Jenkins:
Subject: Judy Wood interview
Relayed On: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:24:04 -0500
[Begin quoted email]
From: Greg Jenkins (*** @http://gregjenkins.myfastmail.com)
I am writing to invite you to contribute a (short) letter if you will to Topic B:
The reason I ask is this -- Yesterday I watched your interesting interview with Judy Wood on this topic.
I think it would be very valuable to have a Letter to the Journal which provides the URL's to your interview with Dr. Wood, and to Jim F's talk, to allow readers to readily find the video-taped arguments by Judy and Jim F.
Would you be willing to compose then a brief letter to document this, emphasizing your interview? Pls let me know -- I would appreciate it. I have discussed documenting these two videos in the Letters section with the co-editor, Kevin Ryan, and he agreed that this would be a good idea.
If you do, it would be very helpful IMO to put two photos in your Letter with the text,
Thanks for your efforts,
STeven J(PS -- there is also a short clip by John Albanese which shows the dangers of discussing non-evidence based theories publicly, here: http://911blogger.com/node/5474#comment. FYI. Funny. )
[End of quoted email]
|After reading the above email sent by Steven Jones to Greg Jenkins, one must ask, was Dr. Jones' intention to improve the image of the "truth movement" or to undermine it? Was his intention to improve the image of his "peer-reviewed journal" by recruiting another hit piece for it or to undermine it? Why does he instruct Greg Jenkins on how to better mislead the viewer into misinterpreting what is being discussed in the video?
Recruiting someone to do a hit piece on a fellow researcher is not only immoral and unethical, it goes beyond the pale. This behavior by Steven Jones implies that he wishes to deliberately suppress the research of Dr. Wood . What is he afraid of, the truth? If he were confident about his own research, he wouldn't feel threatened by the research of someone else. This video manipulation hit piece is something you might expect in a political smear campaign, not a "peer-reviewed" scientific journal.
So, what motivates Steven Jones to recruit hit pieces on a 9/11 researcher?
Perhaps it is true that history repeats. For information on Steven Jones' involvement with cold fusion: (Fintan Dunn (mp3)) (Heavy Watergate (46 min) or Google "Heavy Watergate") (Heavy Watergate (at 1:21 min)) ("Fire from Ice," by Eugene Mallove.)
|Several articles have been written about this event that has been referred to as petty intellectual vandalism.
|For those interested in actual presentations by Dr. Wood, please see the videos here. It is curious why Dr. Jones has no interest in promoting actual presentations made by Dr. Wood, only manipulated hit pieces.
|In his email, above, Steven Jones was probably not referring to the following photo, even though this is one of the photos that Dr. Wood referred to in the "discussion" with Greg Jenkins. Had she been informed of Greg Jenkins' plans, she would have come prepared with photos such as these.
|Figure 3. After the towers are destroyed, the dust cloud rolls along the ground and some of it moves upward. It does not appear to be moving horizontally or downward. The southeast tip of Manhattan is covered in white dust.
|Figure 4. This is the corner of West and Vesey Streets, looking southward down West Street. After the towers are destroyed, there seems to be very little material on the ground. Where did the building go? WTC6 is directly ahead. WTC1 should be just behind it. Where did it go?
(This photo has been lighten and reduced in size. For original, click on the photo.)
|Figure 5. This is a satellite image captured on 9/12/01. It appears that the white "fumes" emerging from the WTC site stays together until it reaches a particular altitude where it begins to just disperse. There appears to be a kink in the fume trail where this occurs. Also, note the dark "fumes" traveling westward, over the Hudson. Why would "fumes" travel in two distinct directions, depending on the color?
(9/12/01) Source: space imaging
Greg Jenkins' Debut
Why has Greg Jenkins tried to convince folks that Dr. Wood is pointing up to the smoke coming from WTC1? The images below are screen captures from the Google video that Greg Jenkins had a professional film crew record and edit. Why has Greg Jenkins worked so hard to convince folks that all of the building "fell" down and none of it blew up? Dr. Wood is clearly pointing to the "snowball" cloud of dust in the photo. Why does Greg Jenkins insert a photo into the video to confuse the viewer? Dr. Wood is showing that approximately 2/3 of the building is no longer there and the volume of material in the "snowball" cannot account for it.
|Figure 9. Why does Greg Jenkins have an agenda to convince us this didn't exist?
(9/12/01) Source: space imaging
Figure 10. [photo] Greg Jenkins clearly studied just what he was to say and do. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to trap Dr. Wood as he had hoped he would.
Figure 11. [photo] Greg Jenkins panics when he realizes he wasn't able to trap Dr. Wood as he'd hoped he would.
Jenkins panics: Link to transcript.
video (a highly-funded psyops) couldn't have done a better job to convince us just how important my message is. I feel honored to have been given such confirmation. Thank you Greg Jenkins! After all, what motivated Greg Jenkins to produce such a hit piece? This video was expensive to produce. It was filmed by a professional camera crew, with professional equipment, and then carefully edited and manipulated, with carefully inserted images and sound into the final production.
This event does nothing to undermine the scientific merit of my work. To the contrary. Who would want to invest so much time, energy, expense, and manpower into producing such a video? How does Greg Jenkins manage to explain the fact that some of his research is funded by the NSA? (See here and here (archived here and here).) Yes, I mean THAT NSA; the one that has a vested interest in making sure the truth of 9/11 stays buried. I can not think of a higher, more direct indicator that I am on the right track in assessing what caused WTC1,2 to be pulverized in less than 10 seconds than to be setup in an ambush video-manipulation by an NSA informant. Imagine that. Why would I be the most important person to attack and to attempt to persuade every 911 "truther" to attack?
Let us ask what kind of person would even want to make a researcher of the TRUTH look bad?
I cannot imagine how anyone in search of the truth would think that what Greg Jenkins orchestrated was in search of the truth. Those who are truly in search of truth would not use deception. Greg Jenkins used deception to plan his "surprise" event, used deception to carry out his "surprise" event, used deception in "preparing" his product, and used deception in promoting his product. One must ask, "Why?" Why did what he was planning and doing require deception? Why did he choose to be dishonest in what he did?
And, why would another "researcher" recruit such an unethical and dishonest hit job on a "fellow researcher"?
Greg Jenkins clearly studied just what he was to say and do. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to trap Dr. Wood as he'd hoped he would.
But, the real gift Greg Jenkins provided in this video manipulation is realized by looking beneath the superficial psyops being promoted. Reading between the lines reveals more evidence behind the use of DEW on 9/11 and advances scientific understanding of what happened. We wish to thank Greg Jenkins for the valuable clues he gave us in advancing our understanding of the effects of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). This conversation and video product is what inspired the new "dirt" series, Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt.
Deliberately undermining the presentation of the truth may be considered an act of treason.
Steven Jones obviously condones the harassment of Dr. Wood and encourages it. What is his motivation? The truth needs no protection. Why would someone honestly seeking the truth resort to misrepresenting the research of someone else?
|For more information about the Greg Jenkins video, please refer to the following articles:
Dr Greg Jenkins Ambushes Dr Judy Wood at Midnight and Posts an Interview without Permission.
Dr. Greg Jenkins' "Directed Debunking Energy"and Prof. Judy Wood
1 March 2007, by Andrew Johnson
Reading Between The Lines -- Jenkins/Wood interview revisited, Text, Subtext and The Truth About DEWs
10 April 2007, transcript by Andrew Lowe Watson, with added pictures & comments
The Greg Jenkins Analytical Method Ignores the Facts
28 February 2007, by Andrew Lowe Watson
The New 9/11 Hijackers?
February 2007, by Andrew Johnson
A physicist critiques Steven Jones' new paper
21 May 2007, by Stephen Phillips, Ph.D.
Why Indeed Must it be Controlled Demolition?
An informal critique of Dr. Jones' hypothesis
30 January 2007, "Who"
Jump to Jones recruits Jenkins