When 9/11 Evidence Becomes Forbidden - Wood & Reynolds vs the Official 9/11 Story

Source: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/when-911-evidence-becomes-forbidden

When a lot of people hear about the Twintowers and their destruction on 9/11 they think of the ‘pancake collapse’, jet fuel fire, thermite or controlled demolition.Well not a lot of people realise, FEMA conducted the first rushed report claiming the pancake theory, then the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST), who conducted the investigation into WTC 1 & 2s collapse threw that theory out in 2005. Meanwhile the 9/11 Commission didn’t even focus on the structural failure at all, they blamed plane impacts and fires and just moved on.What neither of these reports explain or even considered was the full range of bizarre and unmistakable effects seen on that day, they choose to ignore them. And neither thermite, controlled demolition or jet fuel fires can account for so much of the evidence that you can clearly see with your own eyes if you take the time to look.That is why independent researchers like Dr Judy Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds, whether people agree with them or not, deserve to be taken very seriously. Dr Wood has looked at the evidence the official reports skipped, ignored or couldn’t explain regarding the WTC, and Dr Reynolds looked at the evidence relating to the planes. Those anomalies need to be investigated properly - not quietly swept away.NIST rejecting the pancake theory left many unanswered questions and a massive gap between initiation and total destruction at the WTC site. Dr Wood and Dr Reynolds filled this gap.Dr Judy Wood collected observable evidence and stepped directly into that gap NIST and theores couldn’t explain. Just some of the evidence that Dr Wood presents is belowObservable evidencePhotos, videos and structural anomaliesEnergy EffectsToasted Cars and Fuming SteelDustificationSeismic Readings Inconsistent with Official StoryIntact Bathtub foundationLack of DebrisLevitation EffectsUnburned Paper next to burned debrisSteel twisted and curled like fabricElectromagnetic SpikesSpontaneous Combustion of cars.Bathtub being undamagedTipping top of WTC 2Metals rusting before they shouldPlease check out my article, showing images and short videos of a lot of the evidence that you can easily see with your own eyes.This can be seen in her 2007 Qui Tam case filed against NIST Contractors. Below is a clip explaining this.Dr Wood compiled her evidence and acting on behalf of the USA, filed a Qui Tam complaint under the False Claims Act against numerous contractors working for the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) regarding the investigation into the collapse of the WTC.In her case Dr Wood claims that NIST contractors submitted false claims or misleading reports which steered the investigation away from what she claims is the real cause of the towers destruction, and in doing so these companies defrauded the US Government.You can find more information on the case on Dr Wood's WebsiteDr Reynolds also joined Dr Wood in filing a Qui Tam case against NIST Contractors for false claims regarding the flights of 9/11. You can find out more in this clip below from the documentary 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality.Dr Reynolds case overlapped with Dr Wood’s Qui Tam case however, his case focused on the plane physics and these contractors were central to that.Both cases were dismissed, but it was nothing to do with their evidence, they were dismissed on procedural grounds. The courts never looked at or evaluated their evidence, never ruled on their claims. Importantly, they never declared their research invalid. The reasons for dissmissal were based on the False Claims Acts requirements, basically, independent researchers, do not have the insider information, legally required to bring a FCA case. They took their cases up to the Supreme Court but they refused to hear the appeal, again they never went through their evidence or ruled it invalid, but stated the case raised no constitutional issue or federal legal conflict. It was not based on scientific merit or the evidence they presented.The reason isn’t because their evidence is weak and uncredible. They are ignored because their conclusions threaten to reveal truths that would threaten the financial, political and psychological narrative of 9/11.What Wood and Reynolds point to is something that is unfamiliar, is sci-fi and unimaginable to most people and might seem a bit crazy. And this doesn’t fit into the AE911truth sales pitch. You would think if they really want to find the truth behind what happened they would look at all evidence available and work with Dr Wood and Reynolds, not against them. The ‘space beams’ claim automatically puts people off looking at the actual evidence Dr Wood presents. The claim was deliberate by Richard Gage, Steven Jones and other ‘9/11 truthers’ who felt threatened by Dr Judy Wood’s evidence. She has never used that phrase. It was invented to mock her and prevent people from examining the anomalies her researched explosed. This is often claimed by the strongest researchers in any field, ‘follow the evidence, not the claim’. Makes sense! Dr Wood and Reynolds both do exactly that, they aren’t trying to make the evidence fit a particular narrative, they have gone where the data led them. Forget about the directed energy weapons destroying the WTC and forget about 3D Volumetric Projection creating the planes that hit the towers, just look at the EVIDENCE, the things you can see with your own eyes. Add to this, the plane movements defying physics, video anomalies, lack of airplane debris at all sites, unverified aircraft identification and the statements from a lot of people stating there was no planes. Look at all of this as a whole, none of it has ever been explained in official reports. Reynolds and Wood aren’t rejected because their evidence is weak, they are rejected because the evidence doesn’t support the official narrative, or the controlled opposition (AE911Truth - again that is a whole other rabbit hole) and psychologically people aren’t able to accept it. Both collections of evidence deserve to be seriously considered and looked at. I haven’t looked into Dr Reynold’s evidence as much, however I have researched the things Dr Judy Wood presents. Both present easy to see and understandable information that will get you questioning anything you thought you knew.We don’t need these so called ‘celebrity’ 911 truthers like ae911truth who appear on every podcast demanding a new investigation, but appear much more concerned with media and being in the public eye and taking a wage, than spending their funding (as they are supposed to be a non-profit organisation) on conducting any actual research or investigation. They received roughly $7million over 10years and their research / investigation spending was zero. You can see from the image below. If they were serious about finding out the truth of 9/11, instead of spending all of their donations on media appearances, building a brand and expenses, why not put that money to good use that to conduct their own full investigation, put that money towards finding the truth.This is why I think Dr Judy Wood’s and Dr Reynold’s evidence matters, as its evidence not theory. If AE911truth really wanted the truth they would work together with Wood and Reynolds and promote the evidence that is clear to see. It’s observable, consistent and when looked at as a whole then the official stories and the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 just don’t make any sense. Dr Wood along with Dr Morgan Reynolds did their own investigation as far as they could, and took their evidence to court. This wasn’t funded by anyone but themselves, and they are suppressed its just by chance that I came across this evidence myself. Dr Reynolds website - nomoregames.netDr Wood’s website - wheredidthetowersgo.comPlease check out my Youtube channel with Playlists on 9/11, including Dr Woods - Where did the Towers Go, and 9/11 Plane information.Leave a commentShare

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/when-911-evidence-becomes-forbidden

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  5cc39f13c4fdd19d53abe92bc53bd414435c015c7e93ac11b088c2b47f84588b
  BLAKE2b:  6246efa6f63148cf3994259442f461cc48ea80b5c17eefe1509a1d0572999924
  MD5:      394b1e3e7d77b4e6f8edc733e389d1a7

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  22bd6e185493492a274602176e21a6bb13b7e457bc7cada054bf2be84ea13b01
  BLAKE2b:  1b201d36e10a54808b3e7e6d0e25698e942ff06967e0ab70aaf26013a033396d
  MD5:      7dc739899b03de636b90283774b93596

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  ba822f0844adad07c9c020020952feec48c6f6f6a6efc043f1d59097844b7d23
  BLAKE2b:  3c3aefca6cee86f0e2bd5eb39c597aecc4fdefd3ea1e8b110f623a0f0f267ad8
  MD5:      7560544e47e0c648f8df54415de76480

Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system