On March 9, 1995 Edward Bernays died at the age of 103. His professional endeavors involved seeking to change popular attitudes and behavior by fundamentally altering social reality.[1] Since he laid the modern groundwork for deceiving the public we are for better or worse living out his legacy today.

Several years ago Project Censored directors Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff identified and explained the “truth emergency” that is among the greatest threats to civil society and human existence. This crisis is manifest in flawed (or non-existent) investigations into 9/11 and other potential false flag events, fraudulent elections, and illegal wars vis-à-vis a corporate-controlled news media that fail to adequately inform the public on such matters. While neglecting or obscuring inquiry into such events and phenomena major media disparage independent and often uncredentialed researchers as “conspiracy theorists” or, more revealingly, “truthers.”[2]

The truth emergency continues today, and social engineers like Bernays long understood the significance of undermining the use of reason, for it is only through reason that truth may be determined and evaluated. To be sure, individuals and institutions that have successfully achieved legitimacy in the public mind are recognized as having a monopoly on the capacity to reason and are thus perceived as the foremost bearers of truth and knowledge. Through the endorsement of “experts”—figures perceived as authoritative in their field—the public could easily be persuaded on anything from tobacco use and water fluoridation to military intervention abroad.

Today reason is defined one dimensionally; its relationship to truth largely taken-for-granted. Yet as Leibniz observed, reason marks our humanity, suggesting a portion of the soul capable of a priori recognition of truth. With this in mind the modern individual in the mass has been rendered at least partially soulless through her everyday deferral to the powerfully persuasive notion and representation of expertise. However narrowly focused, under the guise of objectivity the institutionally-affiliated journalist, academic, bureaucrat, and corporate spokesperson have in many instances become the portals of reason through which the public is summoned to observe “truth.”

These agents of reason are largely bereft of emotion, moderate in temperament, and speak or write in an unsurprisingly formulaic tone. The narratives they relate and play out present tragedy with the expectation of certain closure. And with a century of commercial media programming the mass mind has come to not only accept but anticipate such regulation and control under the regime of institutionally-sanctioned expertise.

The selection and arrangement of experts by corporate media guarantees a continued monopoly on “truth,” particularly when presented to an uninquisitive and politically dormant public. Yet this phenomenon extends to ostensibly more trustworthy media outlets such as public broadcasting, where a heightened utilization of credentialed expertise is required to ensure the consensus of those who perceive themselves as more refined than the Average Joe.

This preservation of what passes for reason and truth cannot be sustained without a frequent dialectical struggle with unreason and falsity. Since many individuals have unconsciously placed their genuine reasoning faculties in abeyance and often lack a valid knowledge of politics and history, their unspoken faith in government and the broader political economy to protect and further their interests is groundless. Against this milieu those genuinely capable of utilizing their reasoning capacities in the pursuit of truth are often held up as heretical for their failure to accept what is presented as reality, with the requisite “conspiracy theory” label wielded in Orwellian fashion to denote such abnormal intellectual activity.

Lacking the autonomous use of reason to recognize truth, form often trumps substance. For example, a seemingly obscure news website with unconventional graphics or an emotional news presenter purporting to discuss the day’s affairs is typically perceived as untrustworthy and illegitimate by a public conditioned to accept forms of news and information where objectivity and professionalism often camouflage disinformation.

In 2013 the truth emergency is greater than ever, and in the era of seemingly never-ending pseudo-events and Potemkin villages presented by major media as the reality with which we must contend, the application of independent reason in pursuit of truth has all too frequently been replaced with an unthinking obeisance toward the smokescreen of expertise disguising corporate power and control.


[1] Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, “Truth Emergency and Media Reform,” Daily Censored, March 31, 2009.

[2] “Edward Bernays, ‘Father of Public Relations’ and Leader in Opinion Making, Dies at 103,” New York Times, March 10, 1995.

-James F. Tracy

Leave a Reply

52 thought on “Social Engineering and the 21st Century Truth Emergency”
  1. Freud gives a simple plausible explanation for our acceptance of untruth by authority in his critique of religion THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION. According to Freud, humans have a long childhood relative to other species where we are entirely dependant on the power of our parents for our very survival. This induces a biological-cultural force for identiying with power in our infancy.

    It induces an acceptance of powerful gods, or Almighty God, who will protect us in adulthood the way our parents did in childhood. The acceptance of Divine power follows from our acceptance of family power. This is also attached to political symbols and truths as well: The Founding Fathers, the FAtherland, etc.

    Becuase of this biological-cultural wish fullfillment, we have difficulty accepting the reality-based truth when it conflicts with the power delusions purveyed by authority.

  2. James,
    I’m so glad I found your blog since I live up the road from you. I heard of you of course through the Sandy Hook saga and was happy to find out there actually are people like you in these parts. Few and far between I imagine but I’m sure you have some stimulating encounters at FAU.
    This was a great piece and I’m going to explore your whole site since I just found it yesterday. Peace and love.

  3. Excellent essay.

    We have a pseudo-democracy where the people decide by whom they shall be led, and where, on the basis of the propaganda they have been fed; the elected leaders being mere instruments of the money power that funds the election campaigns and rewards the politicians according to their service once they have left office.

    1. Your statements are correct except for the “people decide by whom they shall be led” part. Carroll Quigley admitted years ago that no U.S. president or British prime minister had been in office since the early 1900s that hadn’t been hand-picked by the Royal Institute for International Affairs whose sister branches in the U.S. and elsewhere go under different names, such as the Council on Foreign Relations. We’ve only been under the illusion that we are voting for one person or another or one party or another. That’s part of the “legal” consent they want from their subjects. They want their subjects to vote because the claim is that it’s all legal because voting means consenting to the system.

  4. I’ve ground away about this for years now, reviving the term “gleichschaltung” from Nazi Germany, which is gradually slowly being taken up by others, as well as trying to get more people to watch Evidence of Revision and The Century of the Self: Engineering of Consent.

    The problem is that we have gone through the 1984 paradigm and now we’re in the Brave New World / Brave New World Revisited paradigm where libraries and sources of truth stand dilapidated and rotting not through fascist bombing but through neglect due to a drugged and dumbed down population…

  5. Lord Betrand Russell wrote (in 1953) “The Impact of Science on Society”…in it he wrote, “..many people would sooner die than think; in fact they do. (His own kind gave us the system in which we wouldn’t be “required to think.) He went on to say that modern methods of propaganda would be most important in the future—EDUCATION and MASS PSYCHOLOGY, the PRESS, the RADIO. Religion would no longer make an impact. “It may be hoped, that in time, that anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if you can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment. Although this science will be diligently studied…it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every govt that has been in charge of education will be able to control its subjects securely without the need for armies or policemen. Russell came from a long lineage of high aristocracy which had always been involved in English affairs since the Norman invasion. He set up experimental schools which encouraged promiscuity before puberty..tested out before the 1920s…and was given permission by the establishment of the U.S. (the establishment above the gov’t.) to run these experimental schools. Listen to the archived blurb dated, June 28, 2007 on http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com…there‘s lots more to know about governments and the destruction of free will.

  6. Freud seems to have come out of the same mold as early physical anthropologists who typified our early ancestors as Killer Apes. Wild and intractable, like the Bernays films deftly portrays. What made us human? Some argued the missionary position. Others neoteny, the long child rearing period; these were just ideas in a stew of what came first, or x made y happen. A marine diet may have given us the right chemtools to explode our brain. On and on. But recently another avenue has been opened:
    Human evolution was caused by empathy.
    If so, what a nice prospect for a 21st Century social engineering project.
    Talk about thrive!
    google scholar

    1. Freud and Bernays didn’t come up with any new ideas. They were promoted by certain socio-psycho powers to do what they did and “write” what they (may or may not have) written. These ideas go far back into ancient societies and religions. The century of self only brought to the fore and to the mass man the idea that suffering (of any kind or of any amount) is to be avoided. Therefore, they brought on some of the worst and most consistent suffering the world had ever known via the many wars of the past century and the ongoing wars now. (perpetual war) They made sure that everyone, all over the planet, would see or hear the suffering brought on by those wars via movies, radio and television. They made sure that they’d have the remedy for that suffering: first the failed League of Nations, then the successful establishment of the U.N., then the conservation movement to save the planet from us, and now, the newest monsters, terrorism and climate change. The remedies? Perpetual surveillance, total information awareness, and fighting climate change (agenda 21, carbon taxes, ICLEI, greening movements) ALL of which lead to the masses heading straight to the pharma industry for prozac, zoloft, etc. BUT, that isn’t good enough and doesn’t get the desired results quickly enough and with the majority of people. More of the planet needs to be brought in line more quickly. Those pills can make you even more unhappy, perhaps suicidal. There is just too much pressure, too much unhappiness. Within 20 years, their will be a heavy push for brain chipping. No more suffering. You will lead a happy existence because you won’t know who you are, where you are or what you’re doing. You, as a separate, individual, with your own mind won’t exist. It will be sold as a great way to ease your pain of everyday living and you’ll be told you’ll be able to program the chip and jump in and out of virtual reality anytime you want. But, how will you KNOW if you are in or out of reality?

      1. Culturally, psychologically, sociologically — for Freud to work, late 19th Century’s ideas like Darwin’s natural selection, agnosticism, non-deity driven theories were important foundations for the new worldview of science without God. If there were folks out there that long ago grasped these principles, they were probably high priests or something. And then there’s post-1900 boom in moving pictures, radio and the birth of mass media.

    2. “But recently another avenue has been opened:
      Human evolution was caused by empathy.”~Spire

      Thank you for pointing this out, as this has been my opinion for a long time – one come about by my own reasoning and knowledge of both physical and cultural anthropology.


  7. Thank you for the article.

    Your paragraph where you write:

    ” For example, a seemingly obscure news website with unconventional graphics or an emotional news presenter purporting to discuss the day’s affairs is typically perceived as untrustworthy and illegitimate by a public conditioned to accept forms of news and information where objectivity and professionalism often camouflage disinformation.”

    reminds me of Pat Paulsen’s ‘editorials’ on the Smothers Brothers Show 45 years ago. The key to the humor was the absolutely dead-pan “unemotional and professional” delivery of outrageous information along with many sentences that were complete gobbledygook–but delivered smoothly and professionally.


    Century of the Self is great. It’s long but worth it. Adam Curtis’s other films are worth a view, too.

  8. This is the most profound and riveting slice of information that you have offered up to your readers thus far, Mr. Tracy.

    “Lacking the autonomous use of reason to recognize truth, form often trumps substance.” This is the reason we are suffering under such crushing spiritual, mental, emotional and physical repression.

    Here is something we should all consider and note for future reference when structuring a relevant society:
    Flotsam will always rise to the surface for it lacks substance or weight.

  9. People little understand the ‘a priori’ soul but as philosopher Michael Novak stated in ‘Free Persons and the Common Good’ beyond individualism lies personhood-a word applying to the distinctiveness of any individual who becomes an ‘originating agency of insight and choice.’ The globalist, corporatist movement had a need for such terms as ‘conspiracy theorists or truthers’ because as Novak stated, ‘no state and no society can legitimately frustrate the drive of each person for his true destination.’ Most philosophers understand this ‘clash’ because the individual is the locus of morality not the state, as W. Gairdner in his writings addressed.

    John Ralston Saul in his writings addressed the necessity of corporatism to reward and admire the control of information, referring to it as ‘tiniest fragments of specialization by the millions of specialists in their thousands of corporations, public and private.’ They see themselves as spreading knowledge but they are simply those who work with language and become ‘geniuses of dissemination’ They mistake their training or talent as ‘owning knowledge’ but they are disseminators of the hidden market forces idealogues of the corporatist movement. Saul states in ‘The Unconscious Civilization,’ ‘Today’s power uses as its primary justification for doing wrong the knowledge possessed by its experts.’ (pg 45)

    If one studies Saul, we learn that dialect today is not the old-fashioned regional dialect of language as communicating, but is a specialized, inward looking verbal mechanism of the tens of thousands of monopolies of fractured knowledge called ‘dialects of corporations.’ This phenomena of specialist dialects is what we now see as social science dialects, the medical dialects, science dialects, linguist dialects, artist dialects. Using dialect which is not language conjures up the sense that there is the expert as superior and the non-expert as inferior. Saul viewed the dialects as ‘thick defensive walls that protect each corporation’s sense of importance.’ (pg 49)

    Saul explained, ‘The purpose of such obscure language (dialect) suggests complexity which suggests importance. The dialects are thus more or less conscious weapons of self-protection and unconscious tools of self-deception.’ (pg. 49)

    Moral philosopher Irving Babbitt’s explanation that we should not put our faith in reason was an argument that echoed the ancients. ‘Each of us is made up of three levels, the highest level is spirit, the middle level is reason and the bottom level our instincts and emotions. Reason is simply a tool that we may use to help raise ourselves to a more spiritual level.’

    So you see we are in the aforementioned ‘clash’ and are the ‘clash’ because we, who are not young and impressionable, are originators of insight into the ongoing deception and as originators of choice, we choose public consciousness and the responsibility to be a conscious citizen who exposes suggested intellectual authority. Its a huge leap to take this truth to the slogan ‘conspirator’ but it is possible in a collectivist movement because using slogans (rhetoric) as persuasion and affectiveness is now our public face, the spreading of ideology (propaganda) sells it and together they force the ‘untrue’ into a normal state.

    I entered a university with the aim to study ‘The Fallacy of Logic’ for one year. I exited the course midpoint, having lost all hope for our institutions of higher learning. I lost this hope because I could recognize the exploitation of young individual’s common sense, creativity and developing ethics. The intellectual integrity of Prof. Tracy has given rise to some existing embers of hope which I thought were non-existent. The Prof fears not to criticize and stands as an icon as non-conformism in our places of higher learning. All attacks against the Prof are examples of societal equilibrium attempting to maintain tension from the illusions of ideology which attempt to mask reality. Those who criticize the Prof should be reminded about the complexity of equilibrium and the need for equilibrium which exists in every society.

  10. Perhaps their overconfidence in our state of being dumbed down will be their downfall! Who would of ever imagined the likes of all parties, right and left, Code Pink, the NRA and the ACLU, etc., would join together in agreement there is a gross overreach going on by our government? When the media blasts us with the latest fear mongering story, we see what is not there – no curtains, flooring or carpeting in an ‘occupied’ house that just swallowed a man or no ambulances or children in an ‘occupied’ school with mass murders?

  11. But now consider this, Bev. Prof Tracy is the only academic, or one of the only ones, in the thousands and thousands of scholars and scientists who has challanged the authoriized truth when it is so blatantly untrue. Isn’t that astonishing in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

    Is it conceivable that the proclaimed American ideology diviates sharlply from the operative function of Educators and Informers. That the real function of Education, Information, and Entertainment is not to enlighten the American people, but to indoctriante us to identify with the policies of power.

    And this is precisely Orwell’s point, that, under despotism, the proclaimed truth of power is precisely contrary to the operative truth. And, who knows, that this historical tendency may increase as power systems age and political systems become opsolete. The American political system being well over two centuries old.

    1. Thank you Mark,I am always open to thought provoking statements.I have studied power structures for many years now. When I observe the Prof as one among
      thousands and thousands of scholars and scientists, I am moved to remember that it only takes one match to start a forest fire. God speed that inferno because hope may only be a spark but even that can incite the kind of crisis that promises to shake up professional doldrums and remind Professors of their responsibility to teach in a manner that helps release young individuals from the conformity of corporatism.

      Is it conceivable that the proclaimed American ideology diviates sharlply from the operative function of Educators and Informers. That the real function of Education, Information, and Entertainment is not to enlighten the American people, but to indoctriante us to identify with the policies of power.

      I would think that the present ideology comes from a global root pushing collectivism and its not so much that it deviates sharply from the operative function of Educators but its tied into the complexity that the institution is aligned with various corporatist interests that acts like a force that slowly pulls learning to sophism and scholasticism which pulls and pushes professionals into a crisis with teaching and learning. This is the forces of deconstructionism carving out fractured fields of learning where its impossible to produce integrated thought because its intellectual splintering which explains academia’s passivity.

      Prof Tracy, one among thousands challenging the untrue seems to make him the match and the spark and seems to show that those pushing the collectivist forces forgot that Professors are first citizens and then professionals. The former accentuates the latter if the person is endowed with intellectual honesty, integrity and a good balance of developed intrinsic character. About all I can tell you, is if the shoes fit, wear them and walk in them…..from this view I don’t find the fact of one among thousands daunting at all…..smiles…

    1. Thanks for dropping the link to this paper on conspiracy theory. Interesting read….I can’t deny I now have a full and complete understanding of the intellectual sterilizing of ‘santa claus.’

      To counteract what seemed to me some circular arguments, inept suggestions and of course the precarious use of professional dialect I suggest a return to James post for a re-read on:

      CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term


      1. Hi Bev, I read James’ article you linked. Thanks. I’m reassured He knows what he’s up against. I think the Sunstein paper is more sinister than 1035-960. He recommends anonymous cognitive infiltration of social networks to rebut conspiracy theories. He suggests inoculating the masses. He doesn’t suggest pushing the threshold of credibility. But that I believe is the logical progression of his tactic. He stops at rebutting. I think Dr. Judy Woods – is an example of pushng to the absurd and planting doubt in even highly gulible persons. I’m not saying she’s a hired gov’t dis-informant but her theory is so implausible I think it would cause most rational persons to say, “Nahhh. She is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible. These examples pertain to 9/11.

      2. Hi Peter…thanks for sharing your thoughts and pointing out important statements from the Sunstein paper.

        I am not adverse to the studies of Dr. Judy Woods or Dr. Steven Jones because I’ve discovered over the years that containing a ‘bias’ tends to prevent the success and progress of my own research, understanding and insights into the issue of 911.
        I also understand that my research into HAARP and higher energy systems is about a technology that does exist and does lend credibility to Dr. Wood’s claims. I look at all the studies being produced and then look for plausible research on behalf of others that support reported claims.

        If your interested, the link below is to a video conference about the issue.


      3. Peter writes:

        I think Dr. Judy Woods – is an example of pushng to the absurd and planting doubt in even highly gulible persons. I’m not saying she’s a hired gov’t dis-informant but her theory is so implausible I think it would cause most rational persons to say, “Nahhh. She is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible. These examples pertain to 9/11.

        I have Dr. Wood’s textbook and have read it from cover-to-cover. I’ll be the first to admit that (IMHO) Dr. Wood purposely inserted absurd elements and distractions, which include the Hutchison Effect, free-energy from space, downplaying hot-spots, and weak nuclear analysis. In her defense, I view them as “get-out-assassination” moves. [She did lose one of her students under suspicious circumstances, and he was the one helping her with her website which kind of stagnated in 2006.]

        Her book is very crafty. Those who say “her theory” obviously haven’t read it, because she has little in this regard. She introduces concepts; she presents lots of evidence that any theory-du-jour has to adequately address in order to be considered valid. [Her textbook is worth the investment just for the collection of images and correlation to map positions to give one a much better understanding of the WTC destruction.] But she has nothing that ties together concepts or evidence into a cohesive whole or into a decisive statement: “this is how the WTC was destroyed.” Nope, it ain’t there. And also what isn’t there is anything that addresses criticism of things from her website (e.g., Dr. Jenkins), which is a shame. She could have fixed errors from her website instead of re-hashing them (e.g., cars towed to bridge). She could have addressed other concepts, like those from the Anonymous Physicist and the nuclear angle. She could have included more data points, such as other videos of the expiring spire that clearly show it “telescoping” and “falling”, yet to this day, the one viewpoint she uses suggests erronously “vaporization of steel”.

        I find it very suspicious that not a single prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever done a chapter-by-chapter book review to highlight the “the good, the bad, and the ugly.” They give sweeping dismissals using phrases like “looney”, but offer scant few details. They can’t afford to acknowledge the nuggets of truth contained in her textbook — however few and far between some might claim them to be –, because those nuggets of truth are very damning.

        Dr. Wood isn’t as wrong as most 9/11 Truthers make her out to be, though. And she does an important job of getting people to think outside-the-box.

        Peter writes (repeated):

        [Dr. Wood] is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible.

        Harsh reality for any humble seekers of 9/11 truth is that there is not a single source of reliable 9/11 information and analysis. All who became famous for their public PR tour in the 9/11 Truth Movement have issues, and Dr. Steven Jones is no exception.

        Whereas I have no issues ~believing~ that super-duper nano-thermite was found and involved in the WTC destruction, it strains credibility beyond the breaking point to attribute to it all that Dr. Jones [lets others pin to it.] He and Kevin Ryan make a convincing case that it may account for six or so spikes in gas releases from the smoldering pile, but they have no explanation for what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots. A glaring omission by Dr. Jones are the calculations of explosive materials required (A) for pulverization and (B) for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

        It doesn’t matter whether referencing pure super-duper nano-thermite or it mixed with any combination of conventional chemical explosives (e.g., RDX). That B is very pesky and represents an unspent or overkill amount from its original purpose of A. These left-over amounts if put in a pile would be consumed almost instantly due to their fast burn-rates. In order to get them to burn for several weeks, they’d need to be present under-the-rubble like some sort of a fuse. For the sake of discussion, think of an imaginary garden hose packed with such materials but ignore its diameter for the moment. In order for super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of chemical explosives to account for just four weeks of hot-spot, the imaginary garden hose would need to be several HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS miles long!!! Not possible. Not believable. Not Occam Razor.

        Ergo, something else maintain the hot-spots, and in October 2012 Dr. Jones admitted as much.

        Which leads us to another troublesome area in Dr. Jones PR tour in the 9/11 Truth Movement: his no-nukes paper. He tries to fool the world with the (tiny) skew and spin in that paper, but it doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to see its weaknesses (e.g., relying on the Tritium Report) and the purposeful logic error added as misdirection. In a nutshell, Dr. Jones tried to con us with:

        Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device.

        Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights and utter speculation into how their tritium would get into the drainage of the WTC (from the skewed Tritium Report), Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the tritium radiation signature, which is a signature of a fusion device. A glaring omission is that Dr. Jones does not speculate into neutron nuclear devices, which are fusion devices configured to allow neutrons to escape (rather than reflecting them back into the chain reaction to get a big BANG.) The escaping neutrons can be aimed, although the importance of this on 9/11 isn’t to use as a weapon, because they were aimed upwards and out of the way. The importance of this is that a fusion device configured as a neutron bomb reduces its blast and heat wave down to a tactical level. Multiple such ERW devices could be used in tandem without fracticide. AND the radiation signature would be small and short-lived, as observed!!!

        Where is Dr. Jones discussion of unique configuration of nuclear devices (e.g., neutron nuclear DEW) that could explain the sudden pulverization of the towers as well as under-rubble hot-spots (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material)? Where is Dr. Jones analysis of the dust for nuclear signatures? (Jeff Prager determined ample evidence for fission; fission-triggered-fusion as neutron devices is what we’re talking here.)

        In order for disinformation to be successful, it has to have a foundation of mostly truth. Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones both have foundations of truth… before they inserted their disinformation to mislead the world. Evidence of “nuclear anything” reduces the list of suspects-with-the-means significantly, makig it hard for the US government to keep hands clean. The message had to be contained.

        Evidence of “nuclear anything” has about the same PR stigma as a “toxic waste dump”: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that “nuclear something” was involved. Even though the spectrum of “nuclear somethings” is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The “Field of Dreams” message to Silverstein paraphrased: “If you re-build it, ain’t nobody gonna come.”

        For more information on this topic:

        – 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW

        – 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)


      4. Hi Bev,

        I have now watched more of the Judy Woods conference video you posted. She seems to be engaged in cognitive flooding – which is fine – she is examining first person accounts and tv news or bystander video and asking questions, good questions. Her exhibits are well prepared and presented but where’s the science? I have to watch more but I am resisting because she does not seem to me to be following scientific investigative protocols. Her presentation style surfeits the gawker. I have to watch more – but why don’t I want to? And is my not wanting to the desired result of work?

      5. Hi Peter….Dr. Judy Wood is an expert in interferometry in forensic science. According to her bio her main concern with 911 was evidence that there was some science afoot which could disrupt the molecular basis for matter.

        If it helps I took this from her bio page:

        In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, a large volume of witness testimony, analyses of dust samples, seismic data, and the analysis of other environmental evidence pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal Qui Tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood’s investigation and body of evidence as compiled in her book is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.

        Where’s the science? Well I suppose we could say it is in her book. I don’t know what the aim of the Holland Conference was, I just know they wanted her as a speaker and presenter.

        I think scientists of all kinds have done the best they could when access to the physical evidence/debris field, was very limited. And when access to the evidence is very limited an exploration might have to be ‘cognitive flowing.’ I guess scientists are working with what they have. Sometimes I think that it would have been a profound moment if Dr. Wood could have stood over what we saw as ‘glowing fire’ and explained it forensically. With that not allowed her expertise in forensics, stress analysis, structural mechanics and deformational analysis certainly allows us non-scientists to have some knowledge about what we were seeing and viewing.

        I can’t tell you why you don’t want to finish the video…only you know that for sure….smiles…. pardon me if this reply comes up in the wrong place.

      6. To Peter’s question, the science is in Dr. Wood’s textbook. Particularly from her early chapters, don’t waste your time trying to disprove it. Different story for later chapters, where the science numbers gets reduced as the introduction of various out-of-box concepts gets increased. The validity of those out-of-box concepts is a separate question from applicability to 9/11.

        To Ms. Bev, I recommend that you do not make too much of Dr. Wood’s federal Qui Tam case for science fraud. First, no one in the case had standing for making the case. It was destined to be thrown out. Second, her lawyers did a grave disservice for not stopping at proving that the WTC towers’ destruction was not a gravity-driven and required excess energy input. By venturing into speculative areas for which they had little proof (to this day), they poisoned the well. Third, it appears they played into the “double jeopardy” ploy to keep further trials on this theme out of court.

        Mr. Bev writes:

        Sometimes I think that it would have been a profound moment if Dr. Wood could have stood over what we saw as ‘glowing fire’ and explained it forensically.

        Permit me a small detour. Before the September Clues crew banned me, I tried to get them to debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. You see, their premise is essentially “garbage-in, garbage-out” and that Dr. Wood’s analysis relied on tainted imagery, so itself is tainted by having been so duped by tainted images. I picked out six or so images from Dr. Wood (intended as a starting point for discussions) and challenged them to find the taint.

        Three of the six images came up as suspect. (Of course, because September Clues were arguing 100% tainted imagery, only getting their rational thought to rise to finding the taint in 50% of this tiny subset was part of the upset.)


        I bring this up, because the “glowing fires” over which you want Dr. Wood to stand and explain are (IMHO) some of the exact same tainted images that should be questioned for validity; it is indeed an area of her publication that I consider “garbage-in, garbage-out.”

        Multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices explains a lot of evidence presented in Dr. Wood’s book, such as the vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot but no damage to the flags or leaves of trees. I believe escaping line-of-sight electromagnetic pulses [EMP] from the ignition of the neutron nuclear devices explains this phenomenon. The damaged cars at the bridge are notable for their damage (plus point), but Dr. Wood misleads by suggesting they were damaged at the bridge as opposed to the fact that they (such as the police car with open trunk) were damaged elsewhere and towed to the bridge as a staging area (minus point). She discusses the blown up power relay station near the bridge (plus point) but speculation into errant directed energy from the DEW devices in the towers is also unsubstantiated and misleading (minus point). I think its significance is in showing coordination in various military actions; the downed power relay station together with what was taken out at the WTC hampered any automated fire-suppression efforts. Similarly, she discusses Hurricane Erin (plus point) but suggests this is the power source for a DEW device (minus point). I think the significance of the hurricane is that they proved they could control the weather and control the weathermen; the hurricane may have been a back-up plan to really help wipe out any pesky evidence, should events have gone not according to plan.

        Dr. Wood is correct in getting us to consider the magnitude of the energy requirements for pulverization (plus point), but makes unsubstantiated hints about Tesla energy from space, about energy from Hurricane Erin, but ~not~ about energy from nuclear devices that would be more easily come by and understood (minus point).

        If we desire a profound moment from Dr. Wood, I would like to see version 2 of her book (a) address the valid criticism [like from Dr. Jenkins regarding energy requirements for steel vaporization to the extent that Dr. Wood wants readers to believe and that her collected pictures prove didn’t happen], (b) fix obvious errors [like the vehicles towed to the bridge staging area, like the spire telescoping down], (c)_ address concepts of the Anonymous Physicist, (d) address tainted images and/or reports on which she bases her analysis…

        When reader approach Dr. Wood’s textbook as if it contained disinformation, they will have the proper mindset to be wary of what might not be true, but this exercise also requires that acknowledgment be given to that which remains true and which remains valid for deeper contemplation. This holds for watching her videos as well.


      7. Thanks Senor….I’ll take that as good advice seeing I was not privy to the situation you speak of that caused you to be banned from discussion.

        Could you further explain….Multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices…??

      8. Dear Ms. Bev, you asked:

        Could you further explain… Multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices…??

        The mal-framing that many 9/11 tour leaders used to supposedly debunk 9/11 being nuclear was to say “large nukes”. Even Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Dr. Ward do this to a degree. Obviously, big nukes weren’t used, else we would have seen whole city blocks decimated in one go.

        The problems with using multiple nuclear devices (mini-nukes) are (a) it is very difficult to achieve low blast/heat yields that use the energy efficiently and (b) assuming low-yields are possible, the first of multiple devices can knock out and fracticide the others, making them fizzle and not reach their full expected nuclear output yield.

        I believe that the low-yield issue was solved by making the nucluear devices versions of the neutron bomb (or ERW, for enhanced radiation weapon). In this configuration, the highly energetic neutrons are ~not~ contained within the device to achieve larger and larger output yields. Instead, they are allowed to escape (using the energy very inefficiently). This reduces significantly the output yield in terms of blast and heat wave, as the bulk of the excessive energy is vented via the escaping neutrons.

        More importantly for 9/11, the neutrons can be targeted or directed, making them fit into the DEW classification. Energy (in the form of the neutrons) is being directed in a useful fashion. The catch is that the neutrons aren’t targeted at people or things (which is how X-rays lasers from Star Wars and neutron bombs are framed). Neutron bombs often talk about kills life forms but saves infrastructure, which isn’t strictly true; the infrastructure it doesn’t destroy is only hardened military ones.

        The aiming of the neutrons upwards allows another 9/11 benefit by not killing neighboring neutron devices below them. In this manner, multiple neutron devices can be used in tandem to achieve the top-down decimation observed.

        However, this wasn’t 100% the case on 9/11. The duration that under-rubble hot-spots burned suggests strongly that their source was unspent but fizzling nuclear material. Clean-up actions depicted in Dr. Wood book, plus the tight blanket of security at the WTC, suggest nuclear contingencies.

        You can look up “neutron bombs”, but be mindful of the limited application space they frame them for, like battlefields or detonation in the atmosphere to kill life forms. Be mindful of the intention to use ~all~ of the energy efficiently. On 9/11, they purposely let the lion’s share of the energy escape or be vented away (inefficient energy usage). But Hey, the extra energy came for free or at no cost from the nuclear reaction, so throwing most of it away is no biggie.

        – 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW

        – 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)

        I’d write more, but I’m leaving on Spring Break with the family. Just a heads-up if I seem to disappear for awhile or if my responses are tardy.


      9. @Señor El Once, thank you for your contribution to this conversation. I looked at your website and was very impressed with the work but nuclear fusion is over my head and puts me to sleep not because it’s impossible but because if it’s true, it’s hopeless and I am in no position to figure it out. When the conversation touches on the science of fusion I’m snoring – but that’s just me, someone who knows nuclear science could engage in that conversation. I hope you’ll enjoy your spring break.

    2. Thank you for the Cass Sunstein clip.

      Surely an example of disgusting, arrogant, abhorrent behavior.

      Disgusting because he is playing the part of a coward and refuses to even acknowledge that he wrote such nonsense.

      Arrogant because it is he and other elites that will tell us what the ‘truth’ really is and that other narratives, he advocates, are to be punished by the state.

      Abhorrent because, in this trash article excreted from his diseased mind, he is actually supporting on-line government-paid trolls to propagandize the American people.

      This is a real question for all those people on the fence about Professor Tracy – other than Luke Rakowski shoving a microphone in this creep’s face, did any other newspaper or television news outlet cover this unbelievable stupidity by this Presidential appointment?

      1. Why are you being politically correct on a truth blog?

        When people lie, are they not liars and shouldn’t we be outraged?

        When people don’t own up to what they’ve done, are they not cowards?

        Forget the nice philosophical discussion. Your words – maybe it’s time for Americans to realize we’re being duped and let’s begin to name names.

        Cass Sunstein was our Minister of Propaganda and you know it.

        For a guy quoting “1984,” and who is indirectly telling us it’s here with us today, wouldn’t you expect people to be angry and write with emotion?

  12. I am a very big fan of music. It can help people, see what perhaps what they can’t perceive by listening to mainstream music or media. Listening to the protest songs of the 60’s and 70’s helps to keep me grounded and ever mindful, of how far we have come and how we have yet to go. Listen to “Smling Faces” right now by Undisputed Truth.

    1. Here journalist Glen Greenwald analyzes Cass Sunstein and his 2008 paper “Conspiracy Theories”, excerpt:

      “Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists…”


        1. Thank you, Minna. This looks like an excellent resource. Sunstein justifies his cognitive infiltration scheme by claiming that some person’s holding “false conspiracy theories” may become violent and he uses the example of Timothy McVeigh. But from what I recall his motives were not based on “false conspiracy theories”, but rather, a direct response to the death’s caused by federal ATF agents in Waco, and the gov’t’s explicit motives in that action, to disarm David Koresh. Maybe someone reading this can enlighten me on McVeigh’s false conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, today, this is happening: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo and http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-gun-backlog-20130307,0,1291214.story

        2. Isn’t it ironic that there would have to be manual for undermining the 9/11 Truther movement, at the same time that the government claims there is nothing to any of those questions or accusations? Seriously, if there is ‘nothing to see’, why try to discredit the folks who think there is something to see? Why not just open it all up to view and cooperate, until everyone realizes for themselves there is nothing there.

          Or, why not address all of the questions directly, and provide answers that hold up to scrutiny? That is, if it’s possible to do that. But since we have a ‘discredit’ manual here, apparently the questions are all valid.

      1. Peter, David Ray Griffin perceives that Sunstein’s paper is addressed to 9-11 Truthers, so he doesn’t mention Timothy McVeigh in his book. I will have to read Sunstein’s article to understand what he said about McVeigh, but I see a common tie, as Sunstein talks about the possibility of Extremists groups becoming violent, thereby seeing a need for cognitive infiltration. Griffin does point out how this paper, if carried out, will disable the First Amendment, as we all know, and as we know that it is quite possible that this cognitive infiltration has been going on for a very long time anyway.. I have read Griffin’s book twice. It is a mind bender, and I think I need to read it again.

      2. Peter, in his book, Dr. Griffin lists the ten theses that Sunstein gives in his article, and then goes on, chapter by chapter, to address each one from two different levels: one, as one would obtain by reading each thesis at face value, which Griffin terms the Exoteric meaning, and the other on a more hidden level, which he calls the Esoteric meaning or level.
        I won’t say more about it all because I don’t want to give away the ending for those who are interested in reading the book. Needless to say, the book is complex, yet brilliant. I believe that one would have to read the book himself to grasp Griffin’s intent for writing it in this manner. (If you are itching to know more about it, however, one can discern what is going on with it by reading the reviews of it on Amazon.

        Rev. Dave, I thought you would enjoy this: In this book Dr. Griffin quotes Media Studies professor Mark Crispin Miller: “If Sunstein (and his allies) gave a hoot about the truth, they’d try to test those dreaded `theories’ in the most effective way–not by setting up a covert force of cyber-moles, but by joining all the rest of us in calling for a new commission to look into 9/11, airing all of the evidence that’s been so long ignored and/or suppressed, and entertaining all those questions that the first commission either answered laughably or just shrugged off. That would be the democratic way to deal with it.”

  13. Philip Zelikow, a character who must be familiar to some readers of this blog, uses the phrase “public presumption” to name the set of historical references—and regards toward them—that unconsciously frames the public’s understanding of events. Control public presumption, and you pretty much control the public.

    Extended commentary on Zelikow’s analysis of this, linking it to the CFR and to DARPA research into “Narrative Networks” is at http://starlarvae.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-official-story-narrating-public.html

    DARPA is seriously looking into how narratives affect brain function.

    1. oooohh. Zelikow!! Step by step, inch by inch … [cut Snidley Whiplash (stage right)]. The words/concepts I grew up on was, “Truth, Justice and the American Way,” with a guy in a cape in front of a flag. Kinda still works for me, except for the guy with the cape. It was always important that truth and justice preceded the national slant.

  14. As far as I can tell, Bernays himself was not inherently evil – but his work has been used for all sorts of inherent evils. Its reminiscent of the history of atomic energy.

  15. Thanks JT… You have, along with others…inspired me to create my own video/accounting……. I work in a field unrelated to journalism, but i think in the future this may be my direction.

  16. Isn’t the word ‘propaganda’ painted on the side of refuse containers in Latin Countries? That’s where all mainstream newspapers belong, in the ‘refuse’ can – I wouldn’t line my birdcages with them, for fear my birds might become despondent or brain dead like the People who read & actually believe what they read in there is the truth or is nothing more than what the elite factions want us to believe in & is somehow relevant to our lives. Pathetic are the apathetic (the docile & acquiescent minds of the unsuspecting populace) who are only put into motion by the subliminal stimulation of an emotion. Common sense is lacking (‘not common’) anymore. When People stop believing in lies, our children may have permission to live in the truth. You aren’t alone JT & your efforts to reveal these truths are appreciated by those of us who welcome the unfolding disintegration of the ages-old paradigm of unending corruption & incessant lies. The truth about all of this that is emerging presently, will reveal the agenda & unveil the intentions behind the manipulation of mankind, and expose the culprits, so that the ‘few’ who erroneously believe that they have a right to rule over & in fact ‘own’ humanity & claim to be ‘better’ able than the rest of us to run our own lives for us is way past the pull date. The Pope steps down to avoid an arrest on charges of crimes against humanity & I wonder who’s next? Good riddance to the inbred elite cabal behind this. How did John F Kennedy put it (one week before he was murdered!) He said, “There is a plot in this Country to enslave every man, woman & child. And before I leave this high & noble office, I intend to expose this plot.” Too bad the criminals behind said ‘plot’ decided that his death was more valuable to their ends, than ever exposing the inevitable. Thanks JFK – your ‘high & noble’ intentions weren’t wasted – it just took some time to reach the collective, that’s all.

      1. James, What is the “threat” and “danger” that Kennedy is referring to in this speech and what were the “events of recent weeks” prior to April 27, 1961?

        “…My topic tonight is a more sober one, of concern to publishers as well as editors. I want to about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for our future, for reducing this threat, or living with it, there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival or security…”

Leave a Reply