Viktor Schauberger: Comprehend and Copy Nature

"Viktor Schauberger (1885 — 1958) was an exceptional inventor and scientist. His body of work revolves around water and it’s natural behavior and inherent energy. This profound understanding of an elemental force is rooted in years of field observation during his years as a forest ranger. Instead of pursuing an academic career he relied on his power of observation and came to powerful conclusions that challenge conventional perceptions of science."
http://doorofperception.com/2013/07/viktor-schauberger-comprehend-and-copy-nature/

Viktor Schauberger made an extraordinary contribution to knowledge of the natural world.

He intuited what we now recognise as the quantum or subtle energy effects of water. His understanding was built up from shamanic and experiential observation of Nature in the untamed Alpine wilderness. His motto: “Observe and Copy Nature”.

http://viktorschauberger.net/

Classified Free Energy Technology Revealed on 9/11 - IRREFUTABLE by Adam Dwyer

IRREFUTABLE: Classified Free Energy Technology Revealed to the World - FULL MOVIE (Episode 1-5) by Adam Dwyer http://irrefutable.tv

For a forensic study of what happened to seven World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001, read the book "Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" by Dr. Judy Wood. http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise. http://drjudywood.com


Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html

Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 1 (110-stories, 500,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 2 (110-stories, 500,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 2.1 -- without p-wave or s-wave

SEISMIC IMPACT FOR WTC 7 (47-stories, 230,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 0.6 -- without p-wave or s-wave

A 0.6 seismic reading can be referred to as a "microearthquake" and is of such a low magnitude that it is indiscernible from natural tectonic origins. How can a 47-story building be destroyed and leave a seismic signal that is not distinct from natural causes?

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

*For comparison: Seismic Impact for Seattle Kingdome Collapse (130,000 tons): Local Magnitude (ML) 2.3 -- with p-wave and s-wave

Surface waves were recorded, but no primary or secondary waves of any significance were recorded at the local seismic stations. Why?

Emergency Medical Technician Michael Ober: "I don't remember the sound of the building hitting the ground. Somebody told me that it was measured on the Richter scale, I don't know how true that is. If the building is hitting the ground that hard, how do I not remember the sound of it?" --Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, pg 157

16 Survivors at Stairwell B:
http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035963/9-11-Anniversary-Miraculous-escape-16-trapped-North-Towers-Stairwell-B.html

Tritium at WTC: https://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/240430.pdf

Magnetometer data: http://magnet.gi.alaska.edu/table_index/2001_table.html

Free Energy Mechanics Documented: The Race To Zero Point

Lloyd Pye's Intervention Theory: The History of Epigenetic Manipulation in Human DNA

Lloyd Pye (1946-2013) was a researcher, author, and lecturer best known for his unique insights on Intervention Theory, the theory that aliens played a part in the development of human life on Earth, and his work with an unusual 900 year old skull known as the Starchild Skull.

Lloyd Pye sadly passed away on December 9th, 2013, but he left behind him a legacy of intriguing work, which you can explore on this website.

His main areas of expertise were hominoids (pre-humans and their modern-day counterparts such as bigfoot, sasquatch, and yeti), megaliths (pyramids etc.), the origins of life on Earth, human origins, alien intervention, and the Starchild Skull.

_____
Intervention Theory challenges Creationism, Intelligent Design and Evolution, by offering a fact-based explanation of how life and humans came to be on Earth. The eBook shows that much of what mainstream science professes is wrong, often in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its revelations are astonishing, but are presented in simple terms and concepts that anyone will be able to comprehend. http://lloydpye.com/interventionebook.html

Bible Fused To Steel on 9/11 - Explained By Photographer Joel Meyerowitz

Paper of a surviving bible fused to a piece of steel was found in the debris at Ground Zero shortly after 9/11 by an unnamed fireman. Shortly after this artifact was found, it was given to Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer at Ground Zero. In 2010, Meyerowitz decided to give it to the 9/11 Memorial Museum so that history would not be forgotten.


The bible is turned to a passage of Saint Matthew, Chapter 5, in which we find this verse:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. [Matthew 5:37-42]

The paper is fused to a piece of steel. This is astonishing. How could paper fuse to steel? The flash point of paper is 218°-246°C, while the melting point of steel is 1100°-1600°C. Heat cannot be the explanation of this phenomena. What could possibly explain this?






Read the only available forensic study into the destruction of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by Dr. Judy Wood, entitled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11. http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy

Universal Appeal for Support for New Energy Science and Technology by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove

Universal Appeal for Support

for New Energy Science and Technology

by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove President, New Energy Foundation, Inc. Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine

TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE WORLD who have open-minded curiosity, good will, good judgment, and imagination. To Scientists and Engineers, Philanthropists, Environmentalists, Energy Developers, High Technology Investors, Healthcare Professionals, Journalists, Artists, Writers, Business People, Entertainers, and Political Leaders. Whether you are Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Anarchist, and whether you may be Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, or some other category of spirituality, this message is directed to all people of good will like you …

Dear Friend:
Here are some thoughts by wise thinkers—background for this urgent appeal for your consideration and support of research and development of radically new forms of energy. These are energy sources that have the potential to turn the present world order upside down and bring about a bright new day for civilization:

“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way. “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

Richard P. Feynman (1963), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1965)

The progress of physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in which he finds them.

Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)

American Nobel Laureate in Physics (1988) Leon M. Lederman is no proponent of research into radical forms of new energy; one might accurately call him a “pathological skeptic” based on at least one opinion he has voiced (see The God Particle, 1993, p.122). Nonetheless, he somehow senses that a physics revolution may be upon us. He said recently, “You can smell discovery in the air…The sense of imminent revolution is very strong.” (New York Times, November 11, 2003, p.D12). He is much more accurate than he can imagine, but not at all for reasons that he would readily accept! Perhaps he may be thinking of esoteric academic physics subjects such “string theory” or “cosmic dark energy,” but certainly not practical technologies based on radical new physics. Having the intellectual problems identified by physics Nobel Laureate P. W. Bridgman in the quotation above, Lederman has not been looking at a large body of research that will indeed revolutionize the foundations of physics and give us command of fantastic new forms of energy. Too bad for Lederman; and too bad for us all that he has not been paying attention. We could use the support of people like Lederman…if they would only come to their senses, that is, examine open-mindedly the validity of experimental data that challenges their cherished theories.
In an article in Science, November 1, 2002, eighteen experts reported that they examined all the conventionally understood alternatives to fossil fuels and found them all to have “severe deficiencies” in their ability to deal with environmental problems while also being adequate to growing planetary energy needs. Physics Professor Martin Hoffert, leader of that research group, told the press that the United States would have to undertake an urgent energy research crash program, like the Manhattan atomic bomb project or the Apollo lunar missions. According to the New York Times (November 4, 2003, D1), Hoffert stated that we would need “Maybe six or seven of them [massive projects] operating simultaneously…We should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10 to 15 years.” Well, I have news for these experts: The solutions to our energy problems are very close at hand, and they do require initial research and funding, but not the billions of dollars that such Establishment “experts” are accustomed to from government largesse. Rather, all that is needed perhaps are only several tens of millions of dollars to create robust prototype electric power generators based on new energy physics discoveries that have already been made. That is what this Appeal for Support is all about: to raise consciousness and funding for these radical alternative new energy sources.


Question: Do you believe that it is possible that modern science has overlooked or ignored major scientific discoveries, which—if developed into technologies— would revolutionize almost every aspect of civilization? It has!
I will not catalogue the many horrors and troubles of this world that could be reduced or eliminated with an abundant, safe, and clean, radically new form of energy, if it were to be embodied in widely used technologies. You know these troubles already. But I do want to tell you about a significant path toward solving many of these problems, which we can all begin to take now, but about which you may have heard very little. You may have thought that no such path could exist. Let me assure you that it does and that thousands of researchers are already on it. They have traveled this unbeaten path to a new era for far too long without adequate support. I should know, I happen to be one of them. Yes, we have not reached our goals, but thanks to meticulous scientific research, huge sacrifices, and tireless work against great opposition, these objectives are now much closer to being realized. The basic scientific direction of the path forward has already been mapped out. We need your support to go further on the path and reach our common destination: A world of abundant, clean, and safe energy from sources that have no centralized geopolitical control.
Please attend to this appeal. I am most certainly not asking you to accept my claims at face value. But you must read, consider, study or review the compendious referenced material, investigate it, and then, I hope, you will be moved to take action. If you still have questions about these claims that need answering, I and my colleagues are available to answer them with facts, not hand-waving.
Who am I to ask anything of you on behalf of others, whether your attention for these brief moments, or for your financial and moral support? I am a scientist and an engineer with two engineering degrees from MIT (1969, 1970) and a doctorate from the Harvard University School of Public Health (1975). I have worked all my adult life as a dedicated scientist, despite my engineer’s stripes. I have always sought to learn how the cosmos really works, and I find this process to be an exciting, difficult, and unending adventure, despite those who so erroneously claim that we are approaching “The End of Science” or a “Final Theory of Everything.” Apart from my work in government-funded research at MIT and Harvard and later in corporate settings, I have also broadened my horizons by writing about science as an author and a journalist. Articles by me and about me have appeared in such venues as MIT Technology Review, The Washington Post Sunday “Outlook” section, the New York Times, Popular Science, Analog, TWA Ambassador in-flight magazine, Wired, and New Hampshire Magazine. I have appeared on many national radio programs, and for a time in the mid-1980s I was proud to have been a regular science and technology broadcaster for The Voice of America.
I am telling you something about me, not to elevate myself, but to convey to you something of my experience, sincerity, and integrity. I have written three acclaimed science books for the general public: The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987, St. Martin’s Press), The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (1989, John Wiley & Sons, with co-author Dr. Gregory Matloff), and Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (1991, John Wiley & Sons). The late Nobel Laureate in physics (1965) Julian Schwinger endorsed my book Fire from Ice with these words: “Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconceptions, he bares the truth implicit in a provocative variety of experiments.” (He shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Richard P. Feynman and Sin Itiro Tomanaga.) I am most proud of this latter book, because it began a jarring quest that led to finding out not only dramatic new truths about new accessible forms of energy in nature, but more important for me and you, the following most astonishing truth about modern “official” science: Official science is not really intent on truly expanding scientific knowledge, in particular when some very, very fundamental scientific dogmas and theories are put at risk.
Here is how one famous nuclear science professor at my alma mater MIT reacted to my request to him in 1991 to study the summary reports from two pioneering Ph.D. scientists, who had compiled seminal reviews about frontier experiments in low-energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. “cold fusion”). One of the reviewing scientists was 34-year veteran researcher at our Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the other was a leader of research at India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC):

“I have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not!…I will not look at any more evidence! It’s all junk!” —MIT Prof. Herman Feshbach, May 1991, on the telephone to Dr. Mallove

I hope you recognize that the late Professor Feshbach’s most unfortunate and ill-considered reaction was fundamentally unscientific. It reminds me of the Church leaders at the time of Galileo, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the Moon or at Jupiter, because they “knew” that nothing new could be seen! Yes, many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have become in many ways mere “technicians of science,” and guardians of what amounts to a pernicious “Holy Writ.” Don’t bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!
If by chance you are one of those who believe that “all is well in the house of science” and that “official science” can be counted on to behave itself and always seek the truth—even in matters of central, overarching importance to the well-being of humankind—you are sorely mistaken, and I could prove that to you with compendious documentation. (If you want to read what happened at just one institution, MIT, when a paradigm shift threatened established hot fusion research programs and “vested intellectual interests” such as those Prof. Feshbach so vehemently defended, read my 55-page report about this monumental tragedy at www.infinite-energy.com.) But as a first step, you should reflect on the broader history of science, which is so fraught with revolutionary leaps and paradigm shifts. These have often been made against great opposition—with revolutionary data staring an older, unaccepting generation of scientists right in the face! Read this Appeal carefully and then reconsider your opinion about who is telling the truth and who is defending falsehood about revolutionary new prospects for science and civilization.
For almost nine years I have been the editor of Infinite Energy, the magazine of new energy science and technology. Though it is now small in circulation, Infinite Energy is received worldwide in some forty countries. And, Infinite Energy is distributed to newsstands across the United States and Canada. My friend and colleague, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, has supported with words and resources some of our efforts on behalf of new energy. The research that Infinite Energy covers suggests that there are at least three major categories of radically new sources of energy that civilization is on the verge of being able to tap and reduce to practical technologies. These are the completely new forms of energy for which this Appeal for Support is being issued. New Energy is the term that we apply to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the “scientific establishment,” but for which overwhelming and compelling evidence exists, we suggest, in at least these major categories:


Category 1. New hydrogen physics (a.k.a. “cold fusion,” more generally Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions or LENR, “hydrino” physics, and other water-based energy sources.)

Copious technical and other information about this research may be found on these two diverse websites: www.lenr-canr.org and www.blacklightpower.com as well as our own site, www.infinite-energy.com. The upshot of this energy-from-water field is that within ordinary water there is a heretofore unimaginably large energy reservoir that may be as great as 300 gallons of gasoline energy equivalent within each gallon of plain water! This energy would be non-polluting, would have no hazardous radiation, and would, in effect, have a zero fuel cost. Only one cubic kilometer of ocean water would provide energy equivalent to all the known oil reserves on Earth. In responding to a special plea by Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the White House requested from me a technically-based Memorandum on this topic in February 2000. This 8,500-word Memorandum, “The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age,” was submitted to the Clinton Administration and later to the Bush Administration. It is now posted on www.infinite-energy.com. It asks for a review of the substantial evidence—in particular the copious evidence developed over the past 14 years in U.S. Federal laboratories—for this category of anomalous new physics energy. Unfortunately, apart from polite “Thank You” notes, no discernable action has been taken by either administration. The 10^th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10) was held near and at MIT in August 2003. Actual public demonstrations of excess energy production in electrolytic cells occurred at MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Wall Street Journal science journalist Sharon Begley attended ICCF10 and wrote a fine column in the September 5, 2003 issue of WSJ, “Cold Fusion Isn’t Dead, It’s Withering From Scientific Neglect.” Among other surprising technical developments at ICCF10 was the presentation by a well-funded Israeli corporation, Energetics Technologies, which appears to have made enormous strides in overcoming some of the problems with the low-energy nuclear reactions phenomenon. Isn’t it time that the experimental data from this significant field of scientific work is reviewed by an unbiased panel, unlike the rush-to-judgment hostile group in 1989, which inexcusably botched that investigation? Why aren’t the many politicians who have been informed about this taking action? Are they perhaps fearful of the all-to-common “sneer review” from the Scientific Establishment?
Category 2. Vacuum energy, Zero Point Energy or “ZPE” for short, aether energy, or space energy.

These are descriptions of vast energy sources from the vacuum state. Information about this most radical and paradigm-shattering physics and technology research can be found on websites: www.aetherometry.com, www.energyscience.co.uk, and www.aethera.org. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in the Toronto area obtained three US patents on an astonishing technological device, the so-called Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD^TM) reactor. In its several embodiments, it already produces kilowatt-level electrical, thermal, and mechanical output power. A Quicktime video of one such device, working in 2003, may be viewed at www.aetherometry.com/cat-abrimedia.html. Successful testing of the PAGD by outside parties, including Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Ontario Hydro, regrettably did not lead to commercial arrangements to further the development of this scientific wonder, which has been meticulously documented in the three United States-granted Correa patents. (Uri Soudak, former Chief Technology Officer of IAI, is still involved with the project here in the U.S.) The Correas and Dr. Harold Aspden, IBM’s former chief of patent operations in Europe (from 1963 to 1983), have provided convincing theoretical explanations, based on concrete experiments with a variety of fundamental phenomena, all of which illuminate how this unsuspected vacuum state energy can be extracted by the PAGD reactor. The advent (possibly in only 2-3 years) of self-sustaining electrical power-generating units in the multi-kilowatt power range appears to be only a matter of gathering a relatively small amount of engineering/scientific development funding, in the low several tens of million dollars range.
Category 3. Environmental energy, i.e. energy from sensible thermal energy (in particular, energy of molecular motion), through significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Proceedings of an important scientific conference dealing with this subject gives great insight into this work: Quantum Limits to the Second Law: First International Conference on Quantum Limits to the Second Law (San Diego, CA, July 28-31, 2002), Professor Daniel P. Sheehan, Editor, American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings, #643, 2002. A strong consensus of a significant number of the scientist attendees, as reported by the author, is that it will be possible to make utilitarian machines that convert the thermal energy in the environment to useful work, without a lower temperature reservoir to dump waste heat. This would be in direct contravention of the supposedly sacrosanct Second Law of Thermodynamics. These devices would be nearly perfect “free energy” machines. Accurate simulations of such devices have been carried out and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of the authors predict that such prototype devices could be reduced to small prototype units within five years.
The foregoing brief descriptions of the three categories of New Energy identified so far is only the tip of the iceberg of the verifiable and testable information that is available on these energy sources. It is amenable to critical and precise scientific review. Of course, if the Scientific Establishment trusts only in its textbook theories and if disbelieving people of good will who have the means to move this work forward choose “not to look through the telescope,” the consequences will be that these wondrous technologies will not be developed as rapidly as they could have been otherwise—or they may not be developed at all! This has been and will be a monumental tragedy for virtually every category of human experience, all of which would be transformed by these now apparently “unwanted” discoveries.
I could write much more in this memorandum about the corrupt machinations within the supposedly well-ordered and ethical house of science, actions that have kept the information that Infinite Energy publishes from where it should be: prominently considered in such publications as Science and Nature. Don’t worry, many, many peer-reviewed technical publications have indeed courageously published pioneering technical papers about new energy, but the prominent mainstream publications that set the boundaries of the public scientific discourse—journals such as Science and Nature—reject without review any and all papers that challenge the foundational paradigms of physics, chemistry, and biology. You may find that difficult to believe, as I would have a mere fifteen years ago when I wrote Fire from Ice, but it is a sad and demonstrable truth. Let us not dwell on that, however, but rather move forward together with an end-run around this grotesque, anti-scientific obstruction.
Infinite Energy Magazine has been published bi-monthly since March 1995 and I have been its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher since that time. It is a technical magazine with editorial outreach to the general public as well. Many of its articles are very accessible to laypeople and non-specialists. You may download for free some 117 pages of representative sample articles, which we have gathered together for you at www.infinite-energy.com. Other key articles are posted for free downloading on our website on a continuing basis. To maintain the highest editorial standards, Infinite Energy is written and edited by scientists, engineers, and expert journalists. It is aimed at pioneering scientists, engineers, business people, environmentalists, philanthropists, and investors who are concerned about an exciting R&D area that we believe will change the world dramatically.
New Energy Foundation, Inc. (NEF) is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) public charity corporation, based in New Hampshire; it has a five-member board of respected citizens. (Prior to July 2003, Infinite Energy had operated under a for-profit corporation.) NEF also has a research grant-awarding function, which was initiated in 2003. NEF dispenses to outside researchers and developers carefully targeted research and development funding grants from its reserves of charitable contributions. These funds are beginning to grow, but are nowhere near the level they need to be.
The current subscription price and newsstand price of Infinite Energy provides less than 30% of what it costs to carry on a publication of this quality at the frontiers of knowledge—and for which no significant advertising base yet exists. And this frontier knowledge is neglected (and not infrequently mocked) by most of the scientific and media establishments. Therefore, charitable contributions are needed to carry on this important information networking function. Here is the other basic motivation for NEF: It has been far too difficult (so far) to persuade venture capital to invest in new energy technology that is not quite ready yet for “prime time,” so the vicious Catch 22 (“We won't invest because it is not successful already.”) must be broken. We appeal to the humanitarian and charitable instincts of those in a position to invest charitably in and/or to spread the word about the most fundamental aspect of our future: The triumph of truth over falsehood on the frontiers of science—in which the new energy field, in our view, will be the first paradigm-shattering example.
What we have today in the fiery menace of hydrocarbon fuels and its associated geopolitical nightmare is very ugly indeed. There is almost no area of human activity that would not be dramatically affected by the advent of new energy technology—especially matters of war or peace and health and the environment. Therefore, if your review of the referenced material convinces you that this is a reality and not “pathological science,” as the unrepentant critics—who have not studied the scientific findings objectively or at all—would have you believe, we hope that you will view your tax-deductible support of the New Energy Foundation as a significant investment in your future, for your loved ones and for civilization at large. Just try to imagine our world twenty or fifty years hence without the advent of a dramatic source of new energy such as low-energy nuclear reactions, aether energy (or Zero Point Energy/space energy/vacuum energy, if you prefer), or some other very powerful new physics energy source. It is not a pleasant picture.
What about solar power, wind power, or hydrogen fuel cells, you ask? Those are fine, and Infinite Energy devotes some smaller space to writing about these. But a future of abundant, clean energy has almost no chance of emerging from the well-intentioned, beneficial, but extremely limited world of wind-power, photovoltaics, hydropower, and other conventional renewables. And the so-called controlled hot fusion tokamak reactor program, which is lavishly funded with billions of dollars by governments to the exclusion of workable new energy science and technology, will never bring about an era of clean abundant energy from the heavy hydrogen in water. Conventional hydrogen fuel cells, which are widely discussed by the news media today, rely on the conventionally understood energy from hydrogen when it combines with oxygen to form water. This is thousands to millions of times less powerful per gram of hydrogen than already demonstrated new energy sources! Furthermore, the hydrogen for conventional fuel cells must come from some other energy source that must be used to break down abundant water to get hydrogen fuel (if we reject the other hydrogen source: hydrocarbon fuel). But in all conventional hydrogen fuel processes using water as the starting material, this requires more energy than one gets back when the hydrogen is consumed. So ordinary “hydrogen power” is a misnomer at best—it is no solution at all to the world’s real energy needs. Hydrogen, conventionally employed, is an energy storage medium period. New Energy Foundation supports radically new forms of energy, not the relatively weak examples of alternative energy within conventional renewables. We acknowledge, of course, that there are now no robust new energy devices on the market—not yet. But when adequate, well-targeted research funding is applied, a revolution in energy technology will occur that will dwarf the personal computer revolution in intensity. It will have much in common with that revolution too, since power sources will be highly distributed. The very troublesome and erratic power grid is doomed to obsolescence.
At this time, New Energy Foundation is in need of financial support from a broader community than heretofore. NEF disseminates information about potentially world-changing technologies—about the science, technology, patents, investment, and politics thereof; we measure and investigate new claims about new energy devices to determine whether they are sound. This latter can be tough, because there is no question that there is much bogus “free energy noise” that obscures the good research. Most important, we are now processing grant applications by scientists and inventors from around the world, so that the most promising work—now highly under-funded, due to the very heretical nature of this work—gets the financial support that it so much deserves. We are very demanding about these grants; we insist that the research must be headed in the direction of developing publishable scientific results and/or actual commercially useful technologies that operate on new scientific energy principles.
Please help us today, either with your financial contribution—of any size—or by passing along this letter and our message to those who may be better able to help NEF. Whatever you or they can afford, no matter how small an amount, will be deeply appreciated—and will be acknowledged in the pages of Infinite Energy (unless you or others tell us that anonymity is requested). Some day we will live in a world in which the discoveries of New Energy science will be taken for granted. No one will be able to deny the devices, processes, and science, whose validation we are struggling so hard to achieve. In some sense, we will then have succeeded in our mission and thus will have “put ourselves out of business.” Those scientific publications and general media, which should have been dealing fairly with this topic all along, will then be forced to write about it and recant past inexcusable excessive skepticism. Billions of dollars in R&D money will then flow from corporations and individuals, as should have been happening already based on what scientists have already discovered! The huge funding for infrastructure conversion to New Energy will flow naturally from private sources, as it has in the rise of the personal computer and Internet industry. Nothing would make me happier than to have that day come. But until then, we very much need increased financial support.
We would like to reach soon our target of at least $500,000 per year in approved research funding for New Energy. That may not seem like a lot of money to do significant research, but let me assure you that even this amount—wisely distributed to the best researchers—could soon begin to have a dramatic catalytic effect. New energy researchers are accustomed to low budgets and are fantastically creative, unlike the wasteful government energy research programs that have demonstrably failed already. It will not be easy to obtain even this level of modest research funding—and, of course, several millions of dollars per year would accomplish much more, but the sooner well-targeted funding reaches under-funded researchers, the more likely we are to accelerate the inevitable New Energy Revolution. Yes, we understand that there is room in parallel for corporate start-ups, and we definitely encourage that to take place. But some of the charitable grant money can help the struggling inventors and scientists to do sufficient research, so that their work can be of greater interest to corporate start-up models.
I think you would agree with me that in these often very dark times the world would benefit immensely from a realistic hope—followed by on-market technology—that a new era of abundant, clean energy resources will be dawning. Please do your best to help us make that happen. Study the hard-won information that we have brought to your attention, if you do not yet accept what I have tried to convey to you. When you have become convinced, if you are not already, please act! You may donate charitably to the efforts of New Energy researchers at www.infinite-energy.com. Please also help us to bring this critical issue to others who may be able to help. Why not satisfy your curiosity and also help New Energy Foundation by subscribing to Infinite Energy. Thank you in advance for joining with us now or in the very near future.
Sincerely,

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine

Purchase Fire From Ice here: http://amzn.to/1TxUg95

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20150414170823/http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-18-2004/eugene_mallove.htm

The Atom That Never Existed: Bohr's Model

The Bohr model is baseless and oversimplified. Werner Heisenberg, who was working in Bohr’s lab as a postdoctoral researcher, developed the principle which showed that electrons do not orbit the nucleus in well defined circular orbits. This is commonly referred to as the Uncertainty Principle: It is not possible to precisely determine the momentum, or energy, and the position of a particle simultaneously.

"The individual who has from childhood visualized the atom in the manner pictured by Bohr...cannot be expected to look with enthusiasm on the prospect of life without a nucleus. We can, of course, remind him that the Bohr atom has long since vanished from the scene and that the 'official' atom of modern physics cannot even be imagined, so the experts say, much less pictured. We can also point out that 'atomic energy' and 'atomic physics,' the terms that will have to be substituted when the nucleus is discarded, are already in common use." ~D. B. Larson, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (August 1962) http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm

“In the face of a fact there is only one possible course of action for the scientist, namely acceptance, no matter how much the fact may be at variance with his anticipations, and no matter what havoc it may wreak on his carefully thought-out theories.” ~Bridgman, P. W., Mid-Century, edited by John Ely Burchard, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950, page 230.
The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable.

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ~Max Planck

Electro-Gravitational Dynamic Model of Hurricanes and Tornadoes

by Ryan G. Banister

The vacuum is an energy-dense region, as is empirically observed with the Casimir force, having overtones in the Van der Waals force, Biefeld-Brown effect, the Hutchison effect and the Meissner effect. Nature utilizes the vacuum in all of its fundamental functions, from vortex-systems to atomic forces.

Matter is simply a form of energy that we experience as a transient solid, due to energetic velocities based from the direction, or polarization, of the dipole. There is no need to extract energy from the vacuum because these energy-dense regions have been in use around us since before we first opened our eyes. We only need to learn how to organize that energy that has always existed in the vacuum towards constructive forces rather than destructive forces.

As of now, mainstream human technologies utilize the dipole in a destructive manner, due to the amount of disruptive, or so-called "wasted," energy, which becomes vastly disorganized, or entropic, creating a destruction of the system which it is intended to drive.

In the work of V. L. Dyatlov it is shown that heat energy, more commonly referred to as low potential energy , is capable of being transformed into gravity-spin energy, and that energy, in turn, can changed into mechanical and electromagnetic energy, i.e., into high potential energy. Thus, in contrast from electromagnetic processes, gravity-spin waves are capable of lowering entropy.
The enumerated properties of gravity-spin waves would deserve a great deal of attention, if they carried any significant amount of energy in themselves. The American physicist O.D. Efimenko, who made an important contribution to electrogravitational dynamics, mentioned one such example in his monograph. A ring, with a mass of 1kg and a radius of 1 m and which is oscillating with an amplitude of 1 rad and at a frequency of 1 Hz creates a gravitational wave with an amplitude of 1,2Ч10^-36 m/s² and a spin wave with an amplitude of 4Ч10^-45 1/s, the power of the wave equaling 2,3Ч10^-45 W.
In any polarized medium, including a physical vacuum, subjecting the medium to some sort of field cause an induction field to result. In electrodynamics, as in gravidynamics, it was always thought, that induction is determined by the corresponding field only. V. L. Dyatlov brought forth a hypothesis, according to which electrical and magnetic induction in any medium depends on not only the corresponding electrical and magnetic fields, but also on the gravitational and spin fields with their own permeability coefficients. The reciprocal of this is that gravitational and spin induction is determined not only by gravitational and spin fields, but also by electrical and magnetic fields. As a result, cross-linkages arise between gravity-spin and electromagnetic waves.

Source: Vladimir I. Merkulov

Defects of the vacuum, called vacuum domains, are the physical basis for tornadoes. Vacuum domains originate at the interior of stars, and they are transmitted through solar wind. Domains can be polarized by the Earth's electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. This polarization attracts these domains to the Earth.

Coronal Mass Ejection

Storm clouds are formed when a vacuum domain passes the ionosphere and develop the cumulonimbus parental clouds of Tornadoes. The movement of air is localized to the domain. The greater frequency of tornadoes in North America is most probably due to the magnetic pole being located in Alaska.

Tornado Formation: Grounding - Oklahoma

The thunderstorm cloud which is part of a small tropical hurricane has a so-called "eye." This cloud has a spiral structure. If the whirlwind cloud has a large size, it will appear to be very similar to a cyclone. Cyclones often cause tornadoes.

A circular cavity is formed in the center of the funnel by rotating clouds. The pressure inside of a tornado is very low, and when the cavity touches a building with windows tightly shut, the building almost explodes from inside and the walls can be thrust outward. Tornadoes have such an incredible force that they can throw tractor trailers across large distances. However, they can have quite selective effects and have been seen removing a roof from a house, leaving many objects inside the house intact. They can also expose the bottom of lakes, sucking up the water contained therein.

Hurricane Erin -- September, 2001

Other sources:

Electrogravidynamic Concept of Tornadoes: http://tmgnow.com/repository/planetary/tornado.html

Casimir Force: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html

van der Waals Force: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waal.html

Biefeld-Brown Effect and Space Curvature of Electromagnetic Field: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=36094

Hutchison Effect: http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/John%20Hutchison_001.htm

Meissner Effect: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/meis.html

Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion (pdf): ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040171929.pdf

V.L.Dyatlov Electrogravimetric energy transformation. Moscow, NT-CENTER 1995,29pp.

Brooks E. M. The tornado-cyclone. Weatherwise,v.2, N 2, 1949, pp. 32-33

Wobus H. B. Tornado from cumulo-nimbus. Bull.Amer. Met. Soc. v.21, Nо 9, 1940, pp.367-368

Heaviside O. A. Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy //The Electrician-1983, 281- 282 and 359pp.

Dyatlov V.L. Linear equations of macroscopic electrogravidynamics.- Moscow, Inst.Teor.Appl.Phys. Acad. Nat.Sci., Preprint No.11, 1995 (in Russian)
Frank L. A. and Huyghe P. The Big Splash. Birch Lane Press, 1990

Merkulov, Vladimir I. Amazing Hydromechanics. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print

Jefimenko O. D. Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation, Star City: Electret Scientific Co. 1992, 180 p.

Аkimov А. Е. , Tarasenko V. Ya. Models of polarized states of physical vacuum and torsion fields.

Barry, James D., Ball lightning and bead lightning. Extreme Forms of Atmospheric Electricity, Plenum Press, New York, 1980

Manipulated Temperature Data: Global Warming - What Was Measured And How Was It Evaluated?

Tuesday, 11.24.2015 13:30
[Original article in German (here), translated using Google Translate]

The commentary on the research results of the geologist FK Ewert for extensive manipulation of global temperature data by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in ACHGUT by the well-known television journalist Günter Ederer has (and still does) struck high waves. On the side on which the Notrickszone English version was published, the operator Pierre Gosselin had already put on the brakes and has 2400 likes after initially further commentary set ....

Prof. Dr. K.F. Ewert (EIKE)

Two complexes has geologist studied in detail: the rear changes in temperature data between 2010 and 2012., therefore the manipulation of data, and regardless of the global development of temperatures between 1880 and 2010. This is covered in the attached pdf report in detail, the also briefly mentioned the manipulation in Section 2.2 and its rear amendments in Appendix 2 example illustrates: in March 2010, March 2012 and December 2012 provide the relevant data of the stations Darwin and Palma de Mallorca different temperature response lines - in December 2012 appeared the past - and thus the temperature - warmer than in March of 2010.
 

Prof. Ewert as well as Günter Ederer have under this article get many, many requests from reputable institutions and scientists around the world who want to have more facts and details on these results. At least the German-speaking among them can be helped. Read the short and the long version in pdf format below.

Global warming - what was measured and how was it evaluated?
 
Mankind always knew that constantly there are climate changes. The parable of the seven fat and seven lean years for an indication. With the development of science, people have recognized the causes of the changes - the sun changes its thermal radiation and the earth will change its orbit. This force since the beginning of Earth periodically, radiation cycles of Milankovitch but 'to have lost with the beginning of a new heating phase in the early 1980s its effect - supposedly the atmospheric trace gas CO2 became effective and now determined the evolution of the climate.

In any case, between the first environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972 and the following conferences in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and 1997 recognized in Kyoto some environmental activists and so propagated. This had two consequences: 1) of Environmental Protection was climate change, and 2) the now as a problem child of the international policy in the area of ​​responsibility of the UN and within the mandate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) came. The activists were initially worried about the welfare of the earth lay, but soon recognized scientists their career opportunities and sought to evidence supporting the cause of global warming began around 1980. It helped the now available computer, because with him data processing and modeling of scenarios for the future were possible. The scenarios predicted in the event of further CO2 emissions the progress of the warming. 

Prof. John Christy, University of Alabama, has compared the predictions of the most important climate-computers together. He has found that all the results are different. The criterion for science is not satisfied, because it requires that several research approaches lead to the same result. The computer results show just the opposite: for the year 2020 is heating up from 0.3 to 1.3 ° C is expected. Which result is true if all are different? None! 

The climate data from the past few decades are enough according to a statement of the DWD, to calibrate the models for Klimasimulierung the future. This approach is not acceptable and can provide in view of terrestrial climate history of 4.5 billion years, with a myriad of unknown events only doubtful results. From a geological point of view and paläoklimatologischer climate facts of the past must be taken into account for the assessment of future development.Ulrich Berner and Hans-Jörg Streif have for the Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), the Lower Saxony State Office for Soil Research (NLfB) and the Institute for Applied Geosciences (GGA), all based in Hannover, as editor in her book "Air Facts, the retrospective - a key to the future "climate development of the geological past to the present scientifically analyzed. They have shown with reference to the facts that global warming allegedly caused by us humans by means of our CO2 emissions does not take place.

Despite the technically correct analysis of John Christy and Ulrich Berner & Hans-Jörg Streif the official climate policy still claims that a strong global warming is taking place, cause we humans with our CO2 emissions. It is concluded that we need to reduce these emissions, so that the earth remains livable for mankind. Based on this assertion are still the climate simulation models that predict a strong warming despite the current slowdown phase. Although the IPCC (IPCC) had emphasized early on that predictions for climate are not possible, because it is a chaotic nonlinear system with many factors that determine their results still the climate policy, as well as the decisions of the G7 conference in Ellmau again confirm. 

While this model has not been proven, there is ample evidence that the CO2 emissions are insignificant. This evidence is also little attention to the assessment of climate change, as measured for more than a hundred years, temperatures have been carried out by tens of thousands of weather stations around the world guards. Therefore, it was necessary to manually evaluate from 1881-2010 registered temperatures in detail. The results containing the attached pdf-file report. The following chart summarizes the main results together.


 

• 1881 and 2010, four cooling between stages and three warm phases have alternated

• Stronger warming, despite longer cooling periods happened before the start of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions

• The temperature in the last century has a total of slightly cooled

• An influence of our CO2 Emissiomem the temperatures can not be seen.

The long version can be loaded into two parts as pdf:

Part 1: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EIKE_NASA-GISS_Anl__22.11.15.pdf

Part 2: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EIKE_NASA-GISS_TXT_22.11.15.pdf





Sources:

Original article (in German): Manipulierte Temperatur-Daten? Erderwärmung – was wurde gemessen und wie wurde ausgewertet? - http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/manipulierte-temperatur-daten-erderwaermung-was-wurde-gemessen-und-wie-wurde-ausgewertet/

German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature

Paper Fused to Steel on 9/11: The Ground Zero Bible

Here, we see paper fused to a piece of steel; this is truly an unbelievable artifact found by a firefighter at Ground Zero after 9/11. It was given to photographer Joel Meyerowitz during the recovery after 9/11/01, who eventually gave it to the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York. Now known as "The Ground Zero Bible," this item appears to defy the known laws of thermodynamics.

It is opened to the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 5, where we find the following:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. [Matthew 5:37-42]

A CBS correspondent describes The Ground Zero Bible saying, "This portion of this Bible, open to an 'eye-for-an-eye' passage (Matthew), fused into this piece of hardened steel. It has been authenticated, it almost doesn't seem believable, but it has been authenticated, of course."

How does paper fuse to steel? The flash point of paper is 218°-246°C, while the melting point of steel is 1100°-1600°C. Heat cannot be the cause of this phenomena.







Read the only existing forensic study into the destruction of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by Dr. Judy Wood, entitled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11. http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy

Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html

Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

Pope Tours 9/11 Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLmxbhbBhk&feature=youtu.be&t=1m12s

Remembering 9/11: The Ground Zero Bible
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/videos/remembering-911-the-ground-zero-bible

PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS: http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html

The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34375

Purchasing Consensus: Peer Review and The Age of Dogmatism

Werner Karl Heisenberg - pioneer of quantum mechanics

The Age of Dogmatism

Empiricism has been lost in this age of dogmatism, where many seek validation from peer-review rather than from empirical evidence. The entire peer-review process is highly suspect, for it has largely become a process of purchasing consensus. Peer-review is only designed to show that a study is worthy of further investigation, nothing more.

It is evident that the peer-review process has become perverted by corporate interests. So often it is used to impose consensus on the "scientific" community at large rather than to promote further investigation. To purchase consensus by the "scientific" community, through the stamp of approval called "peer-review," is not science; it is the antithesis to science. Theory has largely replaced empirical evidence in much of what passes as science today. This is nothing more than dogmatic "science."

Dogmatic "science" has failed us and has produced arrogant demagogues, like Michio Kaku, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who attempt to enforce their materialist worldview in the media through an appeal to authority, over and above physical evidence. What these demagogues say is taken as gospel and is used by materialist followers in their quest for confirmation bias.

Simply because a paper is peer-reviewed does not mean that the paper is conclusive nor that it has been validated. Peer-review is a low-grade process of filtering out bad papers, but it is certainly not infallible.

The Peer-Review Process is Flawed: The "CRAP" Paper

One pertinent example of fallibility in the peer-revew process is a paper submitted to The Open Information Science Journal by Philip Davis and Kent Anderson, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points." It was an intentionally senseless paper produced by a computer program called SCIgen. Davis and Anderson left a clue for the publishers as to the authenticity of the paper where they stated their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

As NewScientist.com reported:

"[Philip] Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham’s editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled 'Deconstructing Access Points' made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:
'In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].'"

The "CRAP" paper was accepted and published by Bentham Science Publishers' Open Information Science Journal, and while this does not completely invalidate the "peer-review" process, it does highlight the fallibility of "peer-review."

The Age of Empiricism

We must turn from this age of dogmatism to an age of empiricism. We must learn to conjoin all forms of knowledge, and find true empirical science again through its origins: interdisciplinary natural philosophy. We must stop relying upon theory as a basis for knowledge; no longer can we rely on theories where we should be relying on evidence. Evidence must come before theory.

Sources:

"CRAP" paper accepted by journal: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal/

SCIgen: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

Deconstructing Access Points (pdf) - Confluence - Cornell University: https://confluence.cornell.edu/download/attachments/2523490/Access+Points.pdf

Was 9/11 An Inside Job?

I do not contend that 9/11 was an "inside job." The government rarely does any "job" in and of itself.

As for the investigation of 9/11, defense contractors were put up to the job, such as ARA and SAIC, who happen to also develop directed energy weapons and conduct psychological operations.I cannot claim whether the "job" was "inside" or "outside" because we do not have enough evidence to say who did this, but we can say what was done and who covered it up -- particularly, government contractors.
Truthfully, government is an abstract concept. It does not exist but as a figment of our imaginations. There is a hierarchy of corporate alliances that conduct psychological operations in order to maintain war and endless debt-driven financing of state functions, and we often refer to this alliance as the "government," while it is making decisions independent of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court.

Government is derived from two Latin words, "gubernare mentis," meaning to "control the mind" or "mind control," and it literally exists in the mind. The functional definition of this abstract is any entity which uses monopolization of market influences to advance military objectives, being funded by means of theft (taxation).
No governmental body, nor any other 9/11 researcher, has produced a forensic study into the destruction of any of the seven WTC buildings in New York.Page 43 of the RFC filed by Dr. Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. That is, NIST did not accomplish its stated goal of determining "why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."



NCSTAR 1 states:

The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence,' although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

_____

World Trade Center Disaster Study (NIST): http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

Dr. Judy Wood has produced the only forensic study on the destructive mechanism of seven World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, contained in the book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? EVIDENCE OF DIRECTED FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11, and she has filed her evidence with the federal courts in her RFC to NIST (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html).

Dr. Wood's Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_Wood_RFC.html
Dr. Wood's Appeal to the NIST's Response (August 22, 2007): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html
Subsequent Qui Tam case (October 20, 2009): http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration per F.R. Civ. P59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, Sttorney Jerry V. Leaphart (July 11, 2008): www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080711_Wood_07CV3314_103.pdf

[VIDEO] Attorney Jerry Leaphart on the NIST Data Quality Act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-u6eHAJ1w