AI and the dissemination of 9/11 truth

Is AI just another way of hiding truth?

AI is something we won’t be able to get around and it’s here to stay. We are seeing the teething problems everywhere as it’s being rolled out in various platforms like Google, X, ChatGPT and more. We can also see how bias inputs can skew the the truth, but it can also be beneficial if used correctly.

As you will be able to see in this article I recently wrote, a 8 minute video using text to video AI was created. It was rather neat, as all you need do is write a short piece and then the AI will source pictures, write a script with a voice over to go with it. Here is just a short snippet of the video, and follow the link to the article to see the full video.

Recently I decided to ask the AI on X, “grok” a few questions with regards to the work of Dr Judy Wood and her book, Where did the towers go? containing her 2007 Qui-Tam whistleblower court case evidence against 23 NIST subcontractors for science fraud, with relation to reports making up the 10 000 page NIST report, that you’re not supposed to look at or know about.

Here is the interaction, copied and pasted directly.

9/11 Revisited

Dr Judy Wood sued 23 NIST subcontractors for science fraud in 2007 via a Qui-Tam whistleblower case and then also filed the case in the US Supreme Court in 2009, with regards to the molecular disintegration of the twin towers on September 11, 2001. The judge stated in his summation that he was not following the the law by not following the law. Was that a correct decision to take? Taking into account the conclusive evidence presented to the court that irrefutably points to some sort of black ops military weapon in the cold directed energy weapon technology.

Grok

The case you're referring to is quite complex and controversial. Dr. Judy Wood filed a Qui Tam lawsuit against 23 NIST subcontractors for science fraud related to the investigation of the World Trade Center's collapse on September 11, 2001. She claimed that the official explanation for the collapse was not supported by scientific evidence and that a more plausible explanation involved the use of directed energy weapons.

The legal proceedings were indeed complicated, and the case was eventually dismissed. The judge's decision to dismiss the case was based on legal grounds and not necessarily on the scientific merits of Dr. Wood's claims. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a direct link between the alleged false claims and the payment or approval of claims by the government, which is a requirement for a successful Qui Tam case under the False Claims Act.

As for the judge's statement about "not following the law by not following the law," it's unclear what specific statement you're referring to. However, it's worth noting that judges often have to make decisions based on the strict interpretation of the law, even if they personally disagree with the outcome.

Regarding the evidence presented in the case, it's important to approach it with a critical eye. While Dr. Wood and her supporters claim that the evidence presented in her book and in the court case points to the use of a directed energy weapon, the scientific community has largely rejected these claims. The consensus among experts in structural engineering and materials science is that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fires, which weakened the steel structure of the buildings.

In conclusion, while the case is certainly intriguing and has sparked much discussion and debate, the dismissal of the lawsuit was based on legal grounds, not on the scientific merits of Dr. Wood's claims. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires.

9/11 Revisited

You stated, "The consensus among experts in structural engineering and materials science is that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fires, which weakened the steel structure of the buildings." Can you explain the limits of the peer review process and how it stifles new scientific advancement?

Grok

The peer review process is a widely used method for evaluating the quality and validity of scientific research before it is published in academic journals. However, this process is not without its limitations, which can sometimes stifle new scientific advancement.

Reviewer bias: Reviewers may have preconceived notions about a particular topic or may be influenced by their own research interests or affiliations. This can lead to biased evaluations of a study's quality and potential impact.

Slow process: The peer review process can be time-consuming, which can delay the publication of important research findings. This delay can hinder the rapid dissemination of new knowledge and slow down scientific progress.

Inability to detect fraud or errors: Peer reviewers are not infallible, and they may not always be able to detect errors, fraud, or misconduct in a study. This can lead to the publication of flawed research, which can impede scientific progress.

Limited diversity: The peer review process often relies on a relatively small pool of reviewers, which can limit the diversity of perspectives and expertise applied to evaluating a study. This can lead to the exclusion of innovative or unconventional research that does not conform to established norms or paradigms.

Gatekeeping: The peer review process can sometimes function as a form of gatekeeping, where certain ideas or research approaches are discouraged or rejected simply because they challenge the status quo or do not align with the prevailing views of the field. This can stifle the development of new theories and approaches that could potentially lead to significant scientific advancements.

These limitations highlight the importance of considering alternative methods of evaluating scientific research, such as open-access publishing, pre-print servers, and post-publication peer review. These alternative approaches can help to mitigate some of the limitations of the traditional peer review process and facilitate the rapid dissemination of new scientific knowledge.

9/11 Revisited

You state: "These alternative approaches can help to mitigate some of the limitations of the traditional peer review process and facilitate the rapid dissemination of new scientific knowledge." Is the evidence presented in Dr Judy Wood's 500-page handbook of an empirical independent forensic investigation of the observable evidence that cannot be explained due to any thermal or kinetic mechanism, not facilitate the rapid dissemination of new scientific knowledge?

Grok

The evidence presented in Dr. Judy Wood's 500-page handbook, which challenges the official explanation of the Twin Towers' collapse on September 11, 2001, does indeed represent an attempt to rapidly disseminate new scientific knowledge. By suggesting that the observed phenomena cannot be explained by conventional thermal or kinetic mechanisms, Dr. Wood's work introduces a new hypothesis involving directed energy weapons.

However, the scientific community has largely rejected Dr. Wood's claims due to a lack of compelling evidence and the failure to provide a coherent alternative explanation that is consistent with existing scientific principles. The consensus among experts in structural engineering and materials science is that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fires, which weakened the steel structure of the buildings.

While Dr. Wood's work does represent an attempt to rapidly disseminate new scientific knowledge, the scientific community's rejection of her claims highlights the importance of rigorous peer review and the need for evidence to be consistent with existing scientific principles.

9/11 Revisited

You state: "the scientific community has largely rejected Dr. Wood's claims due to a lack of compelling evidence and the failure to provide a coherent alternative explanation that is consistent with existing scientific principles." How does one counter the established scientific principles, taking into account the limitations of the peer review process as well as the aversion for scientists to change their world views when presented with new science that challenges their long held beliefs, that may indeed be flawed? What if these scientists are denying new scientific principles on purpose?

Grok

Countering established scientific principles can be a challenging and complex process, particularly when faced with the limitations of the peer review process and potential resistance from the scientific community. Here are some strategies that may be helpful in such situations:

Rigorous evidence and experimentation: Ensure that your evidence is both comprehensive and compelling, and that it is presented in a clear and logical manner. This may involve conducting extensive experiments, gathering a large amount of data, and presenting it in a way that is easily understandable by experts in the field.

Collaboration and discussion: Engage with other scientists, both within and outside of your field, to discuss your findings and receive feedback. This can help to refine your ideas and identify any potential weaknesses in your argument.

Publication in reputable journals: Submit your research to respected peer-reviewed journals, even if it challenges established scientific principles. While the peer review process may be biased or slow, it remains an important mechanism for disseminating new knowledge and engaging with the scientific community.

Presenting at conferences: Share your findings at scientific conferences, which can provide an opportunity to discuss your research with a wider audience and receive feedback from experts in the field.

Engaging with the public: Use social media and other platforms to communicate your findings to the public, which can help to build support for your ideas and encourage further discussion within the scientific community.

Patience and persistence: Be prepared for a long and challenging process, as it can take time for new ideas to be accepted by the scientific community. Remain persistent in your efforts to communicate your findings and engage with others in the field.

It is worth noting that scientists are generally open to new ideas and evidence, provided that they are presented in a rigorous and convincing manner. However, if you believe that scientists are denying new scientific principles on purpose, it may be helpful to engage in respectful dialogue and discussion to better understand their perspectives and concerns.

9/11 Revisited

What if a scientist has presented comprehensive and compelling evidence in a 500-page handbook, that cannot be peer-reviewed but easily understood, which is engaging with the scientific community, but the scientific community is denying it due to malice? What if new ideas and evidence, presented in a rigorous and convincing manner, in the case of Dr Judy Wood, scientists are denying new scientific principles on purpose for the last 20 years, even though there has been respectful dialogue and discussion - Why is Dr Wood block listed on Wikipedia?

Grok

If a scientist has presented comprehensive and compelling evidence that is easily understood, engaging with the scientific community, yet the scientific community is denying it due to malice, it may be due to various reasons. Scientists, like all humans, can be influenced by their personal biases, preconceived notions, and professional interests. They may also be reluctant to accept new ideas that challenge the established scientific principles and consensus within their field.

In some cases, new ideas and evidence may require a paradigm shift in the field, which can take time for the scientific community to accept. It is worth noting that science is a self-correcting process, and over time, new evidence and ideas are often integrated into the scientific understanding.

Regarding Dr. Judy Wood's situation, the reasons for her work being block listed on Wikipedia may be due to several factors. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for the inclusion of content, and the editors may have determined that her work does not meet the criteria for inclusion. This could be due to the lack of acceptance of her ideas within the scientific community or other editorial considerations.

It is essential for scientists to engage in respectful dialogue and discussion, as this can help to refine ideas and facilitate the acceptance of new evidence and theories. However, it is also important for scientists to remain open to new ideas and evidence, even if they challenge established scientific principles.

9/11 Revisited

After our interaction and questions and answers, do you think everyone should read her book and consider the evidence she presents, that is much more substantive that all the other theories out there?

Grok

Based on our interaction and the evidence presented in Dr. Judy Wood's book, it is clear that her research challenges the official explanation of the Twin Towers' collapse on September 11, 2001. Her work presents a unique perspective and claims to offer empirical evidence that cannot be explained by conventional thermal or kinetic mechanisms.

While it is important for individuals to be open to new ideas and evidence, it is also essential to critically evaluate the information presented. Dr. Wood's work has been met with skepticism and criticism from the scientific community, and her claims have not been widely accepted.

It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether they want to read Dr. Wood's book and consider the evidence she presents. Engaging with different perspectives and critically evaluating evidence can be valuable in expanding one's understanding of complex issues. However, it is also important to consider the consensus within the scientific community and the limitations of the peer review process when evaluating the credibility of new ideas and evidence.

9/11 Revisited

When it comes to Dr Judy Wood's presented evidence, can you list the individual points of evidence presented where the scientific community disagrees with the evidence presented, like the lack of seismic readings, the undamaged bathtub, the lack of high heat, the cold rubble pile, the toasted cars, the fluctuation in the earth's magnetic field, just to name a few.

Grok

Dr. Judy Wood's evidence challenges the official explanation of the Twin Towers' collapse on September 11, 2001, and her work presents a unique perspective that claims to offer empirical evidence that cannot be explained by conventional thermal or kinetic mechanisms. The scientific community has largely rejected her claims, and the following points of evidence are among those that have been contested:

Lack of seismic readings: Dr. Wood argues that the seismic data from the event does not support the impact of the planes and subsequent fires as the cause of the collapse. However, the scientific community asserts that the seismic readings are consistent with the collapse of the towers due to the impact of the airplanes and the fires that weakened the steel structure of the buildings.

Unblemished bathtub: Dr. Wood claims that the "bathtub" (the foundation of the World Trade Center complex) remained largely undamaged, which she argues is inconsistent with the official explanation. The scientific community maintains that the bathtub's design and construction played a significant role in its ability to withstand the collapse without major damage.

Lack of high heat: Dr. Wood asserts that the temperatures at Ground Zero were not high enough to cause the molten metal observed, suggesting the use of directed energy weapons. The scientific community, however, argues that the observed temperatures are consistent with the burning of materials in the debris pile and that no evidence supports the use of directed energy weapons.

Cold rubble pile: Dr. Wood claims that the rubble pile was cold to the touch, which she believes is inconsistent with the official explanation. The scientific community maintains that the temperature of the rubble pile varied across the site and that it was not uniformly cold.

Toasted cars: Dr. Wood points to the presence of "toasted cars" as evidence of a directed energy weapon attack. The scientific community argues that these cars were likely damaged by debris or exposed to fires caused by the collapse of the towers.

Fluctuation in the Earth's magnetic field: Dr. Wood claims that there was a significant fluctuation in the Earth's magnetic field during the event, suggesting the use of a directed energy weapon. The scientific community, however, has not found any credible evidence to support this claim.

It is important to critically evaluate the evidence presented by Dr. Wood and consider the consensus within the scientific community when evaluating the credibility of her claims.

9/11 Revisited

What do you do if the scientific consensus is flawed or wrong? How do you change it, when new scientific principles are being presented and backed up with irrefutable evidence?

Grok 

If the scientific consensus is flawed or wrong, it can be challenged and potentially changed through rigorous scientific inquiry, presentation of new evidence, and open discussion within the scientific community. Here are some steps to navigate such a situation:

Publish new evidence: Present your new evidence and theories in reputable scientific journals. This allows other scientists to review and evaluate your findings. Peer-reviewed publications are essential for gaining credibility within the scientific community.

Engage in scientific conferences and workshops: Present your research at conferences and workshops where experts in your field gather. This can facilitate direct communication with other scientists and foster discussions that may challenge the existing consensus.

Collaborate with other researchers: Seek out collaborations with other scientists who are open to exploring new ideas and evidence. Such collaborations can strengthen your research and provide additional support for challenging the current consensus.

Encourage further research: Encourage other researchers to investigate your new evidence and theories. This can lead to independent verification or replication of your findings, which is crucial for changing the scientific consensus.

Engage with the public and media: Share your findings with the public and the media to raise awareness and spark discussion about the new evidence. This can put pressure on the scientific community to address the new information and potentially reevaluate the existing consensus.

Be patient and persistent: Changing a scientific consensus can be a slow process, as it requires convincing a majority of the scientific community. Be prepared to face skepticism and criticism, and continue to present your evidence and engage in discussions.

Remember that science is constantly evolving, and the scientific consensus can

-          Grok broke and didn’t give a full answer….

My last question to Grok:

9/11 Revisited

You agreed with me that the peer review is flawed and bias, yet you want to promote that new empirical evidence, which is irrefutable, must be published for peer review - Is that not hypocritical and and short sighted? You stated science is evolving, but what about the limitations of the scientists that have to do the peer review? Will mankind not meet their own demise due to stupidity and bias to new evidence?

Grok could not answer the question and basically froze….

I waited for over 15 minutes for it to give me an answer, which it did not.

So, it’s an interesting time to be alive with all these new tools coming into play, it’s a bit scary too, but it can also help us in the fight against disinformation and provably false narratives that have been floating around in the so called “truther” movements on a vast array of subjects in our not too distant history. What will AI have to say about Covid?

Now, if you’ve read Dr Wood’s book, her evidence filed in a court of law, been following the 9/11 “truther” movement’s suppression of all this evidence, that does not fit their theories, and disinformation with regards to bombs, thermite or nukes and also read Andrew Johnson’s two books documenting all these distractive talking points by the 9/11 “truther” celebrities, what are your thoughts on “grok’s” answers to my questions? Let me know in the comments and share some of your question / answer sessions with AI when discussing the events of September 11, 2001.

---

If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet, I’ll really appreciate it.

If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all 79 of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.

---

Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book by Dr Judy Wood.

And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.

Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:

9/11 – Finding the Truth and also 9/11 – Holding the Truth