Judy Wood And Why 9/11 Debates Still Rage On

This article is updated from time to time to address further information discussed in the comments.

Directed Energy Weapon Theory

I was recently contacted by a fairly affable fellow who wanted to know my general thoughts on the world and events like 9/11. It’s common in the wider “truth movement” for people to have this desire to get everybody on the same page. They’ll give you a list of subjects (chemtrails, vaccines etc) and if you deviate from their dogma, then you might be a shill. In this case he wasn’t that extreme, but one sticking point was the 9/11 theory of Dr. Judy Wood.

Right out of the gate he told me “she is the only evidence based researcher that has all the data to fully back her facts.”

As much as the mainstream media, science and academia can be flawed, biased and agenda based to varying degrees, the idea that there is one overarching conspiracy to bury the truth about 9/11 simply does not ring true to me.

So if Judy Wood really did have a “smoking gun” backed with solid science that could be peer reviewed and demonstrable, I believe it would have gone further than it has. I’m not saying the US government would bring her to the White House and hold a press conference, but enough educated people with integrity would be supporting her that it would be clear she’s on to something.

Other than a computer science graduate from the UK (Andrew Johnson), former Minnesota governor turned conspiracy hunter Jesse Ventura in the states, and mostly just an internet community, nobody really takes her seriously. That doesn’t mean she’s wrong (science isn’t done by consensus and all that) but her work is literally a joke to almost any educated person that comes across it. Which is not what I’m claiming to be. But as a layman the conclusions of educated people have to count for something.

Of course at least one person who reads this is going to snipe at me and say “Judy Wood doesn’t have a theory, she just provides facts and evidence.” (oh look they did, check the comments).

Her followers spout this bizarre mantra as a way of isolating themselves and Wood from debate, but if saying the WTC buildings were brought down by a massive Directed Energy Weapon isn’t a theory, then some people have already fallen at the first hurdle.

Wood is not special, she has interpreted some data and explained it with a theory. She is not exempt or above regular terminology no matter what caveats she or her followers throw out there. Putting her on some untouchable pedestal is just cult-like behavior.

The Towers Went “Poof”

So what is Judy Wood’s premise, the starting point for her argument and the basis of which all of her energy weapon claims follow? Let’s take it from the presentation above, and from the title of her book: “Where Did The Towers Go?”

“Once upon a time there were buildings, and then they went away.”

She says they “Turned in to dust in mid air,” which she describes as “dustification” a new word coined for her theory. She claims there was a “lack of debris” during the collapse and in the aftermath.

She points to images and says things like “notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in mid-air.”

Lack of First-hand Data

There are two giant flaws I see in these claims right away. First they are based on second hand imagery. These being photos and videos of the collapse and aftermath. She has a wide collection of this imagery, but by no means is it an all-encompassing account of the event. Showing a few photos in a presentation and making inferences about them is not conclusive. Just because X photo may appear to show a lack of debris, does not prove there was a lack of overall debris. She certainly wasn’t at ground zero documenting the debris, gathering samples and conducting research with it. She is operating only with the evidence that was easily available to her, from a position of ignorance.

There is also a question of interpretation. She shows images of the collapse and says things like “there’s no debris,” or “that it didn’t hit the ground,” or “the dust was opaque and blocked out all of the sun.”

Plenty of falling debris here

Nothing about these observations are scientific. There is some debris because we can see it falling in many photos and videos. We can also see it in the aftermath. A wide variety of sources have documented and reported on the clean-up effort and recovery of the steel. In fact The Telegraph notes how 250 tons of steel was allegedly stolen by the Mafia. 500 tons went back to where it was created in Pennsylvania according to the New York Post. It’s been used in the building of ships, memorials have been erected and some of it was even sold to China.

The people who were at “ground zero” for months filling trucks full of debris every day and getting sick from the air weren’t just pretending.

Now we could say a large portion of the photos and reporting about the debris and steel being removed are just lies. However since she herself has no first hand data or experience at ground zero, how do we determine where the lies begin and end?

It’s immediately clear that she has a terribly flawed premise, is cherry-picking at best, and at worst is just making things up – seeing things that aren’t there, and drawing conclusions where none can be made.

The Spire

Many of Wood’s followers will regurgitate a clip from one of her presentations of a steel “spire” allegedly turning to dust before our eyes. See below:

I personally don’t think a poor quality clip of one portion of steel is proof that the whole tower went poof, yet several people have already discovered the spire falling from a different angle anyway. Far from turning to dust, it actually just collapses. It’s the dusty and smoky atmosphere that created the illusion. Jump to 58 seconds below, you can see the spire the whole time it drops. You also have to question the mechanism of action in this theory. If the whole building had just been turned to dust, why is this small bit of steel so special? Why is its “dustification” delayed?

Furthermore this notion of “dustification” completely negates the fact that in the collapse of a giant concrete skyscraper, said concrete is going to create a heck of a lot of dust as each floor is destroyed. There’s nothing particularly odd about that.

Were the towers turned wholly to dust? Objectively NO, so how much dust was there? And at what point does the dust to debris ratio invalidate collapse? Wood doesn’t attempt to answer such questions. She just wants you to look at a couple of images and have an emotional response.

The Collapses and Seismic Data

Wood uses seismic data recorded by Columbia University during the collapses and compares it to seismic data recorded during the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000, to claim that the Twin Towers did not have the seismic impact that they should have done. Therefore … energy weapons.

The Seattle Kingdome was demolished on March 26, 2000. Built of reinforced concrete, it had a 720-foot outer diameter, a footprint of 407,000 square feet, stood 250 feet tall and weighed an estimated 130,000 tons. The implosion “created the equivalent of a magnitude 2.3 earthquake, with no vibration damage to adjacent structures. Each twin tower, by contrast, had 43,000 square feet, just over a tenth of the Kingdome footprint, and weighed an estimated 500,000 tons, or nearly 4x the Kingdome. Both the footprint and the weight of the twin towers were an order of magnitude different from the Kingdome, yet the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University only reported a peak of 2.3 Richter scale reading for WTC 1 and 2.1 for WTC 2, about the same as the Kingdome … The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures.

Ignoring the fact that the Richter scale is for measuring earthquakes not collapsing buildings and assuming that Columbia University and the measuring of the Kingdome demolition adhered to the same rules (which they probably didn’t), Wood actually spells out the fundamental flaw in her own argument without realizing. The Twin Towers were two high-rise skyscrapers, not a sports stadium. The towers are said to have collapsed from the top down, not from the supports being simultaneously taken out by demolition.

When a building collapses from the top down everything underneath provides a level of resistance. The Kingdome had its proverbial legs (resistance) pulled from under it. A crude analogy would be to compare the impact of going from a standing position to sitting on the floor (the towers), to literally having your legs swept and landing with a thud (the Kingdome). The reason the lighter Kingdome had such an impact is because it had less resistance. They are just not the same thing in terms of structure or collapse. Therefore her comparison has little value – apples and oranges.

Furthermore Wood’s claim that the seismic readings of the towers lasted only 8 and 10 seconds is incorrect. The 8 and 10 seconds is the peak of the activity, but there is actually significant seismic activity for at least 30 seconds overall.

South Tower
South Tower seismic

North Tower
North Tower seismic

These readings are fairly easy to interpret. A few seconds in and the towers begin to collapse from the top, they build to a crescendo when the bulk of the debris hits the floor, and then the reading fizzles out as the ground settles.

Although there is no 100% accurate way of knowing how long it took for the buildings to collapse, the seismic data and the numerous videos of the collapses put each at around 14-15 seconds.

Hutchison Effect

Judy Wood also makes numerous observations (which again are open to interpretation) that vehicles and debris photographed from ground zero display the “Hutchison Effect.”

This is a broad term used to describe a number of alleged phenomena, though she specifically cites things like “toasted” cars and metal, bent beams, “jellification” of metal (another made up word), rust, upside down cars, holes in metal and glass and other alleged anomalies.

Whether these are truly anomalies or not are debatable, and I would suggest the energy and heat created by any kind of collapse this big could accomplish all of them. There’s nothing particularly striking about burned, bent and melted objects.

The key point however is that her explanation that these are examples of the “Hutchison Effect” is extremely dubious, not least because no such “effect” is recognised by the scientific community and John Hutchison’s experiments have not been replicated.

While attempting to recreate the experiments of engineer Nikola Tesla in the late 1970s, Hutchison claims to have discovered many new phenomena, primarily manifesting in metals. The effects of his experiments supposedly included metal objects floating to the ceiling, shattering, becoming warm, fusing with other objects and other interesting manifestations. These disparate manifestations are all lumped together under the name “Hutchison Effect.” Explanations of the effect rely heavily on technobabble, especially referencing zero point energy and the Casimir effect.

No attempt to replicate Hutchison’s experiments by a third party has so far been successful. Many agencies, including NASA, have attempted to recreate Hutchison’s Effect. After extensive testing, Marc Millis, NASA’s head of finding new propulsion methods for spacecraft, wrote:

“This ‘Hutchison Effect’ has been claimed for years, without any independent verification — ever. In fact, its originator can’t even replicate it on demand. This has been investigated more than once, been part of documentaries on The Discovery Channel, but still never seems to pass critical muster. This is in the category of folklore. In general, the “American Antigravity” web site caters to such folklore and its enthusiasts.” — Marc G. Millis – http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

Wood might have a point if she just said “some of this debris looks odd, we need to explore this”, but she needlessly links it to a discredited concept (Hutchison Effect) while simultaneously trying to convince us that a humongous weapon was able to pinpoint the buildings and turn them to dust.

It’s not even a case of debunking Hutchison, he’s provided nothing to even debunk. And despite being an ardent proponent, Wood herself has not conducted any experiments to justify he support of Hutchison.

It’s one of the key tenets of the scientific method. If you’re going to allege that a phenomenon exists and claim to know how it occurs, then you better be prepared to demonstrate it. She has not.

Toasted Cars

One of Wood’s favourite bits of “evidence” from this realm are photos of “toasted cars,” which she says have odd patterns of burning among other anomalies:

These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not. – http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

Again we have the problem of Wood hypothesizing from photos. Without at least some physical evidence it’s hard to make any firm conclusion. But are the patterns of burning really that odd? Or do they simply reflect different types of materials reacting to the heat and elements from the dust clouds in different ways? Vehicles aren’t made of a single material.

Her whole theory is predicated on “directed” energy, but wouldn’t this suggest something more erratic?

She also seems to ignore the possibility of debris hitting the vehicles and mangling them in different ways.

A simple Google of “burnt out car” will provide all sorts of images that replicate the so called anomalies on her page. Look, everything on this car was destroyed but that front panel is perfectly fine. Did an energy weapon do this?

Or this?

Furthermore the claim that vehicles were found damaged and “toasted” some 7 blocks away and the spooky inference that something “dragged” them there, ignores testimony that some vehicles were simply moved from the WTC vicinity for logistics. Something did drag them there, lorries and tow trucks!

Take for example police vehicle 2723 which Wood shows at FDR drive, but was originally outside the Millennium Hilton Hotel.

Hurricane Erin

Wood’s right hand man Andrew Johnson – whose free ebook (which he’ll implore you to read) is mostly just a mind-numbing “he said she said” account of petty 9/11 truth infighting – brought to my attention “the peculiar coincidental movements of Hurricane Erin.”

Only there’s nothing peculiar about the movements of a hurricane that posed no threat during NYC’s Hurricane season and not one atmospheric scientist has said otherwise.

In a press release from Wood’s site she makes a pretty ridiculous comparison to Hurricane Katrina:

The development of Erin is considered, and a comparison made to Hurricane Katrina, for the reason that Katrina and Erin were of comparable size (Erin was bigger, by most measures). It is noted that the media reported very little about the potential risk Erin posed around the time of 9/11, compared to what was reported regarding Katrina – even before Katrina made landfall.

Erin was not bigger than Katrina at all. Katrina was the seventh most intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded, Erin was not even the biggest of its season. Katrina had peak winds of 175mph, while Erin peaked at 120mph. Most importantly reporting was lacklustre about Erin because its direction posed no threat, and on 9/11 the news media were preoccupied with the attacks rather than a mundane hurricane off the coast that was doing nothing more than making the waters choppy.

Here’s Erin’s trajectory:

Hurricane Erin Judy Wood

Here’s 2001’s entire hurricane season:

2001 hurricane season

Erin was not particularly special.

Though “no firm conclusions are drawn” from Wood’s page about Erin, she names drops everything from weather modification and HAARP, to Tesla, to chemtrails. Her point is not particularly clear.

The Smoking Gun

The true “smoking gun” of Wood’s theory is the one that renders it completely implausible. The fact that there is zero evidence that a Directed Energy Weapon on the scale required to do this much damage even exists.

Firstly you have to ask where the hell was this weapon when the attacks were carried out? It’s going to be big right, so how did nobody in the whole of New York City see it? And if it was in the sky or space how did it get there and how did nobody notice?

Now I’m not suggesting DEWs don’t exist at all, they do, but they are not capable of producing mass destruction. One application which was being experimented with during the Irish troubles and again in more recent years is to disable vehicles and electronic devices. As noted by The Telegraph:

An energy beam that can be fired to disable vehicles and electronic devices has been developed by Nato scientists. The device uses an intense pulse of electromagnetic energy that can be directed at a moving vehicle to interfere with the electronics on board … The device has also been tested to disable electronic devices such as mobile phones that may be used to remotely trigger a bomb … The device has been compared to the satellite weapon that features in the James Bond movie Golden Eye. In this an electromagnetic beam is fired from a satellite in orbit to disable electronic equipment … While the latest device cannot work on the same scale, it has the potential to disable almost any electronic device.

Other applications – be it Electromagnetic, Particle Beam, Microwave or Sonic – have not reached anywhere near the scale of what Wood is implying.

In 2007 Dr. Greg Jenkins interviewed Dr. Wood about her theory, and asked her if she “could give an overview of the proposed types of weapons that could be used.”

Wood’s reply was extremely revealing. “Errrm we haven’t really got in to listing them yet … just energy weapons,” she shrugged.

When prompted to explain what form these weapons would take, Wood responded: “I don’t think we even need to define it.”

On her website she makes vague references to the “Star Wars” space defense program, microwave ovens, and some advances in warfare, but of course “Most of this technology is classified information,” and therefore is as good as hearsay.


There you have it folks, just energy weapons brought down the towers. There’s no need to define what kind of weapons. There’s no need to prove that these weapons exist, the mechanism by which they work, or replicate their effects in any form in a lab.

Wood and a chap named Morgan Reynolds even had the gall to file a lawsuit based on the theory, which was easily dismissed. When they accused the defendants of supplying false claims, statements etc (i.e. that they didn’t say it was mythical energy weapons) she “failed to specify the time, place, speaker, and the content of the alleged misrepresentation,” showing she either had very poor legal advice or ignored that advice. I cannot agree more with the dismissal summary:

Their lawsuits simply rely upon their own theoretical examination of information already within the public domain. Plaintiffs’ attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers’ collapse. They merely disagree with NIST’s investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise … Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government.

I Don’t Know What Happened

There’s nothing remotely convincing about Judy Wood’s theory – it’s based on a flawed premise that the towers “went away”, with poorly interpreted data, which she claims was caused by a weapon she cannot cite, nor explain or replicate on a smaller scale.

We’re now in the 13th year since the 9/11 attacks happened, and in many ways I am as confused now as I was as an 11 year old kid. I now know enough about history and the geopolitics of the time to realise there are some major problems with the story adhered to by the US government, but I’m also objective enough to recognise that the so called 9/11 truth movement and associated terms like “9/11 was an inside job” are too simplistic and have not had a great deal of success in either “waking people up” or realising a “reinvestigation.”

Over the years I’ve skirted around the different 9/11 truth camps online, mostly the Architects and Engineers (AE) crowd whose theories at least seem the most plausible – that secondary thermetic explosives aided the collapse of the the Twin Towers and Building 7, because the impacts themselves would unlikely have brought the buildings down alone (especially in the way that they did come down), though their evidence for this could possibly just be paint. I’ve also observed other theories that allege the planes were holograms and other such nonsense.

Now, after years of reading books, watching documentaries, producing my own content and immersing myself in alternative media, I am perfectly content with telling the world that I don’t know what happened on 9/11, and I think claiming you do is an extremely arrogant and careless position to take.

Of course there’s some clear shenanigans – what with all the prior warnings, the CIA visa program in Saudi Arabia that got the hijackers in to the country, the pre-planned war with Afghanistan and the Bin Laden media circus, the CIA’s connection to Al Qaeda in the years prior, the refusal to follow the Saudi link, the refusal to follow the Israeli link (trucks, Dancing Israelis et al) … there’s an endless list of real verifiable anomalies.

However it is my position that we simply are not privy to enough information to wrap the case up in a bow and move on. The fact that people are still obsessed with the event is a testament to this.

I also think the lack of a true smoking gun is why so many people focus on theories about the building collapses, because if you can prove that they came down by some other mechanism than just the plane impacts, then you’ve proven there’s a wider conspiracy.

The trouble is from “Architects & Engineers” to empty buildings and holograms, to Energy Weapons, to simply letting it happen on purpose – nothing has been proven beyond reasonable doubt or plausible deniability.

“We didn’t see it coming,” “agencies weren’t sharing information,” “we didn’t interpret the information we did have.”

Plausible deniability, a lack of data, and confusion is what make black ops so successful.

Follow WideShut



  • habler

    Brilliant piece Keelan and you have articulated what i could not do myself. You make some great points.
    I can’t get over the fact though that although Dr Wood does some stretching on certain issues she does point out that the Towers basically dissolved in mid air – you can see a steel beam vanish as it falls on the video tape. Its perfectly logical to assume that some unknown effect or weapon was able to do this as no other known effect could make this occur. Just because we have no data available for this effect does not mean it doesn’t exist as im sure do many other weird and wonderful things created by the intelligence/military industrial complex for their nefarious reasons.
    13 years on , we’re no nearer the truth though.

    • Keelan Balderson

      Thanks for the kind comments.

      – I can accept that position as a simple pondering, but it’s obviously not proof of anything. We don’t know what weapons they have … exactly, we don’t know. It doesn’t really get us anywhere.

      – But I don’t think the towers dissolved in mid air – I mean a lot of the concrete was pulverized as it fell and created dust clouds that went along with the smoke, but debris is also clearly falling and landed. Whether the towers were blown up or collapsed more naturally, the concrete is always going to do that to some degree.


      – I’m not sure which beam video you’re referring to, but if it’s “the Spire” … it’s ambiguous at best. What she says is “turning to dust” could just be the material collapsing out of site and leaving some dust in its path.

      At 58 seconds this video shows a better angle … it’s just falling:


      • logswindandsun

        please tell me how does a massive vertical steel beam turn to dust in a few seconds that was seen on 911? just google ‘911 spire’ and watch it over and over again..no conventional explosive or weapon can do this..i’m waiting for your answer!

        • Keelan Balderson

          I just showed in a different angle in the video above that it doesn’t turn to dust at all.

          • Sentry

            It does not need to show you it turn to dust completely, as the video resolution is not that good, BUT that is a very tall spire and very huge. Looking from all angles, it fell straight down. So you tell me, how can it fall straight down on its own footprint, just like the manner the two towers did. This is illogical, unless it’s like ‘a rug pulled right off your foot’, meaning the bottom gave way and the bottom of the bottom gave way. No building had ever fallen top down and no spire should too. This means it disintegrated and turned to something finer, like fine particles, or what Dr Wood coined ‘dustification’.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    “Over the years I’ve skirted around the different 9/11 truth camps
    online, mostly the Architects and Engineers (AE) crowd whose theories at
    least seem the most plausible –” Thank you for sharing your uninformed opinion. Perception management has skewed web fed users to believe that opinion trumps scientific findings. BTW- Dr. Wood does not postulate a theory. Dr. Wood presents overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that leads to only one conclusion. Anyone who has read her book, as I have, knows this to be true. We also know when someone is attempting to snowball the issue. Armchair critics are a dime a dozen. Unless your job is to defame Dr. Wood, please take the time to read Dr. Book.


    “When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo (Latan for “a lone friend”)

    If Richard Gage is using AE911Ttruth’s funds to buy Dr. Wood’s book, and Richard Gage is suppressing Dr. Wood’s work, one must conclude that the prime directive of AE911Truth is to suppress the evidence. Mr. Gage cannot refute the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence contained in Dr. Wood’s book but only misrepresent it (i.e. promote disinformation about it). Humanity has awoken. If you are worthy and willing to open your eyes to the truth, read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood.

    Richard Gage and other Liars for 9/11 Truth

    Image of check from Richard Gage for Dr. Judy Wood Book

    AE911Truth vs Dr. Judy Wood


    Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Part I Summary, 1.) mission statement

    Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate (some) scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, (not all 7, just 3 of the buildings) calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice. (Except Dr. Judy Wood)

    Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Schedule A, Part II, Section A

    from 2008 to 2012 AE911Truth income was $1.365 million!!!


    If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.

    Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that a type of directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 “research”, including the unscientific ‘9/11 Commission Report’. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.

    This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.


    Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book can give at least 10 reasons that rule out the theory by “AE911trutherd” that welding material destroyed the WTC. How many can you list ? Hint: the bottom of page 45, the top of page 171, the diagrams on page 81 and 84, the diagram at the bottom of page 11, and of course pages 122 to 127. The list is endless, actually.

    By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.

    >Bombs don’t do that.
    >Thermite does not do that.
    >Thermate does not do that.
    >Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
    >Nano-thermite does not do that.
    >New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
    >Firecrackers do not do that.
    >Fire does not do that.
    >Nukes do not do that.
    >Megga nukes do not do that.
    >Milli-nukes do not do that.
    >Mini-nukes do not do that.
    >Nano-nukes cannot do that.
    >A wrecking ball cannot do that.
    >A slingshot cannot do that.
    >Missiles cannot do that.

    We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the “dustification” was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, “dustification” was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy that was used as a weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers)

    If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with “free energy” (i.e. “off the grid”). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood’s book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing “free energy” (“off the grid”) exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that “free-energy technology” exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood’s research.

    Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence. (Chanting “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” is equivalent to chanting “Yes To Fascism!”)

    Richard Gage is NOT a qualified forensic scientist. Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist. AE911Truth is calling for a new investigation. This implies an admission that they are NOT qualified to conduct such an investigation of what happened. Otherwise, why are they calling for a new investigation instead of conducting one themselves — unless the intention is to knowingly distract its members and others away from the new investigation that has already been conducted? AE911Truth wants a new investigation? They already have one. It’s contained in a book called “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn’t AE911Truth submit their so-called “thermite evidence” to NIST? – Oh, that’s right. It’s a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn’t AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven’t blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn’t they support Dr. Wood’s Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? * — I guess they really didn’t want such a case to go forward. So they want “respect and compassion for all people” except for those named “Dr. Judy Wood.”

    AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control” ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought.

    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

    Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.

    This is why Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don’t. That is why those in charge of a cover up don’t want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood’s book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideasŠ That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book know this to be true.

    On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining ‘why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,’ the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood’s disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.

    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 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.

    She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise. 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 and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC 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 NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood’s investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.

    *Chapter 31. AE911 “Truth” and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010
    AE911 – Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300) of 9/11Finding the Truth – A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood

    **In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia’s book, “Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation”, the name “Judy Wood” is a search term used to disqualify a person’s affiliation with AE911Truth.

    Field Interference 013 AE911Truth: A Failure By Design

    We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.

    Richard Gage and AE911Truth sleep in the same bed with convicted sex offenders?

    Manuel (Manny) Badillo from the conference “Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time,” held March 26, 2011



    US Marine John P DiMatale speaks at Rethink911 Times Square Event 9-11-13


    Wake up sheeple. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Big Brother only has as much power as you grant him. Independent thought is powerful. After reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Charlie Pound of the U. K. produced the song WAKE UP THIS YOUR ALARM! Unless you enjoy being fleeced, leave the opinion herd and read Dr. Wood’s book too. It has been over 13 years since a secret technology was used to create terror and mass murder for the sake of imperialism and hegemony based on a fiat money system in its death throes. What are we as a people left with? A published scientific forensic investigation that concludes a type of Directed Energy that was used as a weapon “dustified” the World Trade Center complex and a group of shadowy people determined to suppress that evidence by any means. This is the sad reality that we live in. Wake up!

    © 2012 Music, Lyrics, & Vocals by Charlie Pound

    BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to…

    Fascism Anyone?

    Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. (Remember that fascist regimes have elections too. Covering it up with a red, white, and blue sticker doesn’t make fascism any less despicable. When are people going to wake up and start using the “F” word?)


    • Keelan Balderson

      “Dr. Wood does not postulate a theory. Dr. Wood presents overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that leads to only one conclusion. Anyone who has read her book, as I have, knows this to be true.”

      This is a typical blind Judy Wood follower response … I even addressed such responses in the article. If you can’t even accept that she’s just postulating a theory (a poor one at that) then how do we even have a sane discussion?

      The woman filed a frivolous lawsuit based on the THEORY that energy beams brought down the towers! Why is Judy Wood so special that she has to hide away from debate with this silly mantra that “I don’t have a theory”?

      And how is her evidence indisputable, when all it amounts to is a collection of ambiguous images? I just disputed it.

      And how can she conclude “Energy Weapons” took down the towers when she refuses to even define the type of weapon nor prove that such a weapon even exists on the scale required?

      “Dustification” – oh look, she just made up a word, must be legit science!

      • Ground Man

        Thank you for not only exposing “Dr” Judy Wood, but the many agents or cult followers running around getting aggressive with anyone that disagrees with her ‘research’

        Its a cult, and I extremely useful to those behind 911.

        • Prof. Sydney Bush

          Only new energy we don´t understand (magical to us low IQs) can explain 3,000 pot toilet bowls MADE IN A FURNACE disappearing in fire.10,000 FIREPROOF steel filing cabinets disappearing but their papers flying about. Steel safes GONE! 4 Black boxes missing? Mustn´t mention them! Pentagon Hole but no wing or engine damage. Mustn´t mention no wings or engines or undercarriage. Firemen´s COLD air bottles exploding. Wild magnetometer readings, Contradictory radar tracks (Military and civil) “Airplane wing” disappearing behind a building BEHIND a WTC Tower then appearing IN FRONT! Airplane coming out the other side of a tower! (Even a MISSILE doesn´t manage that!) Offices targeted in WTC Bldng7 that housed financial records. Office at Pentagon that housed financial records. $2TRILLION disappears!
          Come on. Nobody needs to be a scientist arguing about rates of collapse and 70% debris missing and `infected´ Deutsche Bank steel that had to eventually ALL be removed and rebuilt. The earth on fire!
          WAKE UP AMERICA. Ban Fluoride and Wake up! Sandy Hook farce? how much more will you take before you realise the rest of the world thinks you are either dumb. or too paralysed with fear to face reality.
          Your government murdered you. Nobody else had the cruise missiles or the power to delay and negate the inquiry and hide evidence as they did or prime WTC Bldng 7 for demolition. But they couldn´t hide it all and you will have no peace until you sort yourselves out. Goebells should have taught you a lesson about BIG LIES!.
          No point in going on. JUST ONE lie destroys the house of cards. WAKE UP AMERICA!

  • Andrew Johnson

    Keelan, have you read my free ebook “911 Finding the Truth”? http://tinyurl.com/911ftb Sadly, there are a number of things you have either omitted got wrong or misrepresented. For example you wrote of the 2007 Jenkins interview:

    Wood’s reply was extremely revealing. “Errrm we haven’t really got in to listing them yet … just energy weapons,” she shrugged.

    While I question the accuracy of your quote, I KNOW (how arrogant of me to know something) that interview was recorded in Jan 2007. This was BEFORE the evidence had stacked up showing it related to the Hutchison Effect – an energy phenomenon. This is one example of your misrepresenting the FACTS.

    You wrote “While it doesn’t mean that she’s wrong, she doesn’t have the first hand evidence to support her theory and most likely never will.” Do you mean Dr Wood wasn’t an eyewitness? If that’s what you mean then say it. Clearly, then, by that sort of logic in most cases, crimes cannot be investigated by anyone other than those who witnessed them.

    You also, I notice, show a picture of John Hutchison holding a UFO/Saucer Toy. Why? Do you know the story behind this experiment? Or are you just repeating stuff that Ace Baker repeats (essentially misrepresenting what is shown in that photo).

    I notice a number of things omitted from your article, such as the peculiar coincidental movements of Hurricane Erin. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/ Ahh but sorry, I guess this is not “First Hand Evidence” – or something? Do you want to know the truth of what happened on 911, or do you want criticise those exposing it? For example you post a 7-year old “interview” by Dr Greg Jenkins without knowing the context of same. Where is Dr Greg Jenkins now? What 911 research has he posted other than stuff critiquing Dr Wood’s research (which has advanced since he did that interview).

    You make no mention of who first came out with the thermite theory. If you or anyone wants to read about that, please refer to an article I wrote, documenting the facts, earlier this year:


    Do you want to present people with the truth or just some biased propaganda, like the BBC does with most things?

    Most people that I have seen that post articles like this don’t apologise and/or make amends or corrections. I don’t expect you to be any different.

    Screenshot taken.

    • Keelan Balderson

      “While I question the accuracy of your quote”

      The video is right there, that’s what she said.

      “BEFORE the evidence had stacked up showing it related to the Hutchison Effect – an energy phenomenon.”

      I addressed the Hutchison Effect in the article … it’s a broad and extremely dubious term.

      “Do you mean Dr Wood wasn’t an eyewitness? If that’s what you mean then say it. Clearly, then, by that sort of logic in most cases, crimes cannot be investigated by anyone other than those who witnessed them.”

      My position was explained very clearly in the article and was summarized quite well when her lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The majority of Wood’s “evidence” is freely available imagery everyone has access to. She just makes tenuous non-scientific claims about that imagery. “Dustification,” “the debris didn’t land,” etc. It’s all just assumptions.

      Sure, people can investigate from a distance using the data in the public domain (I do it myself), but that’s only going to get them so far. And they need to at least apply some logic when they do so.

      “You also, I notice, show a picture of John Hutchison holding a UFO/Saucer Toy. Why? Do you know the story behind this experiment? Or are you just repeating stuff that Ace Baker repeats (essentially misrepresenting what is shown in that photo).”

      I have no idea who Ace Baker is, I simply googled “John Hutchison” and that funny image seemed quite a succinct way to illustrate how the scientific community view him.

      “I notice a number of things omitted from your article, such as the peculiar coincidental movements of Hurricane Erin.”

      I’m not exactly sure what was peculiar about the movements of Hurricane Erin, it was a hurricane that acted like a hurricane during hurricane season. Lots of things happened on the day of 9/11 … correlation is not causation.

      Wood’s page on the matter is meandering and vague. I mean it’s not even clear what she is alleging. Are we saying the perpetrators tapped in to the Hurricane and used it to knock down the buildings? Is there a proof of mechanism for that? If we’re saying the weapon created the Hurricane, then we’re back to the point at which she needs to prove this mythical weapon exists.

      “you post a 7-year old “interview” by Dr Greg Jenkins without knowing the context of same. Where is Dr Greg Jenkins now? What 911 research has he posted other than stuff critiquing Dr Wood’s research”

      Well I googled “debate” and that’s about the only thing that exists. It seems Wood prefers to preach to the choir rather than engage her critics. The fact that none of her work has been peer reviewed (even informally) is a red flag.

      “Most people that I have seen that post articles like this don’t apologise and/or make amends or corrections. I don’t expect you to be any different.”

      There’s nothing to correct or apologize for, though I may add bits on here and there to summarize any debates from the comments.

  • logswindandsun

    well ive sold thousands of dr wood’s dvds on ebay any all feedback is positive…about 50% of buyers come from the united states so her info on 911 must be becoming quite well known now..and what with ex governer Ventura now promoting her evidence then we must be surely at a tipping point…maybe thats why this faction who used it on 911 have not used it since…this time those who know are watching like hawks and ready to expose the truth immediately if it was to happen again.With a catagory 4 hurricaine just off New York on 911 i wonder if this was needed to harness its energy for the destruction of the wtc buildings?So in future we’ll keep an eye closely on other storm systems that move in a unusual pattern like that hurricaine Erin did.I think the work of nicola tesla has been worked upon by this military elite and the trillions spent on defence has been used to perfect some kind of directed energy weapon…maybe at Area 51?

    • Keelan Balderson

      The Hurricane was a typical Hurricane, the kind that happens every year and was not a threat to NYC. It’s path was not unusual either.

      • logswindandsun

        eh mate..it was stronger than katrina so how can you say that? and how come it moved precisely just off new york on 911..its got to be more than coincidental

        • Keelan Balderson
          • SeanW

            It doesn’t really matter. All Woods is saying is that the hurricane went almost unreported which was peculiar.

            She never claimed it was artificially manufactured or somehow used in the 911 event. She only points to the peculiar way it was handled by the press and also to the fact that such disturbances can produce levitation of steel objects that would never be “blown” up into the air by 150 mph winds. She is only saying that there “might” be a connection. She has not claimed it was, or was not, a factor.

          • Keelan Balderson

            Wood “might” be absolutely fucking crackers too.

          • SeanW

            Clearly you have no background in psychology or you’d have noticed that she’s probably one of the sanest forensic investigators out there.

            If you don’t recognize the discipline in her thinking as well as her ability to enforce that discipline in her interviews then you are not qualified to judge her sanity.

            But given your agenda there is no way you can afford to say otherwise. I’m think you’re an unwitting COINTELPRO asset as you don’t have the dexterity typical of an agent.

  • Keelan Balderson

    “You clearly have not read the ruling! The judges stated in their ruling that they had to ignore a change in the law to dismiss it!”

    No Andrew … they dismissed it because it was nonsense. It was appallingly stitched together and had a complete lack of any supporting evidence (actual evidence, not tenuous interpretations of images) … when she accused the defendants of supplying false claims, statements etc (i.e. that they didn’t say it was mythical energy weapons) she failed to specify the time, place, speaker, and the content of the alleged misrepresentation.

    Whoever advised her was an idiot.

    “Their lawsuits simply rely upon their own theoretical examination of information already within the public domain. Plaintiffs’ attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation.”

    Whether I think the legal system is flawed or not, or whether I believe NIST looked at every angle or not, I cannot disagree with the dismissal.

    “Well, if you’d read the book or done some research (such as reading my free ebook or watched my presentations) you’d know wouldn’t you? You’d know it was to do with field effects. “

    Unless she’s hiding her smoking gun evidence in the book to make money, her website and many hours of slideshows on Youtube will do just fine … her site is vague and meandering and she even admits that she doesn’t have a conclusion about the Hurricane.

    And yes I know SHE SAYS it has to do with “Field Effects”, but then she also brings up Hutchison, Chemtrails, and even alludes to HAARP for christ sake. Please tell me where her “study” was published and who reviewed it?

    Erin was a typical hurricane that was NOT bigger than Katrina and was not a threat to NYC … if you’re so sure it was please summarize why instead of doing the usual “You don’t understand Judy Wood’s work” trick … I don’t think she even understands her own work! If you do, then let’s have it!

    “You wouldn’t dream of pointing out the “energy connections” shown in my book and Dr Wood’s – such as the anomalous tritium readings and so forth.”

    You mean the trace amounts that weren’t even harmful?

    • Andrew Johnson

      Oh dear – just insults and ridicule as in “Whoever advised her was an idiot.” You misrepresent facts: “Erin was a typical hurricane that was NOT bigger than Katrina and was not a threat to NYC ” This was never a factor that I or she brought up as being significant in the presence and movement of the hurricane. “Unless she’s hiding her smoking gun evidence in the book to make money, her website and many hours of slideshows on Youtube will do just fine … her site is vague and meandering and she even admits that she doesn’t have a conclusion about the Hurricane.” Heck, my book is free!! There is information in there and others “get it” from just the videos. Why am I just wasting so much of my time on someone pretending to be interested in the truth, but when offered the opportunity to make corrections, continues with more distortions and lies such “Chemtrails, and even alludes to HAARP for christ sake” This is a lie! Goodbye!

      • Keelan Balderson

        Well thanks for bringing nothing to the table other than hawking your wares.

        “Chemtrails, and even alludes to HAARP for christ sake” This is a lie! Goodbye!


        “The possible role of the compound Barium Titanate, is noted both in reference to the possible residue from persistent jet trails (usually called “chemtrails”) and those used in some experiments by John Hutchison and Thomas Townsend Brown.”

        “later part of the study examines some of the data relating to patterns of earthquakes in 2008 and possibly associated unusual weather patterns, which may be related to secret or partially disclosed environmental modification technology (such as HAARP). However, the study does not establish any clear links between HAARP and the events in New York on 9/11.”

        Straight from her website:

  • Jon

    Look at this video of the south tower collapse.


    The top edge disappears into the dust, then reappears at 1:16, but it has disintegrated. There’s no indication of any explosion that could have caused this, nor any indication of thermite or other incendiaries. So what caused the disintegration that is clearly visible ?

    Dr. Wood is on the right track.

    • Keelan Balderson

      This is one of the basic points of the article, you’re coming to firm conclusions based on obscure and ambiguous videos/pics. What disintegrates? What reappears? If anything the top has collapsed/pulverized in to it’s footprint and has forced the front of the building out in to view.

      There’s no “clearly” visible disintegration at all, you’re just seeing what you want to.

      • Ben Cruz

        Well, one thing is for certain. That is not a building collapsing. That is a building disintegrating.

        • Devin williams

          no..that isnt certain…that is his point

  • Jon

    “…you’re coming to firm conclusions based on obscure and ambiguous videos/pics.”

    Why characterize the clip as ‘obscure and ambiguous’ ?
    It probably wasn’t your intention, but it sounds like you’re trying to vaguely discredit the video.
    There are other clips that show exactly the same thing from a different angle, but the clip I linked is a good closeup.

    “What disintegrates? What reappears?”

    The intact top portion of the tower topples over to one side, gaining rotational momentum.
    It subsequently also begins to fall straight down as the structure beneath it gives way.
    The roofline, still intact and attached to the wall, disappears into the smoke/dust at 1:14.
    At least partially due to the rotational momentum, the top of the block (or what’s left of it) reappears at 1:16.
    At that point, there’s no sign of the roof and the top of some of the columns are gone.
    So what caused the roof and wall to separate and the wall to be damaged in the way it is at 1:16 ?

    “If anything the top has collapsed/pulverized in to it’s footprint and has forced the front of the building out in to view.”
    “There’s no “clearly” visible disintegration at all, you’re just seeing what you want to.”

    Ok, we’ll use your word ‘pulverized’ instead of ‘disintegrated’.
    So are you agreeing there was pulverization, or not ?

    If you are agree, or at least acknowledge the visible damage and separation of roof and wall…
    What caused this ? If explosives, shouldn’t we have seen squibs or dust being suddenly and violently blown outward ?
    Could thermite do that in 2 seconds ? If so, shouldn’t we see some evidence of the copious sparking that accompany thermite reactions ?

    Do you have an opinion as to what force could cause the very top of the block to come apart like that ?
    If so, what evidence would you cite ?

  • masonfreeparty .

    sounds to me this site is in with the establishment…another ‘gate keeper’ site

  • NARK

    Surely this could all definitively be settled by proving that the steel salvaged from the WTC post 9/11 was equal to the steel that went into it’s construction back in the early 70’s?
    The official story claims it was a gravity/kinetic energy collapse that brought down those buildings 9/11, obviously a ‘steel out= steel in’ audit commensurate equation only would square with this official claim?
    Is it possible to specifically see the salvage receipt for the ‘north tower spire’ central core section component curiously filmed falling near upright into the ground from all points of the compass after the north tower’s “collapse”? FOI?

  • SeanW

    I think the “psychic chat” advertisement at the top of your home page pretty much characterizes the nature of this article.

  • Sid Naylor

    The anecdote about the zinc experiment begins at 39 mins in.

  • constitutionalist

    NARK said: “Surely this could all definitively be settled by proving that the steel
    salvaged from the WTC post 9/11 was equal to the steel that went into
    it’s construction back in the early 70’s?”

    Look at the samples displayed in the George Bush Library and Museum in Dallas or the Museum in NYC. They show changes that could not possibly be caused by fire. Likewise the fire trucks in the NYC museum, which show changes that could not possibly be induced by fire or explosions. Don’t need a chemical or x-ray diffraction analysis of the metal to know that.

    Dr. Wood’s collection and analysis of the EVIDENCE conclusively disproves the official story, the hypothesis of explosive-mediated implosions and the hypothesis of a nuclear event. She clearly states that she will not extrapolate beyond the evidence and claim to know the details of the weaponry that was employed in Manhattan. Nothing could be more honest than that statement.

    Her hypothesis is often misquoted and mis-characterized by people who are attempting to discredit her or have not actually read her work. After seeking an explanation for the evidence for several years, she discovered the work of John Hutchinson with interfering energy fields. The changes induced in metals and other material in his work seem to match the evidence the best.

    Thus, Dr. Wood has presented the hypothesis that interfering energy fields were used. No one has disproved that hypothesis to date. People don’t accept this because Hutchinson’s work is unfamiliar and they can not believe they have been lied to by the national media who continue to spout the official lies.

    • SeanW

      That about sums it up. I have come to avoid discussions with people who misquote, mischaracterize, or flat out lie about what she claims and what she does not claim.

      I learned early in my 20’s to differentiate between what I know and what I believe. If you understand that one idea thoroughly you’ll understand everything that Judy does and says because she adheres to that discipline even in the face of some of the most artful dodgers in the media.

      Whenever they put words in her mouth she interjects and stops them and helps them understand that they are misquoting or misapprehending what she has said or claimed. It’s fun but almost painful at times to see esteemed members of the press taking what she has said and restating it incorrectly.

      Over and over this happens. Most people don’t think in that disciplined of a fashion so they form the wrong conclusions about what she says. It shows how our sound bite press has dumbed down the thinking process using mostly logical fallacies — to the point where people almost automatically buy into them as if they were true.

      I see people here saying “thanks for debunking…” they don’t even know what they are saying and they project their utter dumbness on those who can think unencumbered by false influences.

      • Keelan Balderson

        You know you’re in a cult right?

        You’ve decided Wood is infallible like a God, and wrapped your ego in a blanket that you call “I’m a smart person.”

        But you’re not. You’re just in Judy’s internet cult.

        • constitutionalist

          You know you’re full of bull hockey, right?
          You can’t discredit the message, so you attempt to slur the messenger by saying “cult.” So easy to see through your BS.

      • Calvin Weeder

        Look I just heard Judy on the radio saying that the same magic energy weapon that brought down the WTC exists in tornadoes. Tornadoes ‘dustify’ things with super energy, according to Ms. Wood. I’m not putting ‘words in her mouth’, that’s what she said verbatim. If you believe anything this woman says you are either crazy or deluded. Since you sound perfectly reasonable I don’t think you’re crazy, so you must be deluded. Yes, she talks a good game, and if you don’t have experience dealing with con artists you might fall for it. I don’t necessarily blame anyone for not having experience with con artists. You’re lucky. But now you’ve come in contact with one and your defenses are down. The only advice I can give you is to try to cut through the BS as best you can, because so far you’re not doing a good job of it at all. This woman thinks tornadoes are magic, that what you see them doing with your naked eye (stirring up dust) defies current understanding of physics. It’s craziness. Pure lunacy. But hey, if you want to be a loon that’s up to you, you’ll have plenty of company that’s for sure…

  • Bob

    How much are you being paid

    • Nac


    • Calvin Weeder

      something tells me it’s a whole lot less than Judy Woods has been earning off her scam! The money is definitely not in skepticism and debunking. Think about it, which one is more titillating? By now I think everyone in america should be able to understand that titillation = profit

  • Bob

    Or more to the point like jimmy savilles glass eye rings…hidden in plain sight. If we’re too stupid too notice it’s our issue apparently

  • Hipster Racist

    Thanks for this, a great take-down of the rather silly Judith Woods theory and her odious cult. I’ve long suspected that particular crowd was invented to distract from and discredit AE911Truth, to my mind, the only credible truth group. AE911Truth early on distanced themselves from (I believe) James Fetzer who tried to drag Judith Woods and a host of other non-credible “theories.”

    One minor point, I don’t think the idea that what Steve Jones and Neils Harritt found was “just paint” is tenable. What they found was significant, it very much resembles a known substance – “nano-thermite” – and the various patents, research, and processes to make “nano-thermite” are public. It exists, it’s acknowledged to exist, it’s acknowledged to have the application of “building demolition” and it’s very similar, if not the same, to what Jones and Harritt found in the WTC dust.

  • ProNJ

    Keelan Balderson clearly is not a very good researcher. Virtually every paragraph has a huge hole and is often presented on a false premise. I hope to go through most every paragraph so Balderson can get more research data. Look for mulitpe posts this over the next few days from me.

    KB: Right out of the gate he told me “she is the only evidence based researcher that has all the data to fully back her facts.”

    Note the discounting tone, It’s there loud and clear. . Yes KB, Dr. Wood is the ONLY EVIDENCE based research on GZ on 9/11. If you disagreed why didn’t you STATE WHO IS. Example A&E does explain the facts about the following.

    1. The low seismic readings, from Columbia University, of Tower 1 2. The data show the ground being hit by a 12 story building. Meaning that 98 floors never slam down. All other issues are overshadowed by this. If the towers did not hit the ground WHAT HAPPENED to them? You gave not a hint.

    2. In the basement, 75′ down, a slurry wall was built to hold back the Hudson River. Had the towers slammed down, 1,250,000 tons, the slurry wall would have ruptured and flooded southern Manhattan. That did not happen and you didn’t explain why.

    3. Observation, clearly most of the contents were gone. Here is a partial list of missing item which you do not explain. .

    Why didn’t you account for all missing items in the towers:

    420 acres of carpeting.

    360 mainframes, 35,000 PCs, monitors,

    6000 toilets and urinals, 6000 sinks
    and facets

    19,000 miles of cables, 12,000 miles
    of telephone wire.

    1700 human bodies vanished.

    75,000 telephones + 1650 Fire

    40,000 File Cabinets

    1000s of desks/chairs, staplers, fax
    machines, PBX’s air conditioners, kitchens, refrigerators, ovens etc.


    • JHOT 247

      of course he’s not a good researcher, his job is to discredit people that are drawing alternate conclusions opposed to the offical story, so pretty much a traitor and a piece of shit. The point is 2 planes didn’t turn buildings into a fine powder, that’s the point, and people want to debate that, there’s nothing to debate. And what else is interesting is they showed a million times, the planes hitting the towers, almost on purpose (psychic driving) but no videos of the pentagon being hit.

  • Prof. Sydney Bush

    Dr Wood says 3,000 ceramic (?) toilet bowls ‘disappeared.’ They should be almost indestructible! They are formed in fire! She says not one steel filing cabinet remained from either tower. Were they not sold as ‘fireproof?’ Steel safes are even more indestructible than black boxes? Why did they not survive? Could Thermite melt car engine blocks like chocolate 1/2 a mile away and leave the rest OK? Could Thermite ‘infect’ the Deutsche bank structural steel to necessitate demolition and rebuilding? How does Thermite explain firemen’s compressed air Scott bottles going ‘Pop?’ How does Thermite or a nuclear bomb turn cars upside down a mile away but leave the leaves on trees?
    Surely just one of these questions is enough to cause shuddering disbelief of the official story, let alone the forged contradictory radar tracks of ‘planes’ that can suddenly fly at 500 MPH in level flight under 1,000ft altitude, enter buildings like a sharp knife through butter; pop out the other side, have wings that disappear BEHIND a building BEHIND the tower etc? No security photos of hijackers (But they are still alive!) the wrong engine planted at the WYC and a military plane in the TV Video feed. No wing or engines/damage either side of a neat hole! Doesn’t it all make the official story far too silly to tolerate? The UK was put to ENORMOUS expense, loss of soldiers etc and amputees because of the USA. The Pearl Harbour sacrifice of US lives and ships was a prelude? It helped the US enter the 2nd WW to aid the UK (and we paid) but did this?

    • Gforce27

      The “toasted” cars ” evidence, in my opinion, is very shaky evidence. She brings up a lot of interesting apparent anomalies and discrepancies through out her presentations. However, testimony from the Mayor, police officers, and others exists that the cars we’re towed out of the way that day and brought to various locations, where some we’re stacked on top of one another. On this blog, the author, I believe brings up the fact that some of the cars in her photos we’re moved (the police car) and some of the locations of the “toasted cars” we’re locations where the burnt cars we’re known to be moved on that day. So, until this bit of contradictory evidence gets cleared up by her, for me, the Jury is out on her testimony.

      I don’t deny that classified weapons could exist, or that they could have been used, but I think it would have been far more productive for her to investigate these anomalies, ask her questions, and verify facts with out coming to any immediate conclusions, because saying that it is an “energy weapon” is pure speculation.

      • Calvin Weeder

        More productive, maybe. More profitable? Hardly!

  • George Sanders

    If, as Dr. Wood repeatedly states, she does not have a theory as to the cause of the destruction on 9/11, there is nothing to debate. Yet, apparently she would have it both way, no theory on the one hand and a non-theory-theory, based on irrefutable evidence, on the other hand. What is this irrefutable evidence non-theory-theory? That, unidentified DEW’s were the cause of the events of 9/11. Herein lies the problem, a basic contradiction that can only lead to confusion and frustration. If, at some point in time, she proposes a theory, then scientific methodology dictates it be falsifiable.(Popper) Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, despite dozens of experiments that support his theory, is considered falsifiable. Without a theory, Dr. Wood avoids falsifiable status and promotes irrefutable evidence. As good as her evidence might be that something unknown caused 911, that is all that can be said about the cause, “unknown.” The contradiction between no theory and a non-theory-theory is unscientific.

    • pintorider

      Good point about falsifiability. How could she better state her ideas so they could be falsifiable? Can any theory be considered falsifiable if its cause is “unknown?

      • George Sanders

        First and foremost, she needs to state a clear and concise theory supported by the evidence she gathered. To present evidence without stating a theory reduces the argument to a belief. Irrefutable evidence is non-existent in science, but it is the foundation for religious belief. As to whether or not a theory can be falsifiable if the cause is unknown, certainly, because a theory proposes an explanation for the cause. In fact, all scientific theory attempts to explain previously unknown or partially known causes for observed phenomena.

        • pintorider

          Thanks George. My understanding is Dr wood postulates a directed energy weapon *of some sort.* She won’t speculate on what that might be. Nor will she guess “whodunnit.” I support her efforts to discover “the truth” and don’t expect her to figure everything out or be perfectly 100% correct on everything. But she sure got my attention and my unqualified opinion is she is on to something…

          • Calvin Weeder

            Oh yeah she’s onto something, with her magic tornado disintigration theory. I think she got tornados mixed up with the tasmanian devil cartoon.

          • pintorider


          • Calvin Weeder

            great fantastic Yahweh?? Oh come now, I may seem godlike to you but I assure you I’m mortal.

          • pintorider


    • I AM POP SLAG.

      her questions are good though, they led me to the real solution every mechanic in the world knows it. ask one,

      • Harvey Davidson

        Yip, any engineer or metallurgist worth his salt knows that the aluminium from the planes exploded, when they came in contact with water from the sprinklers, as has happened before and since in accidents at aluminium factories when water has somehow gotten into the furnace and mixed with the molten aluminium and resulted in blowing up the whole factory, there it is folks. Why the towers fell.
        Why they were allowed to fall making mr Silverstein so much cash and allowing dubya to finish daddies work by declaring war on terror is another question entirely. The planes should have been shot out of the sky, killing those on board but in their sacrifice saving thousands

        • I AM POP SLAG.

          all that bulust pops when it heats and cools…
          but the fire was cooling,,, you can see the flash over when the building goes,,,it broils…
          it doesnt bang,, there is no rush ,,,no aluminium explosion occured but rusty beams with molten aluminium ?
          fizz pop woosh thermite and that metal pouring out the side???
          aluminium is lighter, its sprays more and splats,,,
          it looks like steel to me..
          you could do some complicated maths on its cooling rate,,,,
          fro the video ,,,its funny how nist got paid to do this and us amnateurs are still at it 15 years later…

          lshit in the space where a set of proper theories should be,,, like the main one..
          werent up to code and the physics of boilinbg aluminium rust and shit load of sulphurous plastic. there was no explosion i dont think, it was a combination of heating and cooling warping and twisting, a floor dropped as it was colling ping ping ping ping ping,,,the aluminium was molten but a pool for a majorexplosion??? i doubt it…
          its was fatigue heat and rust…
          check the pics form 5 years earlier…
          they had just refireproofed without steel prep… in new york??
          thats salty air and rust, , sheer weight and warping brought her down,,, theresa tab on the central core in a docu, its buttery steel…ripped and torn under temps over at least 700 .
          it snapped at the outer shell and stripped itself…maybe aluminium trigger explosion,,, but its not my favourite by a long way…
          theres no data on maintenace excpet that building inspector who said it was properly shit 5 years earlier and rusty as fuck.
          the really scary bit is noones debunked the thermite because of this depsite the thermite lloking exactly that you might find if you fired an aluminium bullet witha few exotics embedded in it downa steel beam..
          the obvioys suppostion from his data replaced with an utter fantasy that they rigged it to blow,,, its fantastic leap,,,,
          and seems to have been done to add ridicule to any political conspiracy theory …a shill..a shameless shill..
          the guy was personally responsible for fucking lenr in the arse and destroying pons and fleischman..
          the man should b tried for fraud.

    • Calvin Weeder

      She doesn’t want to admit she has a ‘theory’ so that she can’t be called a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Or at least, that’s her theory…

  • Joe

    The scrap steel that was allegedly found in scrap yards may not have been necessarily have been used in the construction of towers 1 and 2, or even tower 7. Other building that were damaged and had to be razed could have been the source of the scrap steel. There is no way to explain why, at ground level, within minutes after the destruction of the towers, that there is virtually no debris from the destruction of the buildings and there is no evidence that any fell into the hole.

    • Calvin Weeder

      And yet tens of thousands of New Yorkers saw the big pile of debris… fascinating. Are you correct, or are none of those tens of thousands of New Yorkers reading these comments….? I’m going with the latter.

  • 1906


  • 1906

    Ok Keelen I agree with you and ultimately my opinion is basically like yours in that I don’t know what the hell happened on 9/11. However, one thing I am quite convinced of is that the official story is BS. I don’t know what happened for sure but there is just way
    too much controversial material out there and things that don’t add up. I’ve
    watched every angle I could find on the spires and to me they really look like
    they are just dissolving into dust. The last shorter clip you displayed in previous post is the only one that still looks intact as it falls but it is going
    straight down so it seems to me it is basically dissolving as well but not as sure on that one. Also big chunks of the outer shell of the building seem to dissolve as they fall. Sure it is a video and not proof but it looks pretty clear to me and after watching many videos of other structures being demoed it is definitely different. I would like to have some data on how much material was really at grounds zero. This seems to be unclear. Now building 7 falling looks more like a demolition as far as I can tell. The seismic data doesn’t make sense though. What say you about this?

    • Bob Blake

      read her fucking book. what’s wrong with you?

    • pintorider

      You make good sense to me,and although i tend to agree with Dr Wood’s appraisal of the Hutchinson Effect, I don’t know enough to have a qualified opinion. It’s what got me re-interested in the 911 mystery.

      I read Andrew Johnson’s free ebook and I think it’s high time I read Judy Wood’s book, as the gentleman below suggests, and see what I missed by just reading her articles.

      And thanks for re-visiting the seismic data. I want to know more about that, too.

  • Peter

    I do like Judy Woods theory, but she loses a bit of credibility with me when she started including Hutchinson to back up her theory. If Hutchinson’s theories were true, we would all be currently using so called free energy.

    To Woods defence, your quote “There are two giant flaws I see in these claims right away. First they are based on second hand imagery.” Would mean that most of history would be flawed, because of all the historian’s that have used second hand images to back their claims.

    Some of the sneaky stuff the U.S. government get up to, wouldn’t put it past them to orgisrate 9/11 to support some hidden agenda. I suppose that’s what keeps the conspiracy mill grinding.

    • El Duderino

      If Hutchinson’s theories were true, we would all be currently using so called free energy

      How do you know this? Do you believe that the “best” source of energy 150 years of technological advancements can produce is the gasoline powered combustion engine? Ridiculous.

      The world currency we ALL live under is called the “petrodollar”. Before making wild claims like – if free energy existed the billionaires… trillionairs who control the petrodollar would say; Oh good!! People don’t need our product any more!!! — you may want to consider what you’re actually claiming.

      That’s naïve in the extreme.

      • Calvin Weeder

        No, it’s naive to think free energy exists, and that the energy market is somehow being deprived of it. I know you don’t think so, but to believe otherwise you have to be ignorant not only of science but also of economics and business. There is no businessman on the planet who would not benefit enormously by the advent of free energy. Creating energy is an arduous process, and if we didn’t have to do that we would be able to generate so much more wealth so much faster, the idea that anyone or any group would be preventing free energy from hitting the market because it would be ‘bad for oil companies’ is absolutely preposterous. It really is. I know you’ve been trained to think a certain way about this, but you’re operating out of sheer ignorance. Oil companies have so much money in the bank right now that if free energy hit the market they would divest their oil infrastructure (or leave it to rust) immediately and invest in the runaway production that would occur if free energy were to become available. Unfortunately there are no free rides and there is no free energy and never will be. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not the result of a conspiracy. Your lack of education, on the other hand, might be.

        • El Duderino

          I have a degree in Economics. I also studied physics, chemistry and advanced Mathematics at the collegiate level.

          That notwithstanding – this statement:
          There is no businessman on the planet who would not benefit enormously by the advent of free energy. Paints you as both ignorant (of business) and naïve about how the world works.

          The House of Saud, and anyone else invested heavily in fossil fuels… you know like the Bush Family, BP, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell… just light weight businessmen who would lose everything if free energy were made available.

          Now, I agree that the world would massively benefit as a whole from the release of free energy technology – the only think standing in the way is the tyranny of evil men and the gullibility of the rest.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Well then you certainly wasted your time and tuition, didn’t you.

            Resources dry up all the time, and those invested in them invest in something else. You sound as silly today as someone in 1816 would by babbling about the big money interests in whale oil, and how they’ll never let petroleum take over…

          • Calvin Weeder

            And for the record, when a resource dries up or is no longer viable the people invested in it don’t lose everything like in a stock-market crash. They’ve already taken the profits. When a gold mine runs dry, the gold has already been taken. The petroleum industry happens to be on the decline, and the companies that operate in it have already been diversifying for some time now.

            However, this has nothing to do with free energy, which does not, and will not ever exist. And only the nuttiest of the nutjobs are on board with you on that one. Even 9/11 conspiracies are more believable than chemtrails, and even chemtrails are more believable than free energy. You’re certainly not doing the 9/11 cause any favors by including any of that stuff! Not that there is any actual ‘9/11 cause’ since you’re all over the map with your various individual beliefs and fetishes. Sort of like the ‘white power’ denizens of the internet, a clique of which at least half the 9/11ers belong to as well… When are you going to get around to the Protocols, and revealing that the jews are responsible for all this?

  • Oiram Oicruc

    Observe at :31-:33 of spire video, synchronized explosions outward from top down, then the rest of the building. Explosions preceded the collapse start. Evidence of planned demolition!

  • Oiram Oicruc

    911 was the opening shot for the NWO agenda of control by fear for perpetual wars for profit, control, destruction and depopulation.

  • John


  • Rebel Alliance

    Thx for debunking Wood. Though I cannot agree that it is arrogant to state what you know. We can be honest about what we do not know but we cannot be dishonest about what we do know. Remember, as with many crimes, the burden of proof is on the victim and not on the black ops as you correctly identify

  • El Duderino

    @Keelan Balderson — Question: Are you aware that the U.S. government has offered NO explanation for how the towers collapsed? NIST offered an explanation for the onset of the collapse, but then glibly stated: “global collapse then ensued”.

    Those 4 words are all the government has offered to explain how 15% of a building can completely obliterate the lower 85% of the building and all of its contents – 107 acres of office equipment and 4″ thick concrete decking (per tower).

    Further, Frank DiMartini – the manager of the WTC towers’ construction, in an interview in Jan of 2001 said with marked confidence that there is NO WAY a jetliner could bring the towers down. In fact, he said that given their unique construction they could most likely withstand multiple jetliner impacts.

    The point being that a global collapse was not expected even after the building was hit by a plane. So it amazes me that you and other “debunkers” go on ad nauseam about how flawed Dr. Wood’s conclusions are when all the government has offered to explain this never-before-seen and wholly unexpected event is “global collapse then ensued.” Why do you not demand a plausible explanation from the government?


    • Keelan Balderson

      I don’t have any thoughts, just because A) might be untrue or lacking in data, doesn’t mean B) is true.

      Woods is still potty.

      • El Duderino

        I don’t have any thoughts

        That about says it all. The government says: “global collapse then ensued” and that’s good enough for you. No thought beyond that needed. My hat’s off to you for being honest about your willful ignorance.


    • Calvin Weeder

      I’ve got some thoughts… sounds like this Frank DiMartini character was all mobbed up and channeled half the money given to him to build the WTC into his pocket, then slapped the thing together with substandard materials (many of which were apparently toxic). Yeah of course he’s going to say it was built to withstand multiple jetliner impacts, because he was SUPPOSED to build it that way.

      Sure, this is pure speculation, but ask yourself… what’s more likely, the mafia on the take cheaping out on constructing a building in New York City at the height of their power in 1973, or a massive conspiracy involving energy weapons, columns being packed with thermite, or whatever…

      • El Duderino

        Frank DiMartini gave that interview prior to 9/11 – he died in the attack. He had no way of knowing the towers would be hit by planes.

        You do bring up an interesting point though – NYC construction corruption is a thing of legend. So explain… why did the clean up for the site come in WELL UNDER BUDGET and WELL AHEAD OF SCHEDULE?

        Get that? Here the mob had a perfect opportunity to take as long as they wanted to clear the site – they certainly could have drawn it out to MEET estimates. But they couldn’t even do that. Why? There simply was not anywhere near the debris pile there should have been. This yet again fits with Dr. Wood’s research.

        There were 214 acres of 4″ think concrete decking, not to mention 214 acres of office equipment – cubes, printers, computers, desks, chairs, refrigerators, file cabinets… Where did all that stuff go because it was not left at ground zero after the destruction of the towers. Just look at pictures – there is about 1 or 2 stories of debris. We’re talking about 2 110 story buildings.

  • Mitch

    “Follow the Money” and you will know who was behind 9/11. Larry Silverstein, for starters made over US$5 billion by purchasing a 99 year lease and double insuring the buildings 7 weeks prior to 9/11 for terrorism acts, was he stupid with his money? No he has blood on his hands as do the firms or people that made billions by taking the largest loop sided options positions in history, come on people, “Follow the Money” and we would learn the true. Larry should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away until he explains what he and others knew about 9/11.

    • Calvin Weeder

      “”Follow the Money” and you will know who was behind 9/11.”

      By that logic the answer is that Judy Wood and the other truther promoters responsible for 9/11 since they’re the only ones making money off it, and in the past 15 years they’ve made LOADSAMONEY!

  • Al Olmstead

    Judy Woods’ “evidence” consists entirely in effects, while her account of cause(s) reamains entirely speculative, which is what the trial judge correctly ruled. The type of lawsuit that Woods chose to file imposes very specific, special rules of evidence. If she did not want to comply with those rules, then why did she file that type of lawsuit? Nothing about Judy Woods makes sense.

    • Calvin Weeder

      Obviously she filed the lawsuit for publicity, because she would have to be absolutely retarded to think the lawsuit had any chance. I think she knows exactly what she is doing. She saw that the 9/11 truther movement was big business and decided she wanted a piece of it. But since all the theories that even made the slightest bit of twisted sense had already been taken, she had to come up with something so fallacious nobody else had previously considered it. The fact that she would waste taxpayer’s money filing a frivolous lawsuit is disgusting, and she should be penalized for it, preferably with jail time so she can sit there and think about what a scumbag she is…

  • Diaz’s cashed bowl

    Why waste words on a well poisoning fraud? SHE IS A FRAUD!

    eyewitnesses saw and heard explosions, YOU watched them on youtube! has anyone seen or filmed anything to the contrary? No.

    Her imbecilic theory has as much validity as the governments discredited theory.

    April gallop delmart vreeland are pentagon employees who tried to expose 911 as a self inflicted false flag attack


    judy woods question led me to the right answer , it was rust ,

  • fortran4ever

    I have this imagine the Astroturfers paid to write this garbage about Dr. Wood’s work, playing the part of walkers in the Walking Dead, feasting on human fleet sand enjoying it too.

  • Camilo Orellana

    where are melted cars? Forgot, huh.

  • Camilo Orellana

    You may disagree, but attack her scientific placements …… Your argument is ridiculous compared to her. By the way, show me a building falling down in free fall and accelerating, which has not been controllably demolished. You can not….

    • Keelan Balderson

      It doesn’t fall at free fall though soooo.

      • El Duderino

        WTC7 did – for 2.2 seconds. Even NIST admits this fact. sooooo.

    • Calvin Weeder

      Show me another skyscraper a jumbo jet has slammed into, point out the differences to the ones that slammed into WTC, and then we’ll talk. Otherwise, there is no other demolition of a building to compare it to; you’re wasting your time, and while your time is probably worthless, you’re also enabling me to waste mine and for that we should both be ashamed, because my time is extremely valuable.

      • El Duderino

        Where do you get this standard of proof? You don’t demand it from those peddling the official story. There is no other steel framed high rise that has collapsed due to fire, yet you except that explanation from the government.

        FEMA could not explain the collapse of WTC7 – they punted. Then NIST, 4 years later, released a model of the collapse but oh hey… they refused to release the dataset they used for their model.

        I guess Danny Jowenko (R.I.P.) didn’t know what controlled demo looks like despite being in the business for 30 years.

        Peddle your yellow-bellied lies somewhere else.

        • Kara

          Thank-you, someone needed to stand up to this Weeder! Holy crap he has commented so much in this comment section and yet still wants us to think he has precious little time to waste lol

          • Calvin Weeder

            Compared to the 15 years of daily nutjobbery you fools have been engaging in, my participation is a drop in the bucket.

          • El Duderino

            I see. So if a crime isn’t prosecuted or a conspiracy isn’t publicly exposed over a certain time period (of your choosing of course), this means there was no crime or conspiracy? This is the folly of your logic. It’s demonstrably flawed.

            Have you ever heard of Lech Walesa? Probably not, go ahead and look him up, we’ll wait. Lech was a hero of the Polish people and an icon in the “fight” against Soviet oppression. Except… Oops… He was actually a spy for the Soviets. Yes, this is just one example of a massive conspiracy that was recently exposed. Does the fact it took 30 years to expose the truth mean the truth is not the truth? Nope.

            You lose.

            I also notice that you haven’t responded to any of my challenges against the official story – instead opting for the tired tactics of building your own straw men and launching ad hominem attacks.

            You’re a punk. You’re off this board buddy, you’re exposed.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Well if 9/11 is a conspiracy, then of course it doesn’t matter how long it takes to find out it’s a conspiracy. I’m perfectly content to wait as long as it takes. You and the nutjob brigade, however, don’t seem to have that kind of patience. You’d rather insist there is a conspiracy when not a shred of compelling evidence to suggest a conspiracy has been uncovered. My original point was that if there was no 9/11 conspiracy, then wasting 15 years looking for one would indeed be a waste of time, but I failed to realize, as I have in this comment, that you’re not even looking for a conspiracy behind 9/11, you’re insisting that one has been found when it hasn’t. That’s the equivalent of spending the past 15 years trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

          • El Duderino

            You are equating “no one has been charged with conspiracy over 9/11” with “there is no evidence of a conspiracy.” That’s a common and gigantic error made by “debunkers”. Sort of like saying if a crime isn’t prosecuted then there was no crime.

            There is MASSIVE evidence of a conspiracy. The 9/11 commission reports key conclusions were based on evidence that was either altered or destroyed. They misrepresented and or ignored evidence and testimony that didn’t fit with their prearranged explanation.

            This is all that needs to be shown to prove a conspiracy. Those questioning the obvious flaws and contradictions in the government’s story are not obligated to figure out “whodunit”.

            That would be like a trial in which the defense team not only has to show that the prosecution’s case is flawed, they also have to conduct their own investigation, arrest, try and convict the TRUE perpetrators else their client is “guilty”. Utter absurdity.

          • Calvin Weeder

            “You are equating “no one has been charged with conspiracy over 9/11” with “there is no evidence of a conspiracy.””

            No, I did not do that. You are LYING. You are a LIAR.

            I said there is no evidence of a conspiracy, and that’s exactly what I meant.

            There is not a single shred of evidence that the ‘official version’ is false. And that’s saying something, considering the large volumes of BS the 9/11 truthers have generated, they haven’t managed to find a single piece of credible evidence. So much effort has gone into finding evidence, by so many people, that if there were any, I think it’d have turned up by now. In fact, if there were any evidence of a conspiracy, then 9/11 truthers probably wouldn’t have been so compelled to generate so much BS. If they had ever found actual evidence, there would be no need for all the wacky conspiracy theories. I think the disappointment of not being able to find any evidence of a conspiracy probably motivates a lot of True Believers to generate fraudulent truther propaganda. When they so desperately want something to be true but there’s no evidence of that truth they use whatever lies they can come up with to fabricate the ‘truth’. And you keep regurgitating them at me. Afterall, you didn’t come up with any of the 9/11 claims you’ve mentioned here yourself, did you. Oh I know you ‘noticed’ the same things as the other truthers, but you aren’t personally responsible for any of the 9/11 truther memes. You’ve never been quoted on an Alex Jones website, right. You’re just a mouthpiece, a really noisy one.

          • El Duderino

            Yes it is true that you didn’t exactly equate “not being charged” with there is not conspiracy. Unlike you, I am willing to accept and admit my mistakes.

            I will clarify my statement. You claimed there was no evidence of a conspiracy and I took this to mean that “if there were evidence”, then “someone would be charged”. I guess that is not what you were saying. I guess you were saying that if there were evidence it would just lie there and nothing would be done about it. My mistake.

            Still. Your statement that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is demonstrably false. There is a mountain range of evidence that a conspiracy was involved. Including the mishandling and destroying of evidence and the altering and ignoring of key testimony on the part of the 9/11 commission. Further, the explanations offered by the government regarding what happened at Shanksville, The Pentagon, and ground zero are all demonstrably flawed.

            A deliberate coverup on the part of the investigative committee is prima facie evidence of a coverup.

          • Calvin Weeder

            “Yes it is true that you didn’t exactly equate “not being charged” with there is no conspiracy. Unlike you, I am willing to accept and admit my mistakes.”

            When you’re caught so blatantly and can’t weasel out of it, you mean. But even so I’m impressed, I would not have expected you to admit any mistakes.

            “A deliberate coverup on the part of the investigative committee is prima facie evidence of a coverup”

            Except that all 9/11 lawsuits against the government have been tossed out as soon as the judge hearing them decides there is no prima facie evidence. Sure, you can claim all those judges are corrupt and part of the conspiracy (and I would expect nothing less from you), and I have no problem with that. You’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but when you claim your beliefs are based on evidence rather than opinion, and you publicly pontificate your declarations, if I happen to read them and have the time to refute them, I will.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Incidentally, why aren’t you clowns jumping on this, and pointing out that the supreme court recently allowed 9/11 lawsuits against the Saudis go ahead? Instead you launch more BS. I argue your side better than you ever could!

          • El Duderino

            The etymology of the word “punk” far predates the Sex Pistols.

            It is derived from old English – a word used to denote something worthless. Later it was conflated with prostitution.

            Therefore, it’s the perfect descriptor for you as you are (a) worthless and (b) a prostitute for the establishment.

          • El Duderino

            I never said there is anything wrong with ad hominem attacks per se. My point was that ad hominem attack ARE ALL YOU HAVE. Well, that and straw man arguments.

            There is no issue with calling someone names after you’ve completely handed their ass to them. As I have done to you. But when it’s all you have with no substance… that’s where the problem comes in.

          • El Duderino

            Don’t sweat this clown, Kara. Clearly he’s nothing more than a bully. Keep supporting the truth and exposing anti-American trolls like Calvin. There are way more of us than there are of him.

          • Calvin Weeder

            So you’re saying mobs trump bullies?

            Anyway I’d rather bully a con-artist than fall for the con, that’s for sure!

          • El Duderino

            Yet ANOTHER straw man!! Wow!! No, I don’t say that mobs trump bullies. My statement to Kara was one of support for someone with similar views. Not everyone wishes to engage with bullies like you. That’s what I’m here for.

            Not a single person was reprimanded over what we are supposed to believe is the biggest defense blunder since the Trojan Horse. Is this believable? Is it how the real world works? Not at all. If this really was a case of “bungling” people would have been held to account. But in a conspiracy, no one is held to account.

            “Treason doth never prosper. The reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. — John Harington

        • Calvin Weeder

          Are you suggesting that I should be demanding that the government build a replica of WTC and then fly two jumbo jets into it, in order to prove ‘the official story’? Even if they did that, and the results looked exactly the same as 9/11, would that satisfy the nutjob brigade? Of course not. Quit pretending you’re on the high-road here. You’re a bottom-scraper, probably not even smart enough to profit off this nonsense like Ms. Wood does.

          • El Duderino

            Straw man argument. The government didn’t have to build a model to offer up an explanation as to how the onset of collapse started. Why then should have have to build one to explain how the towers were completely obliterated by a “pile driver” that only represented 15% of the total structure – a pile driver that went straight through THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE?

            More impossible physics and a non-answer from the government.

            “Global collapse then ensued” – Those are the 4 words the government has offered to explain the complete obliteration of 214 acres of buildings and their contents. Sorry, you may accept that because you’re a willfully ignorant moron – intelligent people call B.S.

          • Calvin Weeder

            If I preface a statement with “Are you suggesting…” and end it with a question mark, then I’m asking if that is your position. My statement could only possibly be a strawman if I declared your position to be a certain way in which it is not. It’s not even possible for a question to be a strawman. Clearly you have a lot of experience with strawman arguments since that’s exactly what you do when you continually misrepresent my arguments, but you obviously don’t have any ability to recognize a strawman argument. Furthermore, even if I HAD declared your argument to be that the government must build a replica of the WTC and then fly planes into it, that wouldn’t have been a strawman because it WAS your argument. I was just engaging in conversational semantics by phrasing it as a question. You specifically accused me of not demanding a reasonable standard of proof to the government, after I pointed out that no event like 9/11 has ever occurred to compare it to. It follows then, that the standard of proof is to build a replica (not a model, a replica is an exact copy) of the WTC towers and fly planes into them. Just because you are not being direct and forthcoming with the nature of your arguments (a measure of dishonesty, btw) does not mean that you get a free pass on them not being scrutinized.

          • El Duderino

            We’ve covered ad nauseam your poor language skills and here we have yet another example.

            Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Probably not, let me help you (again). A rhetorical question is in fact a statement used to make a point but formed as a question to give illusion that a question is being asked. Leading with “are you suggesting…” is a classic example. Another is “Do you expect me to believe…?” This is not a question – but rather a statement that what is being asked to believe is on the surface not believable.

            I have not misrepresented any of your positions. I don’t have to misrepresent them, they are easy to dismantle just the way you form them.

            No – I never once suggested that the government had to build a model. That statement WAS, in fact, you straw man!! There is no need to build a model, yet you introduced this ridiculousness and attempted to suggest that it was the basis for MY argument. Then you tore down your own straw man.

            What I said was – no model was needed to explain the ONSET of collapse – nor was one needed to explain WTC7 – so why would one be needed to explain the full destruction of the towers?

            A common mistake made by debunkers is to apply a much more rigorous standard of “proof” from those questioning the official story than that demanded from the official story itself.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Ah, so now questions are a conspiracy theory. What a fascinating, paranoid world you live in!

          • El Duderino

            You are an intellectual midget and I’ve proven this several times and will prove it again.

            No, questions are not “conspiracy theories.” And since I never said this, this is yet another example of a straw man you’ve built.

            Here is what you said:

            If I preface a statement with “Are you suggesting…” and end it with a question mark, then I’m asking if that is your position.

            Your lack of education (in this case not knowing that, despite having a question mark at the end, a rhetorical question is not a question) is not my problem.

            You’re a typical moron debunker who has WAY more arrogance than intelligence. You’re a dime a dozen and easily defeated – as I have done repeatedly here.

          • Calvin Weeder

            A rhetorical question is a question for which an answer was not expected. It certainly can’t be an strawman which is an argument (a fallacious one, but still an argument). If the question doesn’t contain an accurate representation of your argument, then you have the option of answering ‘No.’ So it is impossible for a question to be an argument, rhetorical or not. My questions have not been rhetorical, however. Just because I figure you’re not capable of answering them doesn’t mean they don’t require an answer. I frame your muddled arguments as simplified questions and feed them back to you as a challenge to make you think harder about what you’re saying than you normally do, and to help the reading audience scrutinize your text more acutely than they might otherwise.

  • El Duderino

    A typically lame attempt to tear down Dr. Wood’s work. The fact you use the Dr. Jenkins “interview” to attempt to show her in a bad light, without giving your reader the background of that interview is particularly disingenuous.

    Dr. Woods had been attending a talk given by someone else, she wasn’t listed as a speaker – how did Jenkins know he would find her there? It was very late – past 10 p.m. when he approached her and asked if he could “ask her a few questions”, but he had a film crew – lighting, 2 cameras, audio equipment and had apparently rented a room to stage the interview. Hardly spontaneous. Why not just contact Dr. Wood and set up a reasonable time – you know during the day – to interview her?

    The interview is purposefully shot in a way (lighting) to show Dr. Woods in a poor way and Dr. Jenkins as more put together (he’s also sitting higher than Dr. Woods – an old Talk show trick used by many to this day.

    In short – the Dr. Jenkins interview was a set up. Why? Why would this guy go through all the trouble to essentially stalk Dr. Woods and then film her when she was obviously read for bed? To trick people like yourself is my guess, because it worked.

    One other thing to mention – your attack of Dr. Woods for using “made up words” paints you as someone who hasn’t spent much time around science or math professors. Making up a new word when one believes they are observing a new phenomenon is the proper thing to do. Also, it’s very common for professors to use everyday words to explain observed phenomenon – words like “poof” or “toasted” are not all unusual coming from a professor of science – particularly a teaching professor.

    • WALKER

      As I picture you as a Turkey, please do not come to my house on Thanksgiving!

      • El Duderino

        Attack the messenger because you can’t attack the message. The debunker’s credo.

        • Calvin Weeder

          Debunkers debunk, that’s what debunking means. Anyone can insult. I noticed you have nothing to say about the guy who called me a POS and told me to GFY, however. Hypocrisy, the nutjob’s credo…

    • Calvin Weeder

      Do you even realize what an embarrassment kooks like “Dr.” Wood are to the universities they are employed by? It absolutely infuriates them, as it undoubtedly adversely effects enrollment when one of these crackpots is associated with the institution that employs them. They would love to fire them but they can’t because they have tenure and ‘academic freedom’ is a virtue in the hallowed halls of higher education. Of course you never see one of these people being offered positions as profs at universities AFTER they’ve publicized their crackpot theories, no they always act normal before they get tenure. As long as they teach their classes without any nonsense, and do the required academic work, they can’t be fired, and they know that. So they use their ‘credentials’ to launch a ridiculous theory (and Judy Wood’s is probably one of the most ridiculous I’ve ever heard of coming from an academic in the 21st century) which they then try to cash in on by writing books about and going on the nutbar lecture circuit…

      • El Duderino

        Kook? She’s a Ph.d in physics. A former professor of Physics at Clemson. Yeah, she’s a kook. And chucked a successful career to “cash in”.

        Meanwhile, you don’t question why not a single person was reprimanded for losing $6 BILLION in CASH during the early years of the Iraq war. Yep… Dr. Wood – with the couple of thousands she made from publishing a textbook of her research… who spent thousands of her own money to bring a law suit against the government over their lies… yep – SHE’S the opportunist. What an idiot you are.

        Further, you don’t question at all that not a single civilian or military official was reprimanded over what we are told is the single biggest defense blunder since the Trojan Horse. Yep.. not one person was even demoted or even had a reprimand added to their files. Instead, the top civilian official – Condie Rice – and that top Military official (forget his name) were PROMOTED!!!

        Is that how the world works, Calvin? $6.2 BILLION – in cash, this was not an accounting error – this was $6.2 BILLION in CASH – “goes missing” and no one is held accountable. Our country is embarrassingly attacked with zero military response – and not a single person is reprimanded for dereliction?

        That’s just perfectly normal isn’t it?

        • Calvin Weeder

          “Meanwhile, you don’t question why not a single person was reprimanded for losing $6 BILLION in CASH during the early years of the Iraq war…. Further, you don’t question at all that not a single civilian or military official was reprimanded over what we are told is the single biggest defense blunder since the Trojan Horse. ”

          You must have me confused with somebody else. Or probably just some kind of boogeyman you imagine…

        • Calvin Weeder

          Hey that’s nothin, according to the Panama Papers several trillion ‘go missing’ every year…

  • Oksanna Zoschenko

    I was introduced to 9/11 by a dear friend Gerard Holmgren. He had nothing bad to say about Judy Woods ideas and indeed shared her approach, one also shared by your associate James Corbett, of never superimposing a narrative before the evidence is gathered. When I asked Holmgren how the towers were brought down, he simply said I don’t know…and this from the guy who stumbled upon the flight database anomalies, which were then later doctored to fit the official conspiracy. Holmgren had read Reich of the Black Sun by J.P.Farrell, as had I. But since his passing, I was sucked in by the thermite story, despite GH’s warnings about its proponents. I also suspected Judy Wood was a disinformation agent due to the preposterous weapons concept. How wrong I was. Recently read Nick Cook’s The Hunt for Zero Point, with its section on The Hutchinson Effect. Throughout that book officials, including NASA officials, try to lead Cook astray. It is likely the UFO conspiracy is one such attempt to deflect attention from black projects. Cook led me via Hutvhinson, back to Wood. She is alright. It is the NASA guys you rely upon, and your peer review system in the white world, which are not so reliable. Applying peer review to black projects? I think the online clips of TR3-B over Paris are sufficient response to that approach.

    • WALKER

      I think you should start over by going back to Kindergarten!

      • Calvin Weeder

        C’mon its funny to watch different factions of loonies accuse each other of being ‘disinformation agents’!

        • dooglio

          Yeah, you guys really are loonies, if you believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

          • Calvin Weeder

            You posted that right after admonishing me for ‘name calling’ instead of engaging in ‘meaningful debate’. The hubris and gall by which you display your duplicitous hypocrisy is something I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of in society since Donald Trump began his quest to normalize it.

          • dooglio

            Well, I figure since you are doing nothing but name calling, I’d join it. It’s more fun that way. :-)

          • Calvin Weeder

            Yes, that’s how trolling works, a sad pathetic individual with no reason for living discovers that the most enjoyable stimulation he or she can get is the thrill of drawing the ire of his or her superiors.

            Your claim that I am “doing nothing but name calling” is idiotic at best. These threads are all right here for everyone to read. I have spent more time and have expended intellectual effort by patiently pulling apart and debunking every half-baked argument presented to me here than any of you petulant whiners will in your entire lives. The only reason you are channeling Donald Trump in your zeal to blatantly lie about the nature of my participation here is because writing me off as a ‘name caller’ is the only way you can soothe your badly bruised ego. Because if I’m not just a name caller, then you really are a twit.

          • dooglio

            “I have spent more time and have expended more intellectual effort by
            patiently pulling apart and debunking every half-baked argument
            presented to me here than any of you petulant whiners will in your
            entire lives”

            You claim to have done a lot of debunking, but I have not seen any of it. Instead, you run away from reality and pretend that the buildings actually collapsed, and refuse to address the overwhelming evidence of the required lack of material on the ground.

            I’m not “blatantly lying.” I’m calling it as I see it. You are massively defensive, rude, and have nothing but personal attacks to those who disagree with you.

          • Calvin Weeder

            “You claim to have done a lot of debunking, but I have not seen any of it. ”

            You responded to reams of it, and had your responses easily torn apart. You spent the last 6 months licking your wounds and now you finally feel more like the blowhard you know yourself to be. So you come back, pretending your lies aren’t lies, probably bolstered by the Trump campaign. Go hold your breath until the invisible man in the sky appoints you Chief 9/11 Stupidity Warrior.

          • dooglio

            Heh, and yet still, no addressing any of the refutation of your faith. Just childish name calling.

  • greenbag

    Judy wood took the money and ran. Ever hear from her lately? lol.

  • Godabove09

    The biggest clue, in my opinion, that this was planned and executed with the knowledge and involvement of the U.S government, helped by other governments in a certain region, is the very fact that after all this time we still have no idea what really happened and why.
    A plan to steal oil from Iraq?
    Well, that war cost more than any oil revenue could recoup.
    Maybe it was the only way to force America into the middle east, to put a long term plan in place, which we are now seeing come to fruition, of a sectarian bloodbath in the Muslim middle east?
    To benefit Israel?
    Maybe it was the “eternal enemy” that the military industrial complex needed after years of relative peace saw their profits tumble?
    Records of trillion dollar discrepancies needing to disappear?
    Was it just coincidence that the plans hit Cantor Fitzgerald in the exact place their records were kept?
    The laundry list is endless and that, and the way they were allowed to leak from a supposed watertight conspiracy reek of disinformation.
    Or rather a way to add another layer upon the countless layers already piling up in the story.
    Classic tactics to obfuscate the truth.
    I disagree entirely with Dr Judy about one thing.
    The how and what are secondary, a distraction.
    Energy weapon, thermite, thermate…planes, no planes…etc…etc…etc…whichever or it was it still had to be financed, planned, executed and covered up.
    The who and why are the only things that matter.
    Dr Wood says you sort out the how and what first…but that’s not important.
    You find out why and who and get them under oath in court and the rest will either not matter so much or will be revealed through trials, through leaks once the house of cards collapses and a chain reaction might start.
    Dr Wood would spend decades arguing about energy weapons which conveniently keeps us looking at the how and what, not the who and why.
    And for what?
    To one day, years away, say “we proved it was a laser” and that’s it?
    How does that get anyone any closer to bringing the treasonous elements to justice?
    Oh, but I forgot, Dr Wood doesn’t even know what weapon, or how big, or what exactly it uses to “turn steel to dust”.
    Igore her, forgot the nonsense and focus on why it happened and who benefits.

    • WALKER

      Have you ever heard of Osama Bin Laden? Look the guy up and stop acting so absolutely Stupid!

      • Mark Hodge

        Trolls tend to be stupid ;-)

    • Calvin Weeder

      Ah, so the ‘biggest clue’ that 9/11 was an inside job is that you and other pinheads still think its an inside job? That’s some pretty impressive investigative work there, Sherlock!

    • outof ajam

      Some people say Judy Wood is a super-shill. Could this be true, and she is the very distraction you are warning about ?

  • Mark Hodge

    “Take for example police vehicle 2723 which Wood shows at FDR drive, but was originally outside the Millennium Hilton Hotel.” I hate to inform, but the front view photo you provided is at FDR Drive, only from a different angle. Note the above roof or road, it’s the same as in Judy’s rear view photo.

    As for the tower collapses and dust effect, there are dust trails behind debris as it falls, which is very strange. Also the falling debris field is only about the width of the twin towers, which doesn’t explain the damage to buildings outside that range, and the war zone effect behind WTC 7 (on Barcay St.).


    • Keelan Balderson

      Can you qualify this? They don’t look like the same places at all and the hotel is nowhere near FDR drive. The arrow points to the hotel. Either way Wood’s point is ridiculous.

      As for dust, of course there’s dust! What do you think concrete is made of?

      Also debris was found all over the place, that is why other buildings WERE damaged. Obviously the bulk of the pile was going to be at the footprints, because that’s how they fell, but debris was also found much further away.

      • Mark Hodge

        Ok, after some brief research on Google, I found the answer unto the burned cars, from a former resident of the area…

        “September 12: for the next few days they started dumping wrecked vehicles on avenues north of the site, to begin to clear out whatever could be moved easily. Here’s a guy rummaging through the toxic dust of a destroyed car, placed on Church street, near Apex Art.”


        As for the collapse aspect, I believe that a grand conspiracy was involved. In fact many years prior to event. As 911 was predicted on money and in the media as far back as 1985. Anyway, the towers were built to be destroyed, as part of the diabolical NWO agenda. And there are more disasters to come, but when is yet unknown. One thing though, NYC is a major target zone. Also the Hoover Dam is a major target. Below video playlist reveals much.


        • Calvin Weeder

          Ok so you looked the up the thing about the cars, but you can’t look up the thing about the money? Look up every single one of your cockamamie theories from the youtube videos you watch while you masturbate and eat doritos, they’ve all been thoroughly debunked years ago.

          • pintorider

            You’re a nasty POS.

          • Mark Hodge

            Trolls tend to be nasty ;-)

          • dooglio

            Calvin, we didn’t make this stuff up. It’s not our fault. If you want to blame someone for the 9/11 disaster, I would think that you would want to know who really did it, right? And why it was done, right?

            You can’t do that until you actually know *what* was done. And then you can determine how it was done. “Who” and “why” come after that.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Poignant Original Superman?? All this flattery is making me blush!

          • Mark Hodge

            The 911 money origami speaks for itself.. it can’t be debunked ;-)

          • Calvin Weeder

            It can, and it has. If you don’t already know that you are probably mentally challenged. One would have to seriously be one of the dullest knives in the drawer to fall for the ‘origami money’ pareidolia. Yes it can be fun to freak out those who are unaware of it when you show it to them for the first time, but after the initial shock, a few hours later most people, thankfully, will have figured out how preposterous and downright silly it is. Or they’ll just Google it.

          • Mark Hodge

            Sorry, evidence can’t be debunked, and the origami is visual symbolic evidence unto 911. There is also predictive programming in varied media concerning 911. Anyway, someday you’ll learn the hard way, that doomsday is not fiction. 911 was only the beginning of the collapse of America. Greater 911 events are in store, only a matter of time before the SHTF ;-)

          • Ahackin Slashin

            funny, all the guys i know that masterbate and eat doritos for a living are the ones that are usually too lazy to look into 9/11 obviously not having as happened the way the official story is told, and just want to parrot what the TV tells them to – god forbid any actual research of their own

          • Calvin Weeder

            Oh really? Where are all these people then? Apparently this massive contingent of people who ‘never questioned the official version’ don’t know how to use computers, because we never see them posting comments to articles about 9/11. For some reason we only see nutjobs and people who have questioned the official version far more than the nutjobs are even capable of. Even if your deranged paranoia has you assuming that latter group is ‘shills’ and ‘disinformation agents’, that would still mean they wouldn’t fall into the category of people who blindly accept whatever their leaders tell them. This massive majority of mindless drones as collectively produced as much evidence to suggest they exist as the UFOs have.

          • Calvin Weeder

            And it seems to me one of the people who parrots what’s on television is you, Ahackin Slashin. Afterall, the History channel is tailor made to pander to slack-jawed info-gawkers like you. It’s an endless cycle of conspiracy theory, because the History channel figured out a few years back that World War 2 documentaries aren’t nearly as profitable as conspiracy nonsense. So now the ‘History’ channel is filled with idiotic junk all because twits like you are so eager to soak it up. If you fools weren’t so addicted to your masturbatory confirmation bias, titillating yourselves by having your coveted conspiracy theories perpetually regurgitated back to you on your television then maybe the History channel would broadcast something worth watching, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. You sad-sacks with inflated but incredibly fragile egos actually convince yourselves that you’re some of the few people around who really know what’s going on with special access to forbidden knowledge when in reality you’re the lowest common denominator and your stupidity is mainstream garbage.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Now I know what some of you are thinking: Why is this guy so worked up about this? Well, I am but I’m not. I’ve been through this so long that it’s impossible to get much of an emotional rise out of me, yet there is always some simmering level of seething rage behind my words. The reason is because when I was in my mid-20’s, just starting to look around and figure out what’s going on in the world after an adolescence spent goofing around, I was working in a video store when I came across a tape of a ‘documentary’ about Nostradamus. Well, I ate up what the distinguished-looking grey-haired and bearded scholarly-type of narrator was saying like a starving chihuahua. Then I found more stuff a couple years later when the web was new circa 1993, when it really did seem like the info was clandestine and not the mainstream garbage it is today. A friend also got me hooked on Carlos Castaneda, a well known spiritual fraudster. I got heavily into a conspiracy-based radio show out of San Francisco called Radio Free America that some weirdo was re-broadcasting on my local university radio station which I listened to a lot because I was a hip-happenin’ youngster. And I simply wasn’t smart or sophisticated enough at that age to be able to resist these kind of, not ‘psychic’ attacks, but attacks on my ‘psyche’.

            I remember one time I was talking to one of my more level-headed friends about Nostradamus and he started laughing at me. I was so angry that he didn’t treat my solemn spew of BS as sacred. Eventually I did manage to sort myself out and gain the ability to reject not only the BS coming at me, but also the BS coming out of me. I’m not sure exactly how I did that, but I know it was difficult. One defining moment I recall is when I tried to print out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well known fraudulent hate rag that has been floating around for over a century in various forms. Of course I knew nothing about that at the time, I didn’t even know what a Zion was, but as I started reading the first few pages it made so much sense I excitedly reached to turn my printer on, I felt this stuff was so important I needed to waste some ink and paper on it! So it started printing, and after a few pages it finally revealed that it was blaming the jews for all the conspiracies mentioned at the beginning of the tract. At that point I realized it was garbage, so in a somewhat comical scene I kept pounding on the printer to get it to stop, but it had already buffered so many pages it kept spitting them out and at this point I’m thinking YIKES I’ve got to get rid of these pages I don’t ever want anyone to know I thought this stuff was worth printing out!! So after I finally got the printer to abort after printing 15 or 20 pages, I took them to the fireplace and burned them immediately

            I managed to sort myself out before 9/11, and I’ve often thought since then that I was very lucky to have sorted myself out before 9/11 because after 9/11 the conspiracy stuff became much more sophisticated, and I’m not so sure I would’ve been able to come out of it at all ever if my first exposure to it came after 9/11.

            So that’s my story, that’s why there’s a seething rage behind my writing on this topic. Not because I’m a shill or a disinformation agent, but because I don’t like being deceived, especially by the fraudsters and charlatans who were so much more sophisticated than I was when I was such a fresh-faced impressionable and far less cynical young lad than I am today. So let this serve as a warning to those wise enough to perceive my message accurately. Conspiracy theory is a dead end full of BS. Yes there are massive conspiracies, as Snowden and the Panama Papers have revealed. And I’m sure the Powers that Be would much rather have the lot of you focusing on 9/11, chemtrails, or whatever, than what’s contained in those data leaks.

            This concludes my participation here, as I’ve wasted enough of my oh-so-precious time.

          • El Duderino

            This was an interesting insight to your motivations.

            I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you hate being deceived… man oh man, I would hate to be around when you finally realize that 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror has been nothing but one gigantic lie.

            I don’t want to get into the logical error you’re making by assuming that since you fell hard for conspiracies that turned out not to be true you believe that conspiracies don’t happen. That appears to be what you’re saying and the impetus for your wholesale rejections of anyone and anything questioning the official version of 9/11.

            Here are some words from a very infamous source. From someone who was most likely behind the conspiracy to burn the Reichstag and blame it on the Communists. You can verify these words from several different sources – they describe the blueprint for controlling a society by lying them into a war they don’t want – one they don’t even need to fight.

            Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

            Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

            Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked[9/11] and denounce the pacifists [Conspiracy Theorist] for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. — Hermann Göring – 1946 During the Nuremberg Trials.

            Can’t you see this is EXACTLY what has happened with 9/11? We weren’t attacked – we were told that we were attacked [naturally, there was an attack – but it was perpetrated by our own government]. Can’t you see that you are acting EXACTLY as Göring predicted you would – Specifically that you would denounce those that question the government?

          • http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/ Frank Grimer

            Well done, sir. You should join AJ’s 911 forum. We could do with a few more people capable of clear thinking and the ability to express it.

          • El Duderino

            Do you mean Alex Jones? If so, I’m afraid I have to pass. It was a sad day for me a couple of years ago when I realize that AJ is controlled opposition. He’s a CIA asset.

            His role is to let out a little bit of the truth (truth that doesn’t get reported in the MSM), but never the whole truth. In this way he effectively “corrals” those questioning the government but never leads them to the full truth.

            The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” — V. I. Lenin.


          • dooglio

            Conspiracy theory is something that cannot be falsified. All of Judy Wood’s work can be falsified. There is a huge difference in type. Besides, Wood’s book isn’t a conspiracy theory. As she says in the preface to her book, “Where Did the Towers Go?”:

            “For the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01 — nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of *belief*. This is a crime that should be solved by forensic study of the evidence.”

            She is interested in getting to the truth, no matter what it actually is, even if the truth does not conform to our preexisting beliefs.

            I realize you are gun shy, and I get where you are coming from. You don’t want to get fooled again. But screaming at us and calling us names does not help you get any closer to the truth, whatever it might actually be.

          • Calvin Weeder

            The ‘forensic study of the evidence’ that you claim is Judy Wood’s only motivation for her inane ramblings was done, unfortunately, at considerable cost to taxpayers. Those studies simply don’t satisfy Judy Wood or yourself. The only forensic study that would satisfy you jokers would be one that validates your fantasies. Anything else is a cover-up. You know that. Therefore when you pretend to be honest about debating this, that’s all you’re doing; pretending. You and Ms. Wood are lying scumbags. When you, Wood, or anyone else posts a comment here that is not dishonest, I’ll let you know and I’ll respond to it with the respect it deserves.

          • dooglio

            See, it sounds to me more like you got burned, are kicking yourself for “being stupid,” and you are so determined not to get fooled again (or rather, allow yourself to be fooled), that you are going to dig your heals in and refuse to accept something that contradicts the official narrative *just ’cause*.

            That does not sound like a position of science, but a position of a conformist.

            Like I said, I realize you got burned, but that does not mean what we are looking at here today is wrong. So far, you have done nothing but insult everyone who doesn’t agree with you. I have not seen you address any of Wood’s refutations of the official “theory”. All I’ve seen you do is call her names and do the Internet equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA!”

          • Calvin Weeder

            “I get where you are coming from. You don’t want to get fooled again.”

            BTW, first of all I appreciate that you read all of that. Second, I did not ‘get fooled’, I fooled myself, just as you are fooling yourself today. We are not victims of quick talkers, if we fall in line behind their slick presentations it’s because of our own lack of cognitive diligence. It’s impossible for me to get ‘fooled again; because I’ve made the considerable effort to engage in that cognitive diligence. I’m no longer the complacent, lazy turd that used to be content to be spoonfed anything I find titillating on the internet. Now that doesn’t mean I won’t ever be wrong, it just means that I won’t find myself endorsing inconsistent arguments ever again.

          • dooglio

            And I personally find nothing at all inconsistent in Wood’s evidence she presented. I have been over it and over it again and again, and debated many people on the subject. So far, her case is unassailable.

            I like her work because it’s mathematically sound, logical, and consistent with the available evidence.

      • El Duderino

        On the dust… yes, of course there is dust – that’s not the point, that there is some dust. The point is that there is ONLY dust.

        Between the two towers there were 214 acres of 4″ thick concrete decking, yet there were no chunks of concrete left that couldn’t easily be picked up by hand. Gravity works in one direction – vertically. It’s not possible for a gravity driven collapse to produce a “grinding” effect that would be required to pulverize concrete. So some other force had to be in play. Explosives? Maybe. DEW? Maybe.

    • dooglio

      The video is private, Mark.

  • g

    Hm… and you think you debunked judy wood? First you have to come up with a credible explanation regarding the dust from the falling girders, not kust words. Second you have to come up with a credible explanation regarding the “falling” spire, not just words. Third you have to come up with a credible explanation regarding the “burned” cars, not just words. The list can go on. Sorry dude. Try again perhaps. I for one am ready to change my mind if you can explain these anomalies, but you havent. Plus there are way more than you cared to mention. Example: what the fuck happened to building 4? How did the cars in the parking lot catch on fire when they were so far away from the towers? How did some girders roll up around the vertical axis? How could paper fuse with metal and concrete? The list goes on

    • Calvin Weeder

      g is right. words is bad. book learnin’s for lawyers and cheats.

      Long live Duck Dynasty and Donald Trump!

      • dooglio

        It’s sad that all you have is ridicule and derision, and you refuse to actually engage in meaningful debate.

        • Calvin Weeder

          Well Dorklio, the person you are criticizing me for responding to in a manner that does not please you explicitly said that any ‘meaningful debate’ I might try to instigate would be ‘just words’. That means that there is no combination of words that I could type that he would not dismiss as ‘just words’, which means G was not interested in engaging in anything remotely resembling ‘meaningful debate’.

          What’s sad is that you’ve decided that your identity is tied so directly to 9/11 conspiracy theory BS that you are willing to be a dishonest, deceitful twit as your means to defend your beliefs.

          • dooglio

            Dorklio?! That’s the best you can do? LOL Okay Calvapid.

    • dooglio

      If the spires fell why weren’t they laid across the buildings next door to the WTC? Wood has a nice page on that in her book, where she calculates the height of the beams, and area around the WTC plaza where it would have hit had it toppled over. Not to mention that in the clip he shows in this article, there are even taller pieces falling to the right before the spire is seen standing by itself after the rest of the debris falls. Yet non-WTC buildings are virtually undamaged.

      And yes, the official conspiracy theory does not explain the holes in WTC5 and 6, and it does not explain how most of WTC4 was sheared off, and it does not explain how people survived in WTC3 or in stairwell B in the North Tower.


    g—Have you always been a wack job?

  • Calvin Weeder

    I think it’s great that you’ve decided that you don’t know what happened on 9/11, but those of us who aren’t as easily confused aren’t ‘extremely arrogant’ just because we know that the ‘official story’ just happens to be the actual story, too. You repeat long-debunked myths as reasons for your confusion, such as the ‘dancing isrealis’, the ‘saudi connection’, and of course the Building Number 7 nonsense… It’s weird, because you’ve gone to the trouble to debunk Judy Wood fairly well, not that doing so would be particularly difficult, but you’ve made the effort there, but you’ve clearly not even made the effort to find and read other well-formed debunkings of the conspiracy theories you still think hold some water.

    Just something to think about. It’s interesting to me that people who were children when 9/11 happened are adults now. Must make for some odd perspectives, and may explain how you can have such gaping holes in your personal 9/11 narrative even as you do such a coherent job of debunking an aspect you were motivated (by a friend asking for your opinion) to explore. So perhaps if your friend had asked you about the dancing Israelis, you’d have investigated that enough to post a thorough debunking of it… because as far as I (and anyone who knows how to use Google, which is apparently more difficult than it appears to be) is concerned, ‘dancing israelis’ are equivalent to ‘dustification’.

    • El Duderino

      Building 7 “nonsense”? The nonsense regarding building 7 is coming from the government, not those questioning their non-explanation.

      Here are the facts:

      WTC7 was a 14 year old 47 story steel framed high rise.
      It was not hit by a plane.
      NIST admits:
      — Falling debris from the towers did NOT contribute to it’s destruction*
      — During the building’s destruction – it fell at free fall acceleration for 2.2 seconds.
      FEMA had NO EXPLANATION for how WTC7 could have collapsed.
      NIST took 4 years and several revisions before publishing their final results.
      NIST classified the dataset used for their model of the collapse citing “National Security”

      In short – the government has never offered a cogent or verifiable explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Further they have not provided an explanation for the collapse of the towers – beyond stating a theory of how the ONSET of collapse may have started. Beyond that all they say is: global collapse then ensued. They go on for hundreds of pages explaining minute details of fire retardant being shook loose, how the trusses buckled, etc… but then they offer NOTHING to explain how – even if the top 15% of the building broke free – how the top section could have fallen straight through the path of GREATEST resistance – completely destroying the lower 85% of the structure that was uneffected by they plane impacts.

      Anyone who believe’s the official story does so blindly.

      *beyond being responsible for starting the fires in WTC7

      • Calvin Weeder

        If they don’t know how WTC 7 collapsed, why would they admit that, if the rest of their report is a supposed whitewash? I guess they’re just trying to taunt you 9/11 ‘truthers’ who know so much…

        • El Duderino

          FEMA DID admit they couldn’t explain how WTC7 collapsed. I mention this because ignorant debunkers like yourself are fond of saying: it’s obvious why WTC7 came down!!!!

          Well? If it’s obvious, why didn’t FEMA just explain it? Why did it take NIST 4 years to explain it and then why did they classify the dataset they used to come up with their demonstrably flawed explanation?

          Sorry – free fall acceleration cannot be achieved unless there is virtually ZERO resistance. In other words – free fall can’t happen in a progressive collapse scenario. The two things are mutually exclusive.

          Maybe you should take some physics courses and do some actual research on 9/11. I’ve exposed you as nothing more than a sniveling crybaby. And I had fun doing it.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Again you are misrepresenting my statements. My point is that FEMA admitting that they don’t know what made WTC 7 collapse suggests that they AREN’T engaged in a cover-up. The 9/11 truther’s claim is that the FEMA report is a whitewash, that everything it says about how the two main towers collapsed is lies, as part of a cover-up. Yet the part about WTC 7 suggests no cover up whatsoever. This is inconsistent. You can’t claim that one part of the report is a cover-up, but that another part is the truth, just because you like to shoe-horn it into your nutjob narrative.

          • El Duderino

            No again this is an example of your demonstrably horrific reading comprehension skills.

            The point of bringing up FEMA was to juxtapose the position offered by many debunkers (not necessarily you) that the reason WTC7 fell was “obvious”. Well, no it’s not obvious if FEMA couldn’t explain it, NIST took 4 years and several revisions (forced revisions by “kook” conspiracy theorists”) and then classified the dataset for their model.

            And of course FEMA punting suggests a coverup – a massive coverup. Whomever was in charge of that FEMA report knew what fire alone could not have accounted for the collapse. They should have done a more thorough analysis. Instead, they punted to NIST – which, like I said took 4 years to explain it.

            Do you know how I know when one of my kids is lying? Because it takes them much more time to answer a direct question when they are lying vs. when they are telling the truth. The truth is easy, lies are usually complex. Same here. If WTC7 was brought down by fire – if the collapse was imminently obvious (it was announced on several networks up to an hour before it actually collapsed) then it should have been a simple matter to explain it scientifically and there would be no need to classify their dataset.

  • Calvin Weeder

    So if 9/11 was an inside job, how come there’s no mention of it in the Snowden data leak, which just happens to mention everything about everything? No chemtrails or ufos, either.. hmm Snowden must’ve had the wrong database, the ‘if this stuff gets out we’ll look REALLY REALLY bad’ database’, but not the ‘if this stuff gets out we’ll look REALLY REALLY REALLY bad’ database….

    Hmm, nothing about anybody getting kickbacks from chemtrail contracts, stashed 9/11 profits, or anything else obsessed over by the Tinfoil Hat brigade turned up in the Panama Papers either, even though half the shennanigans in the world are revealed there… but I guess all that stuff must be in the other half of the worlds shennanigans channeled through the Cayman Islands… guess we’ll just have to wait for the next leak to find out which banks finance the UFOs and which construction firm got that secret contract to build the Face on Mars.

    • El Duderino

      You expose yourself as the ignorant shill that you are when you deny Chemtrails. Did you not get the memo? Just like Bilderberg (remember about 10 years ago people would laugh at the idea that Bilderberg was real – now it’s common knowledge) – Chemtrails are real. There are several reasons for them – mostly involving weather modification. Research in this area is being conducted by both private and public entities.

      Stop using your “oh so precious time” to spread disinformation. You’re harming your fellow man.

      • Calvin Weeder

        Harming my fellow man? Are you saying you’re having trouble maintaining your belief in malarky when you read my posts? Cmon now, I know it can be fun for weaklings to pretend to be the victim, but we all know that your faith is unshakable, and nothing I say here could possibly have any effect whatsoever on your everlasting devotion to tinfoil hats. If anything it bolsters and excites you to have someone to pontificate to. I am and have been wasting my time here, but I won’t be here for long. 9/11 is such an old and worn out topic with every bit of nonsense debunked long ago that anyone who still gets off on this stuff has to be in dire social straits indeed.

        • El Duderino

          I enjoyed reading through your vapid drivel. Clearly you’re either nitwit a shill or both. You’ve offered nothing substantive in any of your posts.

          Your right about one thing though – many stories surrounding 9/11 have been debunked. The crown champion of being debunked is the official lie. It’s laughable and demonstrably flawed.

          Sorry Calvin – 15% of a structure is simply not capable of destroying the other 85%. It goes directly against basic laws of physics – including Newton’s Laws of motion – high school physics.

          • Calvin Weeder

            And your declaration that ‘high school physics’ says something about 15% of a structure not being capable of destroying the other 85% is ‘substantive’? Which part of high school physics curriculum covers that? Surely you’ll be able to reference a page of a particular text book, because you can’t possibly be making this crap up, right???

          • El Duderino

            Your reading comprehension is terrible. Seriously, after having gone back and forth with you now for a few comments I can see that you are way overmatched here. Let me help you.

            What I said, and you can go read it for yourself – is that the government’s explanation (well, non-explanation) regarding the towers is so rudimentarily flawed that it breaks fundamentals of physics so basic they are taught in High School. Those laws are specifically Newton’s Laws of Motion – in the case of the 15% v. 85%, that would be Newton’ 3rd law being broken.

            Does that help, you uneducated blowhard?

      • Calvin Weeder

        PS: “Bilderberg” is not the equivalent of ‘abbracaddabra’ (and neither is Ms. Wood’s ‘Hutchinson’). Invoking it doesn’t magically make you correct about anything pertaining to anything.

        • El Duderino

          No, no, no… 10 years ago if you mentioned Bilderberg you would be laughed off – much like you do now about 9/11 – with calls to get a tinfoil hat.

          Bilderberg isn’t at a “conspiracy theory”, nitwit – it’s real. Sure there’s nothing wrong with a clandestine annual meeting of the top power brokers in energy, education, government, banking, etc.

          • Calvin Weeder

            Well my participation here was supposed to have been concluded, but because this twit El Doofus seems to be obsessed with following me around to respond to my comments with misrepresentations of my arguments, I will clarify my thoughts as a final post-script. I don’t know whether he continually misrepresents my arguments because he is too stupid to understand them or because he is dishonest, because he displays both of those traits frequently, but ultimately it doesn’t matter.

            I did not say that Bilderberg meetings do not exist, I said that conspiracy theories about what takes place at Bilderberg meetings and what Bilderberg meetings represent have been floating around since the mid 1960s.

            I assume your last sentence was supposed to be sarcastic, but what IS wrong with top power brokers meeting to compare notes? Since we don’t know what goes on at those meetings, we have to use our imaginations. If we’re paranoid and more than a little envious of the upper-class, then we’d be likely to imagine all sorts of nefarious conversations taking place at Bilderberg. If we’re fringe christian weirdos, which of course many die-hard conspiracy nuts are, we might even titillate ourselves by imagining satanic rituals, much in the same manner as we like to imagine such goings on at ‘Bohemian Grove’ meetings.

            If we aren’t paranoid and envious of the middle-class then we might imagine that Bilderberg meetings are probably dull affairs where wonks sift through the bureaucracy of the various jurisdictions in which they operate, used to operate, or hope to set up operations in the future. We might also consider that these people are capitalists, and that means that they’re all in competition with one another. They may shake hands on many deals that each party thinks will be advantageous to themselves, but as soon as such a deal no longer seems advantageous to one of those parties, they’ll break the deal. And maybe they’ll be sued for doing so. Wow. Who cares? Not me, in fact the world would probably be a much better place of all the psychopaths and sociopaths who occupy CEO positions all worked harmoniously together. The fact that they’re always trying to screw over each other and everyone else to be successful is probably responsible for a large portion of the world’s collective troubles….

            See the difference? The above paragraph is not based on conspiracy theory, but the paragraph preceding it is. Yet both paragraphs acknowledge the existence of Bilderberg meetings. Maybe you don’t see the difference, but that wouldn’t be because there is no difference, it would be because you are an imbecile.

          • El Duderino

            Point 1: I never followed you anywhere. You responded to my comments here and I responded back.

            Point 2: I have not misrepresented any of your arguments and as proof, I ask you to specifically call out in this thread where I have done so.

            Point 3: I never said that you said that Bilderberg didn’t exist. Here IS an example of you misrepresenting what I said.

            Point 4: Again on Bilderberg… the reason I brought up Bilderberg was that 10 years it’s very existence was called into questions by most people. As for “what’s the problem” with Bilderberg holding secret meetings? I can’t believe that I even have to answer this. This meeting itself – the fact that media are not invited – the fact that the agenda of the meetings is private – the fact that the members include ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS – mingling with the heads of industry and banking – is prima facie evidence of collusion between these people. Collusion to the detriment of most of society and to their benefit. Else, why hold the meetings in secret? Why not allow press coverage? Why not publish the “great things” these benevolent power brokers are doing for our world? Get out of here with your glib, naïve dismissal that there is nothing “wrong” with this sort of meeting.

            Point 5: Your characterization of Bilderberg is not based on reality at all. I’ve been in the boardroom of Fortune 500 companies – more than once and given presentations to these people, been offered jobs by these people – have listened firsthand to what matters to these people. They are not interested in “healthy” competition they are interested in collusion – monopolistic practices, etc. Even in silicon valley – the late great Steve Jobs was busted colluding with other CEOs like Larry Ellison and the head of Adobe, Google, etc in order to agree not to hire each others employees. Do you think this is a BENEFIT to these employees? Not for one second – this was done specifically to limit opportunities of THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES! See – I have real world examples and experience to back my position of what Bilderberg, The Trilateral Commission and the CFR, et al are up to.

        • http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/ Frank Grimer

          His name is Hutchison not Hutchinson. Typical of your sloppy approach.

          As for Hutchison’s research, it is based on the work of Tesla who I am sure will one day be shown to be the real genius of the 20th century.

          Hutchison’s investigations have opened the road to harnessing Cold Fusion which will revolutionise energy production in the 21st century and show those idiotic hot fusioneers that, at great expense, they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

          • Calvin Weeder

            What, you mean I spelled a fraudster’s name wrong? OH DEAR. Ok, just to set the record straight, HUTCHISON is a LYING PIECE OF CRAP. HUTCHISON is a DELIBERATE FRAUD. HUTCHISON has nothing to with Nikola Tesla. And ‘FRANK GRIMER’ has nothing to with intelligence.

          • http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/ Frank Grimer

            Temper, temper. :-)

          • Calvin Weeder

            Just being firm with you Frank, like your parents should have when you claimed there was a boogeyman under your bed. Calling wolf deserves a spanking.

    • Sara

      Ummm if Snowden said anything about the government being behind 9/11 there wouldn’t be a Rock he couldn’t hide under they would have every SINGLE SATELLITE on his ASS Faster than you can say DEAD MAN….IF he knows anything about 9/11 he dam well knows if he says anything about it he will be a dead man,hell I heard the government want him dead anyhow but was trying to get him back and said they wouldn’t kill him as IF lmao he decided NOPE lmao Good Choice !!!!! Wouldn’t trust them either no matter what I knew that’s why I could never work for them even if I wasn’t disabled like all these Men & Woman how in the world do they know there doing the right thing and aren’t just doing the wrong thing!!?? How do you Trust you Government !?? I love this Country I do but I was young when 9/11 but I was a lot more Mature for my age because of what was going on with my Life after all what I was seeing on the TV and what I was talking with my Grandfather I didn’t believe what was being told on the TV just didn’t make sense to me that a plane could take Steel Buildings down and that FAST!!!! Then I did a lot of research over the years and let me tell you it will just make you sick at the government cause it just points more & more at them because bush wanted to start the war and get rich on oil….There is a lot of videos going around that 2nd plan isn’t a plane if you look it up google wise or that’s how I did I got great images of what I wanted missiles that look like planes,someone pointed out earlier tonight that there was no way that it can happen and I believe witch I could be just double thinking or hoping it was there that it was a white plane it’s a small plane smaller than a private plane I believe it showed on TV when they aired it on TV so much I could even seen it on Video on youtube though cause all the research that might had been it probably is never mind lmao… But its a USA Air Force I believe it says on the plane I don’t remember how many people it has but its not very big at all I would say only about 3-4 people…

  • Calvin Weeder

    “Point 3: I never said that you said that Bilderberg didn’t exist. ”

    Liar. You said:

    “Bilderberg isn’t at a “conspiracy theory”, nitwit – it’s real.”

    But I dunno, maybe what with the constant grammatical errors that render your statements as barely more than gibberish, you can claim you meant something else.

    “Collusion to the detriment of most of society and to their benefit. Else, why hold the meetings in secret? Why not allow press coverage?”

    Uh, maybe because it’s none of your business? Maybe because corporate espionage is a real thing, and they have real competition they don’t want to know their secrets? You sound like some kind of deranged six year old throwing a tantrum because you don’t get to have everything your way. Why don’t you threaten to hold your breath until Bilderberg lets you into their meetings and officially declares you to be King Shit of Turd Mountain.

    Whether they “believe in” (whatever that means) “healthy competition” (whatever that means) is irrelevant, they have competition in the form of hostile governments and corporations backed by hostile governments. Why you think you’re entitled to anything from private corporations is probably due to psychological issues, unless you harbor communist political convictions.

    • El Duderino

      You’re hopelessly dishonest. You had to have read my entire quote regarding Bilderberg in order to try to mine this snipet and try to use it to defend your position. I even explained that what my point was so there would be no confusion.

      Here is what I said:

      Just like Bilderberg (remember about 10 years ago people would laugh at the idea that Bilderberg was real – now it’s common knowledge) – Chemtrails are real…

      I said PEOPLE would say that Bilderberg didn’t exist – not that YOU said it.

      Then… after I explained this to you, and you still didn’t understand the point, then I called you a nitwit. Not because you didn’t believe in Bilderberg – but because you didn’t get the point even after I explained it.

      Again. The ONLY reason I brought up Bilderberg was to expose your erroneous attack on chemtrails.

      Try to follow:

      Bilderberg’s very existence was considered a “conspiracy theory”. Now it is PROVEN to exist. (which makes those who denied it did wrong – and foolish).

      Chemtrails’ very existence was considered a “conspiracy theory”. Now they are PROVEN to exist. (which makes those who denied – AND CONTINUE TO DENY their existence wrong – and foolish.)

      • Calvin Weeder

        “You had to have read my entire quote regarding Bilderberg in order to try to mine this snipet and try to use it to defend your position.”

        The ‘snippet’ (half of a run-on sentence) I quoted to prove that you are a liar was in a post in which you wrote two sentences, not the one in which you wrote a long diatribe about Bilderberg. You are not only a liar, you’re too lazy and stupid to re-read what you posted in order to remain consistent in your argument. Pathetic. You’re so belligerent in maintaining your ignorance and self-absorbed BS, you could be the poster-boy for Dunning-Kruger effect.

      • http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/ Frank Grimer

        Weeder is perverse.

        “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

    • El Duderino

      Um, yes, actually it IS my business when my elected officials spend MY MONEY to travel to meet in secret with industry and banking heads both foreign and domestic.

      There are laws against monopolistic practices among these entities – you clearly are ignorant of this fact.

      • Calvin Weeder

        Bilderberg has nothing to do with monopolies, since there are no international anti-monopoly laws. And Bilderberg could be sacrificing virgins in volcanoes and it still wouldn’t have anything to do with 9/11. Bringing Bilderberg up in a discussion about 9/11 is nothing more than deliberate obfuscation in the first place. Unless you have evidence that 9/11 was plotted by Bilderberg, which of course you don’t, then all you’re doing is spreading BS and paranoid innuendo. And you wouldn’t NEED to spread BS and paranoid innuendo in a discussion about 9/11 if you had any credible 9/11 evidence to cite. The fact that you even feel the need to mention Bilderberg in this discussion is proof you do not even have a credible argument regarding 9/11, let alone credible evidence…

  • RichardD

    This guy writes a long article and ignores the obvious central premise, there isn’t enough derbies left on the ground for 2 1,776 foot skyscrapers to have collapsed in a controlled demolition into the derbies field.

    WHERE IS THE 3,552 FEET OF STRUCTURAL STEEL USED TO BUILD THE BUILDINGS? That’s over a half mile of steel into the sky and there’s almost none of it left on the ground. Along with all of the other material in them, rebar, bathroom fixtures, office equipment, etc., etc.. It doesn’t all just turn to dust because buildings come down. DUH!

  • hommedespoir

    “Other than a computer science graduate from the UK (Andrew Johnson)….. nobody really takes her seriously”
    If your mind is so closed as to avoid taking seriously the one person who has posed more difficult 9/11 questions than all the rest together, why should I bother to read any further?
    One good reason, please…. then I’m off….

    • dooglio

      I’m impressed that he knows the hearts and minds of everyone else out there who has taken an interest in 9/11. The author is clearly prescient.

    • outof ajam

      I have just completed reading Andrew’s book (via Audio Book). At first I was struggling with all the details about what this and that person did. But then it occurred to me this detail could be an almost forensic type of evidence revealing who is the genuine researcher and who is being paid to be a shill by the ‘system’ (it seems nobody has a once-and-for-all word for the latter – call it Illuminati, NWO, Global Banking Cartel, Zionists, etc etc) – and so I persisted. Its a good book and he is convincing, I like a lot of what he has written. However I am just haunted that I just can’t be 100% sure who is really genuine – how do we know somebody isn’t a ‘super-shill’ – as some say Judy Wood is?

      • dooglio

        What does Judy Wood, aside from book sales, have to gain from coming out with this forensic evidence? Why should she risk her career to come out and tackle something so unpopular, that earns her massive derision from the establishment academics?

        Then look at who gains from covering up 9/11: politicians, bureaucrats, defense companies, and big banks. There is so much money riding on the public buying the bullshit story that 16 thugs with box cutters took down two of the worlds’ largest buildings with jet fuel and office fires. That terrorists “hate us for our freedom” or some such nonsense.

  • Tyler Durden

    Nice article, especially by someone that hasn’t been alive on this planet for very long. I tend to agree with you- except for one point. If photos Judy Wood submitted were taken hours after the collapses are undoctored, then where is all the metal from the towers? I don’t believe there was some giant energy weapon, but why are the debris piles so small?

  • Tony Morris

    I have to say I usually don’t sign in to post a reply after reading but wow most of it’s been covered in the comments So I’ll try to keep this short. I actually learned more by reading the comments than I did this article. You really do need to maintain a non-biased point of view when reporting. I know it’s something near non-existent in this day and age but you might be able to if try hard enough.

    Calvin Weeder, I’ll just keep this short, your an idiot that would best serve society by just keeping your thoughts to yourself at this point in your life. Study, research and mature abit and -actually- read instead of blurting shit out just to save your destroyed pride by El Duderino. In the gaming scene we call that getting pwned and you did. After picking yourself off the metaphorical “floor” dust yourself off and go investigate in a much more in-depth manner then perhaps you’ll be decent investigator. Don’t bother replying to this either because quite honestly I’m not interested in anything you have to say, you’ve proven the validity of my choice.

  • Jim All

    What I find interesting is that the writer of this article seems sarcastic and defensive. Judy wood on the other hand makes clear logical statements. As well I checked out the spires on different video YouTube sites including ABC NBC and PBS they are not doctored and when you put it in slow motion on your computer you can clearly see those things don’t hit the ground. I’m not a physicist a mechanical engineer but what is it that cold that can dissolve steel? These are legitimate questions your attempt to hide the ball has really failed.

    • Don Wahl

      Absolutely – not only does she have multiple doctorates along with her PHD in structural engineering, she is as well an image forensics analyst. The writer here and elsewhere is dismissive of multiple areas of Woods research, while cherry picking other areas while offering no research or evidence to back their own arguements. Sad.

  • dooglio

    The Police Car 2723 photo is interesting. That is probably the only piece of evidence that throws her conjecture that those toasted cars on FDR were there from the beginning and were not moved. Of course the second photo has no timestamp, so we can’t be sure of the order. Could the car have been moved in front of the hotel after it was toasted on FDR Drive?

    Still, it doesn’t explain the toasted car park. Even if the cars on FDR were towed there after they were toasted, how did jet fuel squirt all the way from the WTC towers to the car park?

    And yes, those non-9-11 burned out car photos so show that a car can burn like that–but I’m wondering, has the author of this article ever seen any cars like the ones Wood documented? You know, like with engines completely burned out? And paper sitting right next to a burning car without catching on fire? With plastic and upholstery intact and burned out areas right next to them?

    Sure she doesn’t have a lot of first-hand experience on the scene, because she wasn’t there. So she’s doing the best with the existing evidence. Photos were not the only thing she analysed. However, from what I’ve seen from official sources, they didn’t have any evidence beyond what she worked with. Why is it when the incomplete NIST report bases itself on the same types of evidence, that’s gospel, but when Wood does it, she’s a nutcase psuedo-scientist?

    As for the section about “Just Energy Weapons,” she kept repeating over and over again that she doesn’t have to tell you the exact make and model of the weapon used. All she has to do is disprove the official (and other) conspiracy theories. Which she did: she showed how the existing evidence doesn’t fit with the theory of a pancaking building initiated by gravity. Then, she made the case that *some other technology had to be responsible*. She points to the Hutchison Effect as one possibility, and in fact, kept saying that the tech used is *similar* but not exact.

    You don’t have to know what kind of gun a victim was shot with to know that it was murder. But you first have to rule out other possible explanations for the death. And when you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the cause.

    • Calvin Weeder

      “Still, it doesn’t explain the toasted car park. Even if the cars on FDR were towed there after they were toasted, how did jet fuel squirt all the way from the WTC towers to the car park?”

      Of course if your argument wasn’t the obviously dishonest obfuscation that it is, you would have provided a link to whichever photo you’re babbling about. However, since I’m familiar with all of them, I can answer your fake ‘question’: There is no ‘toasted carpark’ captured in any photo. I think you are getting more brazen in your blatant lies because of all the lies that american society is accepting in the current election campaigns. Lying and BSing has gone completely mainstream, so even if there was a point to debunking 9/11 crap prior to 2016, it’s probably completely pointless post-2016.

      “, has the author of this article ever seen any cars like the ones Wood documented? You know, like with engines completely burned out? ”

      There are no photos of cars with ‘engines burned out’. There is one photo of a completely mangled car which Ms. Wood says “looks like the front end” to her, and that if it is the front end then the engine is missing. But it looks a lot more like the back of a car than the front, to me. Either way, an engineless car does not bolster her claim that WTC was brought down by energy weapons. But making a claim about an engineless car would serve to instill doubt about ‘the whole story’ in readers who don’t possess critical thinking skills, and that is Ms. Wood’s intent. 9/11 persuasion relies as much on promoting confusion as it does on emotional appeal. It’s long been known by scholars of rhetoric that if a persuader can confuse the person he’s trying to influence, then he has effectively removed whatever mental defenses that person has, leaving that person open to being led out of confusion by the persuader.

      “And paper sitting right next to a burning car without catching on fire?With plastic and upholstery intact and burned out areas right next to them?”

      You just admitted in the previous paragraph that, “And yes, those non-9-11 burned out car photos so show that a car can burn like that”. You might as well be saying, ‘Well, we know the moon isn’t made of cheese, but what about that moon made of cheese?’ The unburnt paper has been covered here as well. Repeating bad arguments doesn’t make them any better.

      “However, from what I’ve seen from official sources, they didn’t have any evidence beyond what she worked with. Why is it when the incomplete NIST report bases itself on the same types of evidence, that’s gospel, but when Wood does it, she’s a nutcase psuedo-scientist?”

      Well no, she’s fabricating all kinds of evidence, like engineless cars, for example. But even if she didn’t do that, by what kind of twisted logic do you surmise that the veracity and validity of all investigations are equal because they all examine the same evidence? Why not let a 2-year old toddler fly a jumbo jet because he has investigated all the same switches and buttons that a qualified pilot has? Judy Wood’s claims haven’t been ridiculed because she’s been labelled a nutjob, she has been labelled a nutjob because she makes ridiculous claims.

      ” All she has to do is disprove the official (and other) conspiracy theories. Which she did: she showed how the existing evidence doesn’t fit with the theory of a pancaking building initiated by gravity ”

      No she didn’t, all of her claims have been thoroughly debunked here, mostly by me so I should know, though the author of the article we’re commenting on did plenty of it to begin with. The fact that you keep repeating the same crap with nothing new seems to verify that. It’s up to you if you want to accept the debunking of her nonsense or not, but why keep pretending the debunking isn’t still here for everyone to read? Why keep regurgitating your clearly unflappable devotion to Judy Wood? I’m not going to convince you, and you’re not going to convince me. So who are you really trying to convince? Yourself, perhaps?

      “She points to the Hutchison Effect as one possibility, and in fact, kept saying that the tech used is *similar* but not exact. ”

      What happened to her not having to tell us what caused the buildings to fall? She (and you, as her parrot) rails on (erroneously) about how the rules of debate don’t require her to provide evidence that the kind of energy weapon she claims brought down WTC actually exists. In her ranting on that topic she insists that if she were to do that, it would be completely inappropriate ‘speculation’, something she accuses the official reports to be rife with. Then, she breaks her own silly ‘rule’ by saying, ‘Well maybe the Hutchinson effect has something to do with it’. She doesn’t even have the mental discipline to follow her own arbitrary rules. And that’s besides the fact that the entirety of the ‘Hutchison effect’ is an old hippy with a plastic toy UFO on a wire, with a bunch of old military surplus radio equipment in the background to make the ridiculous video look more ‘sciencey’ How anybody could take any of this seriously is beyond my ability to comprehend, but here you are. Perhaps it’s time to look into some appropriate medication.

      “You don’t have to know what kind of gun a victim was shot with to know that it was murder. But you first have to rule out other possible explanations for the death. And when you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the cause.”

      I don’t know where you got that from, but it definitely wasn’t from any manual about investigating because ruling out the impossible doesn’t help you figure out what’s possible. Ruling out the impossible in any causal investigation generally leaves you with more than one possibility for the cause, which is where probability is used to compare possibilities. Of course, this has nothing to do with Judy Wood because what she has been engaging in is known as ‘fantasizing’, not ‘investigating’.

      • dooglio

        “Of course if your argument wasn’t the obviously dishonest obfuscation
        that it is, you would have provided a link to whichever photo you’re
        babbling about. ”

        Plenty of evidence here in photo form:


        “No she didn’t, all of her claims have been thoroughly debunked here, mostly by me…”

        You haven’t debunked anything at all. You’ve just been calling me names and acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

        “What happened to her not having to tell us what caused the buildings to fall?”

        She *did*! Molecular dissociation! She shows how the existing evidence points to it, how it can be the *only* explanation. The existing evidence disproves the official story.

        It’s very easy to understand, if you would but open up your mind.

        The point is, she doesn’t have to tell you how it was done, only that it was done. Then we can speculate on the type of weapon that must have caused this and perhaps try to figure out who did it. But the important point is, the *evidence* shows us that dustification is the only explanation for what happened that day in New York.

        “Perhaps it’s time to look into some appropriate medication.”

        And this is why you won’t learn anything with regards to this subject. Your mind is closed off and all you have are personal attacks. I’m done talking to you. If you want to learn more, I suggest you peruse her site, and start checking this stuff out for yourself. If you want to remain in ignorance, then please continue chanting the official conspiracy theory mantras. It does not make a difference to me.

        If you respond with more personal attacks, I will block you. Be civil or I want nothing to do with you.