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.

Home | War & Terrorism     

RSS Facebook Twitter Youtube


  • 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.

  • Bob

    How much are you being paid

    • Nac


  • 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.

  • 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…

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • greenbag

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

Copyright © 2015
eXTReMe Tracker     Privacy Policy