The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research Options

[Truth And Shadow...]

By Craig McKee

For some time, I’ve been thinking about creating a post where the comment thread is the focus and the article more of an introduction to the discussion. That’s what I’ve decided to do here with what I hope will be an open, substantive discussion on the research of Dr. Judy Wood.

Rather than just having comments about her pop up in other discussions and other threads (usually involving name calling and ridicule), I’ve decided to create a post where her research can be rationally debated; at least I hope it’ll be rational and that the discussion focuses on science rather than hearsay.

I understand some of the regular readers of Truth and Shadows may think I’m off base by addressing Wood’s work at all, but I hope there aren’t too many who feel that way. I believe that any discussion that involves the pursuit of the truth is worth having. I don’t think the reputation of the entire Truth movement will be affected one way or the other. And I don’t believe any questions are “dangerous� to ask.

Those who don’t think the subject is worthy of their attention can wait for my next regular article, which will follow soon.

I own a copy of Dr. Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go? (sent to me by a reader). I have read over several chapters but haven’t gone through the whole book from cover to cover just yet. It seems that most of Wood’s most vocal critics have not read her book at all, but this may be proven wrong in the comments to follow.

In her book (which has the impressive appearance of a glossy, full-colour textbook) Wood posits that not only can plane impact and fires not account for what happened to the Twin Towers, neither can conventional controlled demolition.

She believes that some kind of directed free energy weapon was responsible for the destruction, including the mid-air pulverization, of the buildings. She coined the term “dustification� to describe how solid materials, including steel, seemed to disintegrate into dust as the buildings were being destroyed.

She points out that had conventional explosives brought the buildings down, the material would have slammed into the ground with a great force, potentially causing serious damage to the “bathtub� keeping the Hudson River from flooding lower Manhattan. She says the building hitting the ground would also have shown in the seismic evidence, which she contends it didn’t.

The very title of her book suggests her main point: that there was nowhere near enough rubble to account for the “collapse� of two 110-storey buildings. She contends that most of the material that made up the buildings was turned to dust and simply blew away.

Wood is easily the most attacked figure in the 9/11 Truth movement, although she doesn’t consider herself to be part of the movement. She states that she doesn’t have theories, but rather she examines evidence that this was more than a gravitational collapse and more than a conventional demolition.

While I’m not taking a pro or con position on Wood or her research in this article, I will say that there are things she addresses that I think deserve answers, particularly from those who dismiss her. Much of the opposition to her that I’ve read is pretty superficial and is often reliant on ad hominem attacks rather than evidence-based refutations.

When people want to ridicule her, they refer to “space beams.� She does use the term “Star Wars beam weapons� but this is a reference to energy-weapon technology associated with the “Star Wars� missile defense program (the Strategic Defense Initiative). She says research on energy weapons goes back a century and remains classified.

I look forward to read some substantive exchanges on the buildings turning to dust, toasted cars, molten metal, the seismic evidence, the Hutchison Effect, and Hurricane Erin.

I’d like to know what her detractors have to say about Hurricane Erin – how it headed straight for New York City, stopped on the morning of Sept. 11, then turned sharply away – all the while being virtually ignored by the media.

Here are a few questions that might be worth discussing concerning her research:

• Does the amount of rubble fit with two massive skyscrapers being brought down in a conventional demolition, with or without thermite? What could account for the lack of rubble?
• Why did so many cars burn (or melt) in such odd patterns – parts of vehicles melted, parts totally undamaged? Why were some vehicles flipped over and others not? And why did blowing paper and leaves on trees seem not to burn in the midst of the burning cars?
• What caused massive “holesâ€� in other World Trade Center buildings?
• What about her references to phenomena like buildings “lathering up,â€� being “dustified,â€� or steel beams resembling “rolled up carpetsâ€�?
• Is the photographic record that she bases much of her observations on reliable?
•  For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
• For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?

Señor El Once, a frequent contributor to the comment section of this site almost since it started, does not fully endorse all of Wood’s research, but he calls on people to look for information in her book that could be valuable. Nuggets of truth, he calls them.

He wrote me recently on the subject, and made a point that is well worth addressing in the comment thread to follow:

“When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn’t happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being “crazy, loony, nuttyâ€� and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.â€�

Some ground rules: There will be no insults or ridicule permitted unless they are based on facts and science. And there will be no variations on Dr. Wood’s name as a means of insulting her.

You don’t think her science is sound? Tell me why. You think she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread? Why do you think so?

I would also appreciate (as would the readers) that comments be of a reasonable length. I’ll be lenient about this at the beginning (as positions are initially outlined) but once the discussion is underway, I don’t want to see 1,000-2,000 word comments back and forth. It’s exhausting to read and even more exhausting to moderate. Shorter, more focused, comments make the exchange easier for all of us to follow.

Since so many in the Truth movement have opinions about Wood, I hope we’ll have a discussion that examines her work fairly and in detail.

 

View the full article

[SanderO]

Does the amount of rubble fit with two massive skyscrapers being brought down in a conventional demolition, with or without thermite?

Close enough... Yes it does. Supposedly 1.8million tons of debris was removed from the site... The weight if each tower as about 400,000 tons... so the figure if true seems reasonable considering there were several other, but significantly smaller buildings, plus the basements. ALL buildings are most air by volume and the twins were 96% air... so if reduced to a close packed mass of the same foot print each tower would be only 4% of its height or 52' high which is about 4 stories. If it was scattered about it would less and of course and it wasn't close packed either... plus some was rendered to dust and carried to surrounding blocks in the air and likely that wasn't even included in the calculation for recovered debris mass.

The fact that B7 and the twins produced similar debris in quality etc. can be seen as evidence of either gravity collapses of huge structures produce those outcomes...for example, large expanding post collapse dust clouds... or some other mechanism(s) did... even though the towers came down top to bottom and B7 looked like it lost support at its base (somewhere).

What could account for the lack of rubble?

There wasn't a lack of rubble. What would the expected amount be? I would think something equal to the aggregate mass of the complex which collapse or was taken apart post collapse and hauled away. I've read some say a collapse building should be 12% of its height. What is the based on? It seems completely arbitrary and likely wrong.

Why did so many cars burn (or melt) in such odd patterns – parts of vehicles melted, parts totally undamaged?

Melted cars as in a then solidified metal *ingot* of some form? Where was that? There had to be some very hot flamming and flammable liquids which came down from the towers. We assume there was jet fuel because there were witness reports of smelling it.... perhaps gas tanks exploded? When the plane hit the tower the damage was local and the rest of the tower was *normal*. However it is believed that the strikes DID cause electrical shorts in other area of the building in seemingly unrelated pattern of damage from the plane impact.

Why were some vehicles flipped over and others not?

Flipped cars are the likely result of some huge force applied to the car with a mechanical advantage (leverage)... with the wheels acting a fulcrum... perhaps something very heavy fell on it (off the CG of the vehicle) from very high up? If material was falling off the towers in a some what random fashion and the vehicles were also randomly positioned about the towers the damage would be random... wouldn't it?

And why did blowing paper and leaves on trees seem not to burn in the midst of the burning cars?

Trees? What tress?...The collapse stage was appears to be largely *cold*... aside for the heat produced from likely grinding of the concrete slabs which was concentrated at the end and at the bottom of the collapse. Must of the ejected material likely came from BETWEEN the floors was caused by the pulse of over pressure of the 65mph downward collapse of the floor system... not pancakes because the collapse was a process of a rapid fracturing, crushing and then grinding... but the initial part of each floor slab destruction involved the expulsion of the 18,000 cu yards of air between each 2 floors. This took place in about .1 seconds and produced winds as high as 400 mph which destroyed the floor contents on the floor about to be crushed, clg tiles hung from the slab above, and blew all the lightweight materials out through the windows. Most of the towers did not burn up, nor were there fires on most floors. Virtually all CDs involved stripped buildings... and are mostly the frame and floor slabs. Whether collapse or CD or a combination the buildings contents got involved and either had to be mechanically destroyed, combusted or disbursed by the moving air of the collapse... or a combination of these outcomes.

What caused massive “holes� in other World Trade Center buildings?

Falling facade panels from as high as 1,100 feet in the air. These 10'x36' facade panels weighed north of 4 tons each (20 tons on the lowest floors) and would crash through any floor or roof construction of any commercial office structure. What would would you expect the outcome to be if you dropped loaded pick up trucks from 1,100 feet on top of any building? And some cases several panels were connected as an assembly when they came off the facade weight scores of tones. The holes in the buildings appear to be in line with the axis of the facades of the tower which fell away and more or less perpendicular to the facades.... the so called "peeling". The hotel (3) was pretty much crushed down the ground by the falling facade panels... it stood only a few feet from the towers as did 4, 5 & 6

What about her references to phenomena like buildings “lathering up,� being “dustified,� or steel beams resembling “rolled up carpets�?

Materials whose properties favor crushing and grinding to dust were destroyed by being crushed and ground. Ceiling tiles, gypsum wall board, spray on insulation, carpet, particle board and so forth succumbed to this sort of mechanical destruction... even some light gauge metal... such as wires and ducts. With the extreme forces (pressure) these were likely shredded like thin foil is under lesser forces. Heavier elements such as structural steel broke into pieces at the weaker bolted connections... bolts had heads sheared off... or pulled through the bolt holes. There was a high heat event at the plane impact zones which had fires and something causing heating of the core column steel for 1 hr for T2 and 1.5 hrs for T1... In combination with destroyed columns from the plane impacts the remaining columns were *working* close to their yield strength which was being eroded by the increasing heat. The twisted, distorted and bent columns are buckled columns which occurs when loads exceed yield strength... and those all came from the impact zones and were the last columns holding the stories above.

Is the photographic record that she bases much of her observations on reliable?

Photos don't lie. Interpretations of an image can be accurate or not or a combination of the two. I think Wood makes some incorrect analysis of the visual record.

For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?

Having not read the book, only heard some her verbal presentations and interviews... I find the photographic record she has assembled valuable but her science and analysis in many cases poor and misleading. Her energy analysis of the predicted collapse time is simply wrong.

Here is an interview by a physicist of Judy Wood.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 3 2012, 07:39 AM

[amazed!]

Good thread, and good questions posed. Sadly, Woods is rather like Kryptonite for many in the truth movement--her ideas cause an allergic and irrational reaction, and personality and ad hominem attacks overwhelm good dialogue.

Besides the dustification are the molten steel that was there for days or weeks, and the cars with blistered paint and melted tires.

I don't know enough about DEW to make an informed decision on that, but some special weapon was used, no doubt. My opinion is that some sort of tactical nuclear weapons, low yield, were employed.

[SanderO]

Amazed,

Can you point to some vids or literature about tactical nukes which produced similar destruction?

[elreb]

Amazed,

I was hoping you could you all the hard work.

I’m really busy chugging down a bottle of wine and snacking on cheese and lobster.

It is hard to walk in snow wearing high heel shoes.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

[amazed!]

Sorry gents, I have no proof.

Just a hunch, based upon some of the circumstantial evidence there, and the probability that since the military was involved, tactical nukes of some flavor or the other might well have been involved.

Primarily some of the photos taken from above during the collapse, including the one at the top of this thread, and of course the bizarre heat effects shown by the various vehicles nearby. And I think it's been shown that there was a rather large radiation footprint shown in the area, along with the pools of molten steel.

This post has been edited by amazed!: Jun 4 2012, 09:26 AM