June 2, 2012
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 “holes” in other World Trade Center buildings?
- What about her references to phenomena like buildings “lathering up,” being “dustified,” or steel beams resembling “rolled up carpets”?
- 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, nutty” and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.”
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.