Dr Judy Wood issues update on paper

Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood


Added several images, further proving that molten aluminum does not retain a silvery color when elevated to higher temperatures. This contradicts Professor Steven Jones' research, which makes the (false) assumption that aluminum would be silvery at ~1500° C simply because it's silvery at ~600° C.

this must be.......

......because the mini-nuke knocked the cartoon planes out of the sky, jarring loose the pods underneath, which crashed to the ground and ignited a super-intense nuclear fire with no residual radiation.

isn't it funny that the two 'researchers' with the most controversial theories - no-planes and nukes - are so busy at work attempting to discredit the research of others in this movement?

what's wrong with that picture?

Marginalizing instead of stating facts

John, when one can not argue science, one tends to resort to making researchers out to be ridiculous buffoons by the use of insults to marginalize them.

I have not read anything where Dr. Jones and Dr. Reynolds ever stated there were "no planes" of any kind whatsoever at the WTC. Neither have I read where they definitely concluded that nukes were used there, either.

What I have heard, however, is that there has been no definitive evidence - no specific proof provided - that commercial flights 175 and 11 were found present at GZ. I also have read their work and know that they offered nukes as but one possibility of the type of explosive method that might have been used. They did not ever make the statement that there were "no planes" nor that "nukes" were definitely used - at least not to the best of my knowledge.

Does it make you uncomfortable that different scientists have different theories? Does it threaten your need to feel safe and secure, now that you believe that one scientist has figured everything out for you, so now you can relax and take it easy, believing that all possible mysteries have been solved?

I refuse to attack any scientist until more researchers come forth and challenge all of these researchers, their theories, and their experiments. Enough peer reviews have not been conducted yet -at least none that I have seen published. And, unlike you, I simply refuse to call this deal "case closed" until I am.

But Dr. Wood, if there were no planes at the WTC...

How can you claim the molten steel was actually aluminum? I think you've been listening to too much of Dr. Reynolds' rap!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


comment update: Ah, wait--the outside was plated in aluminum, right? Have you all heated aluminum to 1500 degrees celsius to check the color?

Show "you need to think a little" by CB_Brooklyn

gee - its a shame

its a shame this rating system does not allow for a 'zero' because - so far - you are getting a rating of '1' from half a dozen people who probably share my frustration that a '1' overcredits this line of research.

think deeply about that.

OK I broke down and looked at the paper...

After dealing with the pop-up ads, I checked it out and it's interesting that they point out a photo that was doctored by NIST that Prof. Jones presumably used thinking it was authentic (we all learn at some point to distrust NIST.) The picture is of the molten steel pouring out of the South Tower (seen in this video) and Wood and Reynolds point out that the NIST version has the intensity adjusted and in fact is coming out of the wrong window. Obvious fakes concealing a true fact is par for the course with Bush folk like Reynolds--remember Bush's service records?

The VIDEO that clearly shows the color and correct window is here:


The Wile E. Coyote cartoons also do not help Wood and Reynolds' credibility.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Well, for one

NIST used a pic, not a vid, and if they had an original off of which the YouTube video was somehow faked (I see no sign at all of it being faked) then NIST, as a responsible government agency would long ago have put the issue to rest. Since we know they are not a responsible government agency in reality, and their picture is admittedly manipulated, I think it's a safe bet absent any more evdience that the YouTube video is legit. Chain of custody and all that jazz, appropriate when we launch a real trial for the perps. We're the court of public opinion, not the real pros. our job is to make as clear as possible to as many people that they have been and continue to be deceived. And we are doing VERY well.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Yes, NIST uses a picture," by CB_Brooklyn


when claims of 'unscientific' methods is coming from a duo fronting THE most unscientific and silly premises in the movement, these claims lose all their merit.

The planes were cartoons?

The eyewitnesses were paid actors?

And you are lecturing us on scientific method and credibility?

no - you are designing conflict and empty debates. you are polluting this board with strawmen debates.

Show "if some people can't look at" by CB_Brooklyn


Where's the evidence that you are authentic ?

NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".

actually the loose change

actually the loose change people have a video in their next movie which shows the exact same thing from a local tv affiliate. then again, you think that every single video showing the 2nd impact is fake so i'm sure it wont be tough to write that off as fake too.



Where is your evidence?

"Real Truther," you imply there were no planes at the WTC, but fail to support that with any evidence. What gives? Are you trying to confuse people into thinking that someone else said that? I'll assure you that Dr. Wood has never said that. She merely stated the obvious, that a regular passenger Boeing 767 could not have made those holes in the towers.

Grow-up & behave like adults, please.

Assuming this article is for real & is indeed co-author by those identified therein ... I offer the following quick comments on some sample quotes:

“Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.”

Would it be churlish of me to point out that, by the authors own logic, they would not be qualified to “peer-review” Jones' paper, specifically on the grounds that: (i) neither of them are professors and, (ii) neither of them hold a PhD in physics; therefore, it would seem their so-called “peer review” is null and void.

“Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along.”

And the “proof” for this? A citation perhaps to back up this statement?

“The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice.”

“Wood” & “Reynolds” in this so-called “peer-review” paper have not displayed what might characterised as “professionalism” in the construction of their arguments (by their frequent use of unsupported assertions and innuendo), nor have they displayed any understanding of the scholarly apparatus – critical methodology – in their production of this “hit” piece. By advancing their academic qualifications; yet failing to live-up to any standard that could be deemed as "academic", they indite themselves by their own behaviour and spoil some of the VALID points/questions they do raise.

“Given Professor Jones’ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones’ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (I’m a victim, I’m courageous), crowd—pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.”

Seriously, I can hardly believe that “Woods” & “Reynolds” would make such laughable, school-playground style comments. I think they're alien dis-informants.

Molten steel

Doesn't the issue of pools of molten metal still burning six weeks after 9/11 trump whatever these photographs of dripping something might show? Satellite thermal imagery demonstrates, and photos from the cleanup as well as eyewitness testimony confirm, that there was something more than hydrocarbon fires in those towers. Burning office furniture does not produce pools of molten steel under WTC 1, 2, and 7. In other words, I hardly think Dr. Jones' research rests on a couple of photographs alone.

Well, if you want to boil (or melt) it down to logic and reason-

yes, in a word.



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "the point is that Jones' is" by CB_Brooklyn

what, like the no plane

what, like the no plane 'research'? go call a kettle black and then come back with your '100% verifiable and reproducible' crap.


What were the lighting conditions of Woods' aluminum test. Daylight like the molten metal dripping from the tower? Or was the test conducted in a dimly lit indoor lab?

Show "excellent question! Email it" by CB_Brooklyn

No I expect you to...

since you're the one spreading their BS all over this website. Are you really telling us that you don't even know what the lighting conditions were? Because it's a HUGE factor in determining the results of such a test.

Looks like a dimly lit lab to me:


Nowhere close to being 9/11/01 lighting conditions.


Not to mention the color corrections, spectral analysis, film speed and saturation, development techniques, etc etc

Show "if you're going to act" by CB_Brooklyn


You're posting their BS here without even knowing what lighting conditions were used during Woods' aluminum test. Jones' test was daylight conditions. Woods' test was conducted in a dimly lit lab. HUGE difference. Daylight conditions makes the aluminum appear "silvery" when molten because of the high reflectivity of aluminum. IMO Woods performed her "test" in a dimly lit room on purpose to attempt to discredit Jones. Lets see her conduct a test in daylight conditions and have her post it all over the web like she did with her other junk science test.

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have no credibility

whether intentionally - or unintentionally - they disrupt this movement by forwarding junk science - and sewing the seeds of confusion. Attacks upon other researchers does not help their cause.

In all probability, in my opinion, the no-planes faction of this movement is simply a continuation of the 'pods' faction. they are, in my OPINION organized disruption.

when you compile all of the attacks coming from this faction - including the grand wazoo of no-planes research himself - Nico Haupt - and look closely at the personal attacks and smears he has published - it it quite clear that there is a pattern to this madness.

i could maybe half believe that people could be stupid enough to believe this trash. but, when you see the organized and methodical way it is being distributed online - COMBINED with the accusations and attacks against virtually everyone credible in this movement - it is a pattern that, in my humble opinion, portends a very high probability of illegitimacy to this faction.

Show "I haven't seen any attacks" by CB_Brooklyn

I'm not defending Dr. Jones

I am saying Reynolds and Wood have zero credibility in this movement - as you can see from the eleven votes on this blog rating it at the lowest possible ranking.

Show "no... the 11 low votes prove" by CB_Brooklyn

WTF do you mean "simply don't understand"?

You don't even understand that aluminum appears "silvery" when molten in daylight conditions, not in dimly lit lab conditions where Woods conducted here junk science test.

This Molten Aluminum sure looks like it's Glowing!

Why are these guys wearing such protection? Their face shields are equivalent to dark "sunglasses." Or... are you saying that they don't want to see what they are delicately pouring?

But, more importantly, why are you so invested in argueing such nonsense?

You can only say this

because you are able to see into the souls of all those 13 people who voted. YOu can see behind the veil of intent behind each and every anonymous vote and see that they all work in concert simply out of malice.

You can simply label everyone who votes you a big "1" as "not understanding" because you lay claim to great intellectual superiority and scientific omnipotence.


People who CAN "see it" see that you appear to simply defend strawman arguments with the weakest of intellectual integrity and talking points. you are DESIGNED this way. stir up the pot and present gibberish. insult people who attempt to debate you - and claim eminent domain over all truths - including the intentions of others who repeatedly vote your blogs down.

it is a thinly veiled disruption technique since you cannot even seem to settle in to one outlandish theory. today you claim eminent domain over Dr. Jones' research. tomorrow you are the resident expert on no-planes. yesterday you hawked mini-nukes.

all silly rubbish - designed to be silly rubbish - brought to us by the same small circle of researchers.

either this is a terrible coincidence - or the pattern speaks for itself.

it is my OPINION that this is cointelpro disinformation designed to poison the well.

you are just doing your job - just like the 'good germans' who kept the nazi propaganda mills well oiled while millions died. the shame is your, sir. the stigma is yours.

i do not pretend to know what the total truth is, but, i certainly know what a lie is.

Show "I am saying Reynolds and" by james ha (not verified)

sure sure

and there were no planes

sure sure

the videos are all cartoons.

sure sure

Shush, John!

We don't want the "real" truth to get out... lol

i'm done here

i'm sure the personal attacks are just starting. that's the usual M.O.

its just my OPINION that the former Bush 'researcher' who is pushing "cartoon planes" on "FoxNews" is not to be taken seriously.


catch'ya later

Stop Slandering Jones, CB.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what the lighting conditions were that Woods used during her aluminum test.

I also expect you to update your blog with information on why molten aluminum will appear silvery in daylight conditions and why it doesn't in dimly lit lab room conditions.

Dr Wood responds...

"Jones conducted his little "experiment" in a darkened room, and he still couldn't even get his steel pot to glow. Curiously, his technician is not wearing much protective gear, unlike the folks in the glowing-aluminum picture, below.
Jones' failure to correctly conduct a simple little experiment involving heating aluminum to above 1200°C demonstrates a complete lack of competence in his abilities as a researcher and/or it demonstrates Jones as being deliberately deceptive. So, which is it?
On this site, the negative reaction to these facts clearly demonstrates what Jones' role is. He's part of a psychological operation, intended to distract folks from the real research. Why are so many at the 911blogger site working so hard to sway public opinion away from Wood and Reynolds. Could it be that they don't want folks to THINK for themselves and see the facts? Could it be that Wood and Reynolds are dangerously close to exposing Jones' plan/PsyOps activity and about to expose the truth?"

What are you fucking kidding?

The lab in Wood's experiment was conducted in a much darker room.

Here's a photo from Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel

Now compare the photos from Wood's experiment:


Tell Wood to do a proper experiment reflecting 9/11/01 daylight conditions if she wants to be taken seriously. But I highly doubt she will, because she knows what the results will be and so do I.

I wonder why Jones couldn't get his aluminum to glow?

Perhaps it's related to the fact that Jones' technician is trying to pour a solid? (Hint: a solid is not "molten.")

Here is an example of what a more comptent scientist can accomplish:

But, more importantly, why are you so invested in arguing such nonsense?

Is this Judy Wood?

If so, tell us why you won't conduct a test in daylight like on 9/11?


Hint: a solid cannot be "poured."

You are correct.

Correct. A solid cannot be poured. That's why the guy is shaking the pot. If it were molten, he'd only need to tip the pot. We'd also see a stream of liquid pouring out instead of solid pieces we see. I wonder what that object is that looks like a coil spring in the pot.

Pop Quiz!

(1) Which one of these is molten aluminum and which is molten iron.
(2) How can you tell the difference?

Pop quiz

Why does Judy Wood conduct deceptive experiments?

Dr Wood responds...

"What is deceptive?  Does aluminum NOT glow at 1200°C?  The deception is in Jones' picture where his technician is attempting to pour a solid material (not a molten material)"

Dr. Wood AND Dr. Jones BOTH have some explaining to do...

Dr. Judy Wood AND Dr. Steven Jones BOTH have some explaining to do...

Why are they wasting our time talking and writing about "Aluminum versus Iron" and about pictures and videos that have NOT been AUTHENTICATED?  Are these pictures and videos real?  Or are they fake?

I understand that the issue is whether or not Aluminum CAN glow at particular temperatures; however, this issue is IRRELEVANT until the pics and videos have been authenticated. 

Who is the photographer of the pictures of the ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal?

Who was the videographer for the video of the ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal?

Are there ANY independent eye witnesses to this ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal (other than the not-named MISSING photographer and the not-named MISSING videographer)?

You may recall that Michael Zebuhr (one of Dr. Judy Wood's students) worked with Dr. Wood to provide Dr. Steven Jones and others with SOME evidence that Aluminum CAN glow at particular temperatures (as Zebuhr, Reynolds, and Wood have said) -- as opposed to the assertions that Aluminum cannot glow at ANY temperature or is "silvery" under ALL conditions and at ALL temperatrues (as Steve Jones has said). 

If we are NOT even sure whether these alleged WTC window-pouring molten metal events even occurred, then WHO CARES???

Shortly after graduate student Michael Zebuhr and his professor, Dr. Wood, did tests that provided SOME evidence for their position, Michael Zebuhr was MURDERED.  See www.MichaelZebuhr.blogspot.com

If the pics and videos of this pouring WTC molten metal are BOGUS, and IF (and only IF) Michael Zebuhr's murder was 9/11-related, then Michael Zebuhr may have been murdered to promote another 9/11 Red Herring.

So, yes, I see the "GLOWING" in the "Aluminum versus Iron" controversy.  However, until EITHER Steve Jones OR Judy Wood authenticates the pics & videos, the "glowing" that I see is a glowering, glowing RED HERRING.

Please DO NOT waste any more of our time on this issue until SOMEONE authenticates the pictures and videos AND until someone provide us with one or more independent eye witnesses to these ALLEGED WTC window-pouring, glowing, molten metal events -- other than the photographer(s) and/or the videographer(s), who MUST be produced.  Otherwise these pics and videos canNOT be "evidence" of ANY type (hard or soft, good or bad).

Negative Rating Points...

As of 2:52amET, my comment has begun to attract negative rating points.  Good...

Is this because I was too critical of Dr. Judy Wood?  Is this because I was too critical of Dr. Steve Jones. If so about either or both of these criticisms, then Good...

Or is this because you like to waste your time on PsyOp Red Herrings

...with pics and vids that have NOT been authenticated, and 

...for which there are NO named photographers and NO named videographers, and

...for which alleged events there are NO independent eye witnesses, and

...for using the supposedly "hard evidence" of these possibly-bogus 9/11 pics & vids, Fox News & others can pulverize 9/11 truthseekers into 50-micron-sized particles AT ANY TIME? 

If so, then not so good...

Wood's experiment

Dr. Wood has brought up some very good points with her work and I am still studying this issue carefully. This peer review is but one and more are needed - particularly from other physicists who are not vested in the work of the Scholars.

As an AM of Scholars group, I expect that every researcher's theories should be analyzed according to scientific method, despite our personal feelings or affections (or dis-affections) for one scientist or the next. Science is science, and it cares not for the person doing the research and whether they possess the likability factory or are our own personal "hero".

The little-discussed fact remains that Michael Zebuhr was murdered two and one-half weeks after doing an experiment on glowing aluminum. I find that fact disturbing and far more than curious.