Dr. Greg Jenkins Discusses the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Dr. Greg Jenkins Discusses the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis in the Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters Section

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Febuary 9, 2007)
Greg Jenkins

“It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers. I will leave the details for later, but suffice it to say that the energy is approximately 4x1014 Joules. If you consider that this amount of energy was pumped into the towers during a time span of roughly 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 4x1013 Watts. This is four times the total power output of the entire earth, including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc... This is with no loss. If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere, reflection off aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required would swell to at least thousands of earths worth of power. The scenario becomes more bleak when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionizion energies required to generate such beams would require additional massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned inefficiencies.”


i don't even know why i am commenting on this.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I know this is ad hominem but...

Judy is so clueless.

How much energy would it take

to get Jim Fetzer to admit he was wrong and apologize to the 9/11 Truth movement?

100 KB/1000 KBH

100 Klondike Bars. But 1000 if they're only holograms.

Show "Jet Fuel debunks Controlled Demolition Theory:" by DHS

ho hum

Jet fuel (kerosine essentially) does not have the explosive force to cause the damage reported in the lower subfloors. It also does not have the ability to burn at a sufficiently high temperature to cause failure of the massive steel beams at the core of the WTC buildings. (all hydrocarbon fires naturally aspirated can only burn to a 'max' temperature of 1700 degrees whereas steel and iron require 2700 degree F to -begin- to melt.) Thus, this article is simply disinfo. Hocum designed for those who seldom make any attempt to investigate the actual physics.


I agree that the smoke in the "snow cone" certainly appears to be coming from the North Tower, and was very surprised to see Dr. Wood not acknowledging that, as it seems obvious once pointed out.

I wonder though if Wood is claiming vaporization, or is claiming fine pulverization. Is there a difference in energy required? Also, could the energy have been input over a longer period than 10 seconds, so that some of the work was done before the visible destruction occurred?

I'm just asking. I don't really have position on the mechanism of annihilation and am just trying to consider all possibilities.

I think we all agree that an immense amount of energy was input to the buildings, whatever the source and mechanism. Has Dr. Jenkins written anything on how much energy would be required to do what was observed?


Please read all the posts by "hsgsj" on the original blog:

Ask Judy for some actual numbers

The interview referred to is very revealing. Was she drugged or is she always like this?

If I had a conversation with a professor of engineering or physics like this one, after a very short time I would think I was on candid camera.

Notice how the space beam theory was put forth some months ago in a single paper and was never followed up with any actual numerical analysis of the physics involved. This is because calculations of the energy required to vaporize only one pound of steel, only theoretically, would produce numbers that would expose the idea as silly.

The purpose of the space beam paper is to associate the 9-11 truth movement with stories seen in the National Enquirer.

Show "don't be so sure" by middike


But what is really damning about all of this is the insistence of supposed 'intellectuals' like Dr Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds (who already advocated cartoon planes on National TV) and 911Researchers.com that Judy's work is still somehow relevant.

This is the inexplicable part that makes 'considering' cointelpro a legitimate concern.

Sure - Judy appears 'drugged' or to be suffering from a cognitive disability. She DOES claim she was in a coma for 7 years. Fine. Maybe she is ill. In that context I can accept that she has NO NUMBERS to back up her claims.

But - this does not explain Dr Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds and "Scholars for 911 Truth" and 911Researchers.com supporting her - while consistently viciously attacking Steven Jones (who DOES give us numbers and formulas and research).

Wake up people. This movement is under attack.


Exactly. The purpose of the Wood-Reynolds paper is to associate yourselves with silliness that no actual physicist or engineer can take seriously. They want to peel yourselves away from the scientific community.

Compare: The effect that a MSM interview with Steven Jones to the effect that an interview with Judy Wood would have on the listeners.

Steven Jones and JIm Hoffman naturally appeal to scientists, engineers and people in the trades of welding, building, ect....

They want you to appear nutty and fringe. They want to associate you with UFOs and paranoia.

I remember some months back on how James Fetzer was trying to engage Steven Jones in an argument on how a piano, if dropped from 110 stories, would take more than 30 seconds to reach the ground, basically floating to earth. How does a person with a somewhat realistic sense of weight and physical motion even begin to respond to such a claim? You see the strategy? They want to constantly engage you in absurd argument .

Watch how in the future James Fetzer will receive more air time on the MSM.

The purpose of scholars for 9-11 truth is to "take space" away from yourselves. Beware.

Show "This may be off the subject but" by middike


Nikola Tesla states: I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

If the government is covering up 9/11, what else are they covering up?????? Have an open mind and at least consider what I'm saying..... Check this link and see for yourself. Then comment me saying I'm a nut.

The Truth Never Lies

Show "HERES THE LINK" by middike
Show "OPEN YOUR MIND" by middike

An open mind

An open mind requires common sense.

The insinuation that we do not have an open mind, simply because we reject research that lacks any substantive foundation, is a false dichotomy.

This THEORY has indeed been given attention and discussed at length. My friend Dr. Jenkins in fact gave Judy Woods every opportunity possible - in an open forum - to discuss at length - her theory.

The fact is that she simply was unable to answer the most basic questions regarding her own hypothesis - and in fact stated facts that were incorrect, as well as using a highly deceptive photo to forward her erroneous assertions.

The fact that YOU can dig up a theoretical article on physics does not even APPROACH provideing ANY proof whatsoever that DEWs were used on 9/11. All you are providing is an article of theoretical physics that stipulates that it is POSSIBLE that DEWs could exist.

Theoretical physics could speculate that an elephant could fit in my back pocket also - if we care to expand this discussion into the realm of quantum physics, string theory, wormholes, multi-dimensional reality and theology.

But - some of us would rather stick to the evidence at hand - not speculative theories and science fiction.

But lastly - i would ask you if YOU understand that this movement is an attempt to find ACCOUNTABILITY for why 3,000 of our friends and loved ones died on 911. YOu enjoy science fiction? fine - take it elsewhere - because it is BENEATH our dignity to talk about theories where NO EVIDNCE exists - that shames this movement - in the context of those who died.

Have some dignity.

Show "ok but" by middike

Show me the proof

that it could be accomplished on the scale necessary to destroy the towers.

Show us calculations that show the AMOUNT of energy it would TAKE to destroy the towers using this technology.

Simply showing that steel can be vaporized in a laboratory is not even CLOSE to proving that a satellite zapped the twin towers and vaporized the steel in it to bring it down.

Yes I have taken the time to "understand it" and i see that these FUNDAMENTAL questions are not answered. Not even CLOSE.

Show "I never said..." by middike
Show "An open mind..." by middike

An open mind...

...is nothing more than an empty receptacle, open and available for all manner of waste to be deposited therein. Better to have a mind with a narrow portal instead, and guarded by two sentries named Scepticism and Analysis.

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

I'm a Tesla fan. Yes,

I'm a Tesla fan. Yes, strange and wonderful aspects of science have been over looked. Yes, the fed's acquired all his(Tesla's) patents on his death. That is beside the point of 911activism.

It is not neccesary to wander into reaserch into the unknown or the under-reported to prove as 911activists we have a case for complicity against Bush and Co. And doing so distracts from the solid evidence(granted mostly circumstantial) we DO have for a new investigation, criminal charges, etc.

I post this for new readers; regulars already get this--mostly.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

i guess what i'm trying to say

I agree... I didn't expect to be mauled with negative feedback, considering this movements' main drive is to get questions answered. I commend those of you who want to keep this movement on the right track, but who determines what that track is? Does the evidence determine which direction the Truth goes? I don't need any more evidence to prove what I already know. How many would agree that the best place to hide something is out in the open? I guess the connection I'm trying to make is, how is the evidence to support your claim any different that the evidence I have to support mine? I can explain why I feel so strongly about Nikola Tesla and how 9/11 could be related to the many patents that were scooped up by the government. I guess what I'm trying to say is, instead of immediately coming to a conclusion without at least considering what I'm saying, try to look at it from my perspective. Then after I present the evidence to back up what I'm saying, and you actually take the time to look into it, then tell me that my theory is bogus. I took the same approach with 9/11 as I did with many other seemingly unrelated topics. I stopped believing everything everyone else said, and did my own research and came to my own conclusion. My research didn't stop with 9/11. After I concluded that a new investigation needs to be done and for justice to be served, I tried to understand why 9/11 happened. Why? The answer seems obvious, but is an answer to a question always obvious? Basically what I'm suggesting is if we can connect the dots from historic events and find elements that seem to mirror one another, wouldn't that warrant further questions? At least to examine the evidence and determine that it either does or doesn't hold up.

The Truth Never Lies


You are right when you saw that the point of the 9/11 truth movement is to get the questions answered. 

The problem is that not all of the questions can be answered. 

That's why we need an investigation. 

If a theory can't be tested (i.e. speculation that can't be proved/disproved) it will NEVER lead to evidence that we can use to force an investigation.  In fact, such a theory is by definition not scientific. 

I object to this speculation because it is HIGHLY speculative.  You are welcome to think what you want, but you are never going to prove this stuff.  You are not going to prove it in a court of law.  And you are never going to convince anyone.  That is why I consider it a distraction.

Personally I don't think it has any merit at all, but my main objection is the one I provided. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

The question is not whether

The question is not whether it is possible to vaporize small amounts of steel. It is how much energy would be required to do so. Then compare that with known energy sources on earth, for example outputs of nuclear reactors or any types of power generating stations available. Some actual numbers, please.

Dr. Wood suggests substantial mass loss from the towers over a very short period of time.

The question is even if you could dream up the machine capable of such a power output, what QUANTITY of power would be required to energize it?
It is there that you'll see how silly the idea is.

From another angle: Both particle beams and directed photon energy have momentum. By watching videos and still shots of the collapse, the source of energy causing the destruction is obvously within the building pushing outward. Steel beams and dust are being pushed outward with massive force from within on all sides of each of the twin towers. If the source of destruction was from outside the building, the steel and dust would be kicked out away from the direction of the weapon.

You can actually see where the sources of the destruction were located by looking at the trajectory of the massive steel beams and cement dust

Show "What came first the chicken or the egg?" by middike

Why not take this discussion

to a more appropriate forum?

There are websites that specialize in theoretical physics.

Its not appropriate to discuss something as speculative as this on a website where victim's families may very well be visiting to find answers.

Show "I agree but...." by middike

Questions are good

But not all questions are created equal.

Evidence is one thing - and bald speculation is something else.

Forwarding the space beams theory at this time serves to discredit this movement. Enough evidence of wrong doing exists to demand a reopening of the case. we have evidence of lies and a coverup. we need activism based on the most sound evidence - with the strongest foundation.

the stubborn insistence that space beams need to be part of this effort runs contrary to our goals - which is convincing the general publc that there is a PROBLEM with the official story of 9/11.

Now - this is a VERY reasonable point i make. who could possibly disagree that we need to LEAD with our most credible evidence?

now - if people insist on STILL pushing space beams - then we need to start looking at motivation.


Show "Toasted Cars" by rugbyzhg

OMG, Star wars beam weapons

OMG, Star wars beam weapons are attacking cars on the highway!!!!

(notice the finely waxed backend!!!)
(you see the circular beam hole over the door in this one!?!!? OMG!)

Show "Also..." by rugbyzhg


Nice one!! Better comedian than thinker. Nice flourish with the valley girl assessment.

Obviously you all don't know

where the missing 2.6 trillion went and what the Apollo program was really about.


and Darth Vader was obviously jewish


Dual Citizenship...

But a Republican at heart !!!

Show "So which of the pictures..." by rugbyzhg

Why would you suggest that

Why would you suggest that energies were large enough to convert solid steel to vapor, but then leave no residual liquid in the rubble?

if you want

All matter, regardless of state, is composed of invisible particles called atoms, which in turn are composed of other particles. The air we breath is just as real as metal or wood because it is made of the same fundamental particles. It is the arrangment of these particles and the forces that bind them together, that give to a substance its special properties. A piece of steel or any so called solid substance on earth, is almost entirely empty space. If we could eliminate the empty space from steel, then all that would remain would be a tiny bit of matter, so small as to be invisible even with a high-powered microscope. Atoms themselves are not solid, but instead tiny solar systems composed of infinately small particles, revolving at tremendous speeds, then bond together by enormous forces.
The Truth Never Lies

Judy Wood is engaged in an intentional Disinformation Campaign

She has distorted Steven Jones' Research. Shamelessly!

Orange Molten Aluminum? With Jet fuel temperatures?


Exploding thermite? He said it explodes? Show me where.


Thermite only hypothesis? Tell me where he said that again?


Explain to me how a space beam can account for the “structural behavior” of the towers again?

“So, I decided to contacted Steve Chastain (by phone and email), who is the author of the book “Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace” and asked him to verify if those 2 pictures were of aluminum, as Judy claimed. He responded and said, that the photos were NOT aluminum, but were photographs of iron”


Judy wrote, “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.


Steve [Jones] is right. This whole matter has been a fiasco. I would appreciate it if (a) you would apologize to Steve and (b) remove those posts from st911.org.

Thank you.

Jim [Fetzer]

Just a few months later, in December, Judy published a new paper named “The

Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html) and decided to use the SAME 2 EXACT pictures. Here is how she described them this time around….

Judy [Wood] wrote, “The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace.

“We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information.”

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Golly Dude, why are you so afraid of the truth?" by Jim Jones
Show "Who is this "Judy" you find so important?" by Jim Jones

I could reply

but... I don't feel comfortable talking to Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones DNA experiments gone awry.

Plus I know you're an act, probably working in tandem with Judy Wood herself. Maybe she even performed the experiment that created you. How's your master?

p.s. why oh why are you so terrified of thermite... and Steven Jones?


I don't know, bruce1337--looks like a small moon. We have a small moon--how do we REALLY know it's the same moon as BEFORE the Apollo program?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Where did you find this "article"?" by Jim Jones