Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood

Everyone who has been following the debate within 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' are well aware of the divisive nature of speculations spewed forth by Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds faction regarding directed energy beams and the demolition of the WTC towers.

A video interview conducted January 10th, 2007 at the National Press Club by Dr. Greg Jenkins, a PhD physicist, attempts to probe the lone 'scientist' who is the pillar behind these speculations. When questioned about information which is publicly posted on her website, Dr. Wood's responses ranged from evasive to juvenile. During one segment of the interview, Dr. Wood is presented with a photograph, her 'favorite' picture from her website, of the South Tower collapse. Her abysmal lack of analytical ability is clearly demonstrated as she attempts to describe what she observes in the photograph.

Run time is 35 minutes including a 2 minute introduction and a 3 minute ending sequence. Enjoy.


I couldn't watch it...

because I didn't want to get depressed.....

Clowns representing the movement....... I can't help feeling she is either disinfo and one of the most clueless people about........

i watched the first question

i watched the first question he asked her and thats all i could take. Judy Wood-"uh, we really havent got into listing them yet, just energy weapons." sounds like a real expert......

Sounds like

a boss trying to represent a report that one of their assistants wrote while she was out golfing.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

it really is sad but very

it really is sad but very useful. we should just link to this when CB Brooklyn and the Nico clowns come around. no arguments, no responding to trolls over 3 pages, just link to this.


That is precisely why this video has been made available. The dialogue and speculation of exotic energy weapons may not necessarily go away completely, however this information should be a great benefit to winnowing out such horrible presentations and foolish defenses by the likes of Dr. Woods.

Best of luck to us all,


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis

Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

yes, exactly

It would also be helpful to link to something where these clowns are on the record defending her, because they could easily change their tune later and new people won't remember who exactly showed such suspiciously poor judgement in the past. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any easy way of finding old posts on this site... or am I missing some cool trick for that?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


I don't know about a "cool"

I don't know about a "cool" trick--but our site search can be occasionally brisk.

If you have a name and can remember the rough time frame, that helps. I've hunted down 911debunker, MoronJihad, Randkiller2006 on others with less pain than expected.

Anyone else?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

off subject, but it's j woods, so who cares

how long has the us been involved in systematic killings? oh yeah, that's how we took over this great land. ever hear about the holocaust of native americans in the msm, history books, museums, etc.?

Show "Clearly Judy had a bad day, but why focus on that?" by Hereward

Interview Transcript

JW = Judy Wood         GJ = Greg Jenkins 

[Transcript of last part of interview] 

GJ: You have to do some analysis [calculating the energy involved with an energy beam—something that Judy Wood describes as a “distraction” earlier in the interview] 

JW: [Interrupting] is dust denser than solid steel or is it—? 

GJ: [Interrupting]—Of course not.  It’s much less dense. 

JW: So… then how much do we have?

GJ: How much of what should we have?  [Pausing because no answer is given]  Of steel?  Or of concrete? 

JW: This, this, this is, [stuttering nervously] this is not uh… productive.  It’s not educational.

GJ: It’s educational for me.

JW: This is a game you’re playing. 

GJ: I’m really not playing a game.  I’m just trying to figure out what you have on your website.  I’m asking questions regarding it. 

… [GJ commenting after the interview] 

I was just trying to see what kind of scientific basis this was in.... and I think I found out.

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

Show "Jenkins gets the height of the TT wrong twice" by Hereward

Must see video....

I had to give this blog a 10...

Not for Wood's junk science, but for Dr. Greg Jenkins (of DC911Truth) interview of her.

I think he is totally flabbergasted by her ridiculous claims as any real scientist would be too.

The only real shame is that this got to the National Propaganda (ooops Press) Club in the first place.

nuff said...

Show "Is this guy being paid by the NSA?" by Jim Fetzer

When is Judy Wood going to stop distorting Jones' research

Judy Wood has repeatedly distorted Steven Jones’ position on the use of thermite.

[Reynolds and Wood] “Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses "the scientific method" after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?”


Jones has never claimed that thermite or its variants account alone for all the observations. There is obvious evidence that incendiary thermite was used and there is evidence that the towers exploded which may have been caused by nanothermite or may have been caused by something else, such as conventional demolition explosives.”

When is Judy Wood going to stop distorting the research of Steven Jones?

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

Still following rule #1 I

Still following rule #1 I see.

Rule #1) Always attack the person, never the subject matter.

I see you and CB_Brooklyn both posted comments referring to the same documents at almost the exact same time. Where can we sign up to get on your cult mailing list?

Show "NSA? Would explain the "collapse" disinfo" by Constitutionalist

you traitor.

you traitor.

Jim Fetzer, with all due respect, you are delusional.

It pains me to say that because you’ve been one of my biggest heroes in the 9/11 truth movement. I feel betrayed.

I was there too, both for your presentation and for the interview. I saw—and the video shows—the exact opposite of what you described: Greg Jenkins’ conduct was a model of propriety and restraint. Judy Wood, on the other hand, was vague, evasive, interruptive, kept derailing the questions, was clearly unwilling (or unable) to discuss anything on a professional level.

Lacking any scientific (or even logical) basis for her claim—other than one ambiguous photo, she resorts to accusing Jenkins of having ulterior motives, playing games, interjecting distractions, not being “productive.” This is a posture of desperation.

One thing the video does not show is how you came up to Jenkins after the interview, while he was still seated, and began shouting at him things like “Who put you up to this? Was it Jim Hoffman? Do you know Steven Jones?” and on and on until several people, including myself, surrounded you to defuse the situation.

Your attacks here on Dr. Jenkins, are unbecoming. Pure ad hominems and non sequiturs. As a philosopher of science and professor of critical thinking, you should know better.

If you are absolutely sincere, please try to rehabilitate yourself by acknowledging your errors. It may not be possible, the way you’ve squandered your credibility this past year. But we need someone with your experience and charisma in this movement. Don’t let ego or paranoia get the better of you.

And please don’t take us for fools.

I second that.

And witness to the accuracy describing Jim Fetzer's strange behavior after the interview.

What say you, Jim?


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Woods looked and sounded

Like some drunk they found in an alley somewhere.

She was clearly lying through her teeth.
I'd really like to know what it is that Fetzer and Woods and a few of these other disinfo loons are getting for this.

if anyone

has this video in a quicktime format - or could convert it for me - i would of course be eternally grateful.

Alright man I’ll try and

Alright man I’ll try and grab it for you and convent it to mpeg, check back here later and I should have it up...

Original Video files

John, I have the original. I sent you an e-mail and can send any format you want, in any resolution you want.

Check your e-mail.

Thanks to 'Dem Bruce Lee Styles' for offering to convert....

--- hsgsj

Alright cool, no problem

Alright cool, no problem I'll stop converting it and the original will be the best quality anyway.

Wow, that was horrible. 

Wow, that was horrible.  "Dustification"???  Nobody is really saying the beams were "dustified" are they?  They were broken in convenient 20-30 foot pieces, the concrete was reduced to dust. 

Plus how can she say there are no images of molten metal?  We have videos that show backhoes hauling out the metal, plus numerous witness accounts.  And yet she tells us that its not really important to determine the exact "energy beams" that were used that day.

Incredible.  Think for yourself people.Smile

"Dustification"??? Does

"Dustification"??? Does she also have a "dustologist" like Mark in CrossBall?

Seriously, I'm pretty certain "dustologist" is a made up word, by me, and probably others, for silliness.

What worries me is when these people say "dustification", they ARE NOT being satirical.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


a quick google search on this word says it all.

That's sad. Impeachment.

That's sad.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

This is fantastic, Medics I

This is fantastic, Medics I suggest you have another go man and watch it all because Greg Jenkins does a brilliant job just asking Wood the most fundamental of basic questions, and the way she responds to each one is to almost squirm in her seat and say the most indicting ridiculous shit.

He asks her what tests she has done to produce powderized metal and the reply is amazing she says - "errmmm just put things in a microwave" YEA LIKE PUTTING METAL IN MICROWAVES IS A GREAT IDEA!


Microwaves.... Metal.... Powder

I missed all the sparking metal though
Does that only happen in a microwave?

I don't remember that fork turning to dust..... maybe I was confused after all the sparking that was going on??
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

She was awful

What's happened? She seemed ill or something - is she always like that?

I watched the whole thing with my jaw dropped - she doesn't seem to have quite grasped some of the basics. All credit to the interviewer.

Short answer, YES

I could tell from her analysis that she does not have a clue. The interview just brings this out to the general audience.

For instance, her 'billiard ball' analysis does not conserve momentum! She assumes that each floor collapses to the floor below, suddenly stops *completely* when it hits the floor below, and then that floor begins accelerating from zero velocity with the mass of *1 floor*. This is bogus.

Picture 2 bricks sitting on ice at an ice rink. Place silly putty on both of them, and push one of the bricks until it collides and sticks to the next brick. Immediately after impact, the two bricks will travel at some velocity after collision, NOT completely stop. If the two bricks are equal mass, conservation of momentum tells you that the two bricks will travel at 1/2 the initial velocity of the first brick before impact.

This crap appeared as misinfo/disinfo in 9/11 Mysteries when they naively misused this bogus analysis to calculate the collapse time of the towers being something like 90 seconds. As the car talk guys say: BOOOH---OOOOHHH---OOOOHHHH---OOOHHH--GUSSS!

Part of activism is to kill blatant disinfo. We need more scientists and engineers in the movement, and the 'beam weapons demolished the towers' is SO easily debunked it is embarassing. Any veteran physicist could completely debunk it in under an hour.

--- hsgsj

Her billard ball analysis

Her billard ball analysis was flawed but the premis that the building would provide resistance was not..... the building should have at the very least taken three times longer than it did to fall to the ground.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Devil's in the details....

The building would certainly provide some resistance. However, it is a matter of scale. That is, how large is the potential energy of the building compared to the energy necessary to break, say, every 3rd weld? If the potential energy is much greater, then you can effectively ignore the resistance of the building.

At the initial stages of collapse, you would consider the potential energy of the upper floors above the collapse point compared to breaking welds. I doubt this is insignificant, *especially* at the initial collapse stages, but the devil is in the details. Anyone know how to estimate the energy to break all the welds in one floor of the WTC towers? That is a project, but someone with expertise in metal fatigue or demolition may be able to answer..... hmmmmm.....

Anyway, my main point in posting the 'billiard ball' example is that her analysis is insanely off. She did not estimate the anything mentioned above, and she did not conserve momentum necessary in a very basic zeroth order calculation. It is fundamentally, hopelessly flawed, and really contains no redeeming analytical value.

--- hsgsj

The Devil Told Me

That the fire was not nearly hot enough to symmetrically affect all of the structural members equally.... therefore the tops of those buildings should not have collapsed.... thus the question of the kinetic energy and the momentum of those upper floors should not be an issue.

They should not have fallen even one floor at free fall speed.

If anything... the upper floors would have slumped downward and met resistance and then moved toward the path of least resistance and tumbled off to the side leaving a majority of the structure still standing....

especially after we can clearly see the top of the building start to topple to the side..... the only way to correct the fall is to eliminate the resistance from below.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Devil BE GONE!

Yep. Don't get me wrong. Demolition is the most likely explanation, to the point of being the only explanation.

The toppling of the south tower to the side is very bizarre. Really, I have no explanation for the seemingly impossible violation of the 'conservation of angular momentum' of the top piece other than demolition.

BTW, no one has taken a serious look at the collapse time issues and the issue you raise above. The NIST analysis, flawed as it is, only considers the building up to the point of collapse initiation. No consideration at all to the actual collapse sequence. That, in itself, is rather revealing, no?

--- hsgsj

Show ""Collapse" disinfo" by Constitutionalist

Reminder on definitions....

I am not changing the English language to console anyone, especially the naive and ill informed.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition:

collapse (n.)
1. The act of falling down *OR* inward, as from a loss of supports.
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health

Note that no mechanism need be specified in the common vernacular. The building fell and had an abrupt failure of function and strength, whether by demolition or magic space beams.

Do you mind explaining how collapse is misused?

--- hsgsj

Show "Explanation of how "collapse" is misused" by TruthSeeker1234


Judy Wood is an infiltraitor..... sent to make this movement lose credibility.

We should have seen this coming.... the government has done this to every movement even known which posed any serious threat to the establishment..... every person that could have a strong following.

they pulled off 9/11.... they wouldn't hesitiate to do whatever neccessary to derail any group which questions their story.... it's a smaller part of a bigger plot.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Disinformation by Jim Fetzer

“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some "shadowy government agency") is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true.”

“I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. That creates an exaggerated version of the situation as I see it that makes it easy to satirize. I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. But there are ample grounds based upon past experience to believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research on the death of JFK. On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate. Their function appears to me to be obfuscation.”

There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. I am therefore refurbishing my web site to accent disinformation, which is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.

Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation

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

Wood is ridiculous

Amazing. Shes out of her mind.
Really good job by Greg Jenkins. Great that he manages to stay reasonably calm during all this...
Do we need to know more about her ?
This really says it all. Period.
Lets see how long it takes till CB posts some Steven Jones smearing crap to 'defend' her...

Is it just me

or does she look like the illegitimate child of John Lennon and Noam Chomsky?

(yes, I know...)

This was devastating.

How did she get her Phd?

Incredible! Let's not spend any more time on her.

Show "Is he still with College Park?" by Ningen


Thanks to Greg Jenkins for this priceless interview with the Renowned Dr. Wood

When I first heard about the possibility of electromagnetic directed energy beams being used on 9-11, I wondered about 1) the source of the beam and what a huge amount of energy that would take and 2) the nature of the electromagnet energy that could evaporate steel.

Dr.Woods clears all this up when she suggests we don't become "distracted" by energy calculations.

If anyone ever "gets to the triple double checking", don't forget to calculate for the unique chemical properties of "dustification" as opposed to evaporation.

Much of this incredibly fine dust then makes its way to the "upper atmosphere". There is so much of this dustified steel floating upward that the seismic
damage to the structural basin is minimal.

Dr. Wood is there to make people who aren't hypnotized by the official story look stupid.

Its a good thing she is so transparent.

Answers to your excellent points

The amount of power required to evaporate the steel in the upper 110 floors in ~10 seconds = 4 times the total power output of the entire globe (including all combustion, all bio-mass burning, electrical, etc.). This includes *NO LOSS*!! Any reasonable assumptions of loss would immediately jack this up to hundreds if not tens of thousands of earths of power.

Your second point:
There are only 2 kinds of energy beams, beams with mass (ions, protons, electrons, neutral atoms) and beams with no mass (photons). For beams with mass, the collisions with the dust in the air would have observably moved all the dust out of the way before the beam could strike metal. It should have looked like a giant wind blowing down from above. This was not observed, so this can be ruled out. Also, the energy required to ionize and then accelerate a particle beam (which is even required for neutral beams!) would be a much less efficient way to couple energy into evaporating steel.

You are left with photons. If the wavelength of light is the size of the dust or smaller, it will scatter off the dust. That is, the photons would have to push the dust out of the way to get to the steel. The size of the dust ~100um on avg, and the size of the steel beams (~1ft or so) sets the scale of the wavelength. To not get appreciable scattering, the wavelngth needs to be about 10 times the size of the scatterer, the dust in this case. What this ultimately means is that you are restricted to roughly 10 GHz (from the cross sectional size of the structural steel beams) to ~1000 GHz (from the size of the dust). The reflectivity of metals, even resistive (dirty) metals in this spectral region, is *very* high, well over 95%, and probably over 99%.... I need to check this number for structural steel. But I know for copper, gold, aluminum, and brass, this is the case.

Energy Beams destroying the towers is BS, and proveably so....

--- hsgsj

Excellent work

Unbelievable, Jim Fetzer's pitiful attack

The interview speaks for itself. I left the entire interview uncut as an ethical consideration. The viewer is at full liberty to decide whether this was a 'hit piece' or not. I allowed Dr. Wood to fully express herself and her position. No editing 'magic' was used to portray Judy Wood as a dolt. She flawlessly performed that roll all by herself. By proxy, Fetzer appears as either a collaborating idiot or worse, intentional disinformation.

Attacking the interviewer does nothing to further discussion regarding the plausibility (read impossibility) of directed energy weapons to demolish the world trade center towers.

Your low-brow tactics reveal much regarding the intent of the attack, and reveal more regarding the character of the attacker.

Show "Jenkins Jumping Judy" by TruthSeeker1234

9/11 truth and non-falsifiable theories

New physics must have been discovered. Give me a break.

That’s speculation. Speculation that can’t be tested is a non-falsifiable theory. You might as well believe that God destroyed the towers with his foot. You might as well argue that aliens destroyed the WTC buildings. You are never going to prove it to anyone. Not only that, you will never be satisfied with any evidence we can give you to show you are wrong! I strongly suspect that this is the whole point of this disinformation…

Such theories have a closer approximation to religious belief than to scientific inquiry. Take your religious beliefs and leave them at home. Here in the 9/11 truth movement we will stick to provable theories. We will stick to compelling evidence. We will use this evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation. Then, you can get your answers about your non-falsifiable theories.

Non-falsifiable theories have no basis as part of the 9/11 truth movement. I think it's time we took a stand on this issue.

An investigation will answer these questions. Put up or shut up with your speculation that can’t be tested.

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

Show "Where's the steel?" by TruthSeeker1234

Not quite

No. Speculative technology is non-falsifiable because there is no way I can prove to you that government does not have this technology. This is the very definition of a non-falsifiable theory.

If you disagree show me how I can prove this to you.

When you prove this technology exists that can break the laws of physics—then it becomes falsifiable and only then and not before. 

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

Show "Yes Quite" by TruthSeeker1234

After you achieve that

After you achieve that stunning success, could you also deliver Cheney's signed confession? Thanks.

wrong again

1. Classified documents are inaccessible. The burden is on YOU to get them not on me before you prove your theories with any evidence. Until you get them, you can be quiet about your theory.
2. Even if I did that you would say I haven’t found them all. You would say that they must be hiding more documents.

Therefore the theory can’t be tested. Therefore it is non-falsifiable

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

Show "Historic Falsifyability" by TruthSeeker1234


Irrelevant. If we don't have access to the technology there is no point in speculation.

By your logic I could argue that the government has files showing us how to create wormholes into a dimension where your supposed anti-physics laws are observed.

Prove to me that the government doesn’t have those files. Come on, I know you can do it. Just prove it.

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

Your Proof, should you choose to actually evaluate it

USGC sampled the dust at many locations around the WTC site. The chemical analysis reveals only a 2% iron content on average. Steel is composed of well over 90% iron.

In the upper 110 floors of the towers, steel composed about 80% of the building by weight compared to that of concrete. If an appreciable amount of steel was dissociated, iron should have appeared in the dust in roughly the same percentage. Instead, it was only 2%, a reasonable number considering the iron content of the concrete aggregate and gypsum wall boards.

Furthermore, most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to the latent heat of vaporization. This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, this can be thought of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it together. In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible, would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.


Can you follow it? I'm sorry I can not post it written in crayon.

Show "If you believe USGC, why not NIST?" by TruthSeeker1234

A distinction needs to be

A distinction needs to be made between the results of physical tests run by government agencies and investigations and the scientific analysis and conclusions by those same entities. The results of physical tests are accurate many times because, as Jim Hoffman has astutely pointed out, the people running these governmnet white-wash investigations know they are covering up for a crime. The key, therefore, is to craft a report that they can later defend in such a way that they avoid the electric chair, so they lie just enough to make the report plausible.

In the case of NIST, they can fudge their computer models by manipulating input data because later, if they are called to testify, they could say "Well, the parameters we used were within the realm of physical reality." This is also the reason they stopped at collapse initiation - they didn't have to lie about anything that happened after collapse initiation that looked like controlled demolition because they didn't even discuss it. Whereas, with the physical tests, if they lied about the results of the physical tests, someone could come along later and run the exact same physical tests and prove without a doubt that NIST was lying. Therefore, I think it is pretty safe to assume that the results of the physical tests are probably pretty accurate.

The gripe most scientists have with the NIST Report is how they use (or don't use) the data from their physical tests to come to the correct scientific conclusion - that the Towers would not have collapsed due to damage + fire.

Regardless, you have about as much of a grasp on reality as Dr. Wood. Never did Dr. Jenkins ever resort to ad-hominems or wisecracks. He actually asked some great questions, and I felt really sorry for Dr. Wood having to actually defend her nonsense theory in the face of some extremely intelligent questions.

I only wish Jenkins could have called her out on the ridiculous assertion that the top of the south tower would have been somewhere like 5 inches above the page in the "snowball" picture they were talking about. She was basing that height estimate on a 40 something story building that was in the foreground of the picture, and assuming there would be a 1-1 height ratio with the south tower, which was in the background. Essentially, she wasn't taking into account the aspect ratio between the two buildings in the photograph. I know the intro to the video pointed it out, but it would have been nice if Jenkins could have pointed it out to her face, and hear her go "Uhh, Uhh, what were we talking about again?"

Show "Jenkins most certainly" by TruthSeeker1234

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

So you folks would have me believe that the same people who ordered and orchestrated the mass murder of 3000 innocents, the destruction of ground zero evidence, the 48-hour Bazant/Zhou paper, the bogus FEMA report, the bogus NIST report . . .

These same people are somehow NOT capable of fudging numbers in a spreadsheet???

Are raw, unsifted dust samples still available? How diffiicult would it be to provide dust samples which matched the report? Not very.

You think U.S. government officials fear the electric chair? When was the last time that happened?

I can't believe I have to explain this....

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as "conventional physics", since this would imply there exists "unconventional physics", a kind of oxymoron. You are making meaningless terms up, just like Dr. Wood makes up the term "dustification".

Regarding your vague notion of a magical "method of dissociating solid matter": Just because you can dream something up, does not make it plausible. Let me try to explain the ridiculousness of your idea. If you can dissociate the bonds using less energy than the bonding strength, then you are breaking fundamental tenants that have been established in science over the last 400 years through arduous and tedious experiments. In this case, the law of conservation of energy is violated.

This little piece of information aside, let's consider what would happen if you could dissociate bonds with less energy than their bonding strengths. Consider breaking the bonds of H2O using this magical method. Then you could use the hydrogen and oxygen in a chemical reaction (burning) generating heat and water as a byproduct. Since the energy (heat) released *is* the bonding energy, then you have just generated more energy than what you initially had to put in. You could keep repeating the process over and over to generate any amount of heat you want in order to run, for example, generators. The generator could, in turn, be used to power the magical dissociation machine.

You better patent this idea, because it is a perpetual motion machine. This, of course, violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics, another pillar that has withstood a century of testing.

But no one is using this little magical device to generate power. Instead, it is used to blow up the WTC towers to trick us all.....

Just because you can write down some garbage about an idea you had in the shower, does not make it plausible and it certainly does not make it real.

Show "By "conventional" physics, I" by TruthSeeker1234

I appologize, but you, truthseeker1234, are an idiot.

I apologize for resorting to ad hominem, but you, sir, are an idiot. Please, for your own good, refrain from further comment on the physics. You clearly have no clue.

There is no such thing as top-secret physics. There are top-secret projects, but they have to rely on the same physics as everyone else.


What Missing Debris And How Was It Measured?

In the interview, I reference the controlled demolition of the Kingdome, a sports stadium. I do this since Dr. Wood should be very familiar with it. She used this as an argument supporting the idea that massive amounts of debris appear to be missing from the WTC tower collapse site. In her analysis published on her website, she compares the Kingdome height after collapse to the before collapse height, and concludes that the ratio is 12%. The Kingdome fell into its own footprint, and the after collapse height was taken at the rim of the stadium which was primarily structural concrete. The amount of concrete in structural concrete buildings occupies a large volume compared to the steel in steel framed buildings, a testament to the strength of steel compared to concrete. If we compare to a more suitable steel framed structure like WTC building 7, the collapse ratio was about 5.3%, and it fell approximately into its own footprint.

However, neither of the WTC towers fell into their own footprints. A conservative estimate of the radius of the falling debris is at least 2.5 times the radius of the tower or, equivalently, a debris field 6 times the footprint of the building. Using Dr. Wood’s analysis, but using the WTC building 7 collapse ratio of 5.3% and considering that the debris was spread out over 6 times the footprint, yields an average debris height of 11’ for one WTC tower. Partial collapses of the sublevels could fully account for any amount of ‘missing’ debris.

Physics is a quantitative science. When you say things like "80% of the debris is missing", then you have to show how you measured it. What the above previous 2 paragraphs show is that, based upon the photos, it would be difficult to measure such a relatively small amount of debris that is spread out. It also says that steel framed buildings are mostly empty space by volume, again a testament to the strength of steel.

If you look at the holes in the adjacent buildings, falling debris from the towers could certainly account for what you observe. Use the above analysis for the *amount* of debris you might expect to see, and use this paper (http://www.worldtradecentertruth.com/letters/MechEngTonyJ26.pdf)
to assess the damage you might expect. You don't need magic to explain the obvservation.

Conventional RDX type explosives burn at around 10,000 degrees. That is the reason they cut through steel with ease. Localized hot spots after and during the collapse, if conventional explosives were used, could account for the burning of cars and other material in the area. You don't need space beams to explain burning cars and trucks.

Regarding the paper: paper can act as a "sail". That is, large surface area and low weight. A large blast of air, either from the displacement of air from the collapse or conventional explosives, could push the paper efficiently. You see some paper leading the dust during the collapse. This is the reason. Now, *all* the paper was not blown out and survived. I don't know what percentage was actually observed raining down during and after the collapse... was it 1%, 10%, 50%? I have no idea at the moment. I would suppose some, or more likely most, of the paper was incinerated or merely trapped within the falling debris.

What do you mean that the WTC1 tower was "shifted by hundreds of feet"!?! The full width of the building is only 200 feet! How did you measure this? What makes you believe this to be the case? I am categorizing this as insane until you explain yourself.

Show "How to measure missing steel and shifting buildings" by TruthSeeker1234

"Count" the rubble for WTC7

You did not answer my question. How did you measure the "shift" in wtc1? What do you mean "shift"? You are not being clear, at least for me to understand what it is you are talking about.

I can't "count" the outside walls regarding WTC7 in the aerial picture you posted. Where are the outside walls? I can't "count" the outside wall debris from aerial photos to account for all the outside of building 7, can you? That does not mean that the mass of the debris pile does not incorporate the mass of the building including the outside walls. This proves, and you have to know, all the debris can not possibly be viewed aerially. Furthermore, I show massive debris piles in the ending sequence incorporated into the interview. Are you disregarding these, and instead relying on counting the debris you see on the surface as viewed from above? Talk about disregarding inconvenient evidence for the magic beam theory you endorse. Is this the official disinformation campaign now, "counting" only a fraction of the debris and stating it proves your case?

I gave you, and everyone that reads this blog, a clear analysis on how to account for the debris. I also just proved that "counting" the debris from aerial photos is bogus. It leaves out depth, as anyone with common sense can conclude without my help.

Building shifting

Shifting building.

Go to this Hoffman page


And hit the video called

"Distant view of North Tower collapse from north-northeast"

He's provided the video and also a handy sequence of frames.

Observe. WTC7 is in the foreground. The center line of WTC1 is to the right of WTC7. The explolsions appear symetrical about this center line. As the demolition progresses, the center of the explosions begins shifting to the left.

At a certain point during the event, WTC1 has become about the height of WTC7. Notice that the "spire" is now visible. It appears to the right of WTC7, just where we would expect, since the spire was part of the core. The problem is, the explosions are no longer centered around the core.

By the time the demolition has reached the ground, a tall mushroom cloud is evident. The vertical axis of this cloud is now about 200 feet east (left) of the core of the tower, and the entire cloud is rotating clockwise as viewed from above.

Wow.... your way off....

All the debris from the tower as shown in that video was blown out symmetrically from the center of the building. The drifiting smoke/dust column you are referring to, though interesting, does not mean that explosions were occurring centered about that location. Furthermore, it does not mean that an appreciable amount of mass was "shifted" on avergae toward the location of the smoke/dust column.

TruthSeeker, no offense, but I am growing weary of responding to all of your posts. Although I think you are posting in earnest, my patience is running thin.

I will address your next point, but don't be surpised if I stop writing.

Good luck to you in thinking over these issues.

What about the afteglow?

Thank you for at least confirming part of the observation and expressing your interest in it. To me, it appears that the center of mass of the whole falling mess shifts, and we agree to disagree about this observation. I won't belabor it.

Along with the fact that the mushroom cloud is 200 ft. east of the building, there is a noticable "glow" that appears on many videos. I wonder what caused that?

Is it just a video artifact, or is it real?

WTC7 rubble vs. WTC1 rubble

With respect to WTC7, I would agree with you. WTC7 left a pile of rubble, almost entirely within the original footprint. When viewed from above, we see rubble, and below that, more rubble. We cannot hope to see the ground. With WTC7, there is no reason to believe that we could count up the steel pieces from above.

Not so with WTC1 north face.

First, in sharp contradistinction to WTC7, WTC1 exploded outwards. Perimeter sections were thrown on to WTC6, as we would expect. We can see the roof of WTC6, and we can see perimeter sections from WTC1. These perimeter sections are not piled up, at all. We can see down into the hollowed out WTC6, all the way to the ground level. There are some perimeter sections in there, but clearly no piles, at all. Below them, we do not see more perimeter sections. We see dust.

Now, in the NOAA photo, some cleanup has already been done. Vesey street has been partially cleared. Were 600 perimeter sections piled up on Vesey street? Certainly not. Maybe 10 or 20 of them would have fit there, at most. 600 of them would have made a huge tangled pile many stories tall. There is no evidence for anything like that.

Please, tell me specifically where you believe the perimeter sections from the north face of WTC1 went.

We can repeat the same exercise with the east face of WTC2. Show me the evidence. We can see the ground, there is simply no evidence for this imaginary huge pile. Tell me where you imagine the perimeter sections from the east face of WTC2 landed. I see maybe 20 stories worth.

Your last response....

My point regarding building 7 was to demonstrate that YOU DON'T KNOW if debris is piled up based upon aerial photographs.

Now you want me to specifically point at an aerial photograph and tell you where missing debris is? What is wrong with you?

YOU CAN'T TELL how much debris is in the hole of WTC6. Were there sub-level collapses? How high is the debris including any partial collapses? You don't see outer wall sections radial outwards form the corners because there were no wall sections along the corners. They would only be located radially outward along the face. That means in the holes of WTC6 and on Vessey street (if memory serves...) where all the debris has been removed in the photo.

Did you want me to guess how much debris has already been removed? Did you want me to guess at how much debris is in the holes based upon an aerial photo?

Sorry, I'm not going to do it for the simple reason that it is impossible.

Good luck to you.

Show "Any evidence at all" by TruthSeeker1234
Show "PWN3D! silence = you're bulshitting re: debris." by Constitutionalist

It's been awhile since I

It's been awhile since I took high-school physics, but don't destructive interference patterns in waves cancel each other out, or at least reduce their amplitude?

Also, "exciting" steel molecules requires energy. I don't care what brand of physics you are using. Liberating the molecular bond energy without supplying any energy of your own? Seriously? Where can I find the physics text that supports this?

First, you supply evidence that we are missing 600 of the "wheatchex", then we'll tell you where they went. I have no patience for evidence such as "I figure we're missing about..". Evidence please.

Ok.. So, the wind carried the disentigrating mess to the east. How is that hard to believe? 5 miles per hour is a little more than 7 feet per second. That means that the light dust/debris floating in the air could float about 420 feet in less than a minute. Is this still unbelievable to you?

Show "Seve B, Hunt the Rubble" by TruthSeeker1234


TruthSeeker, your speculations are dangerous. They serve no purpose except to attract people with overactive imaginations and little knowledge, and lure them down dark alleys or dead ends where they’re eventually mugged, ridiculed, marginalized. Such is the goal and effect of disinformation.

When that happens, the entire truth movement suffers, the “nutty conspiracy” label is reinforced, and our credibility is destroyed. If you don’t see that, then you’re either being used as a patsy or you’re a disinfo agent yourself. That’s why the unsupported hypotheses of Wood, Fetzer and Reynolds are highly suspect and must be challenged.

Speculation is not even necessary. Whether it’s no planes or space beams, why is it up to ANY of us to “explain the totality of the data?” The only thing we need to do is show the absurdity of the official story, by using science and facts. We’ve already done that. Let’s just continue to spread our simple message—clearly, openly, in unison—until the entire nation joins us to ridicule the official story and demand accountability.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Show "I agree that Wood's" by TruthSeeker1234

the snowball

"The amount thats missing is 2/3rds of the height ...... its missing and this snowball cant account for it all"

nuff said.

WTC 7 video comments

Off topic, but I find some of the comments here quite unbalanced:



I've tried adding some comments, but they no longer seem to appear on the pages. I'd appreciate if someone else would try to make informative comments.


WTC 1 + 2 = 7 ???


Thank you Dr. Jenkins

I found your excellent interview to be most informative. Others may say that debating these theories are a waste of time, but I disagree. If we don't study them carefully ourselves, Popular Mechanics will smear the entire 9/11 truth movement again with "guilt by association". It is my suspicion that the perpetrators are "muddying the waters" with deliberately specious arguments. Then they have certain individuals come into the blogs and "debate" using absurd logic to support these disingenuous theories. I’m sure you haven’t been impressed by some of their work here. The missing trillions from the pentagon were not well spent.

I have made a list of about 18 objections to the space beam theory. If you could provide any feedback on them it would be appreciated.

1. The towers fell straight down; they did not topple over. Not only this, the collapse was perfectly symmetrical—floor by floor by floor destruction that is impossible to explain unless done with controlled demolition. If done with a space beam it would have to be done exactly above the towers. This can't account for point #3.
2. The towers exploded in all directions as far away as 400 feet indicating an energy source from within the towers; causing material to powerfully strike other buildings with notable force. How can a space beam explain the basic physics observed?
3. The collapse started from the upper portion of the tower [plane impact zone] and not from the very top which might be expected from a space beam.
4. If the beam approached from an angle it would have to account for point #2 and point #1; in other words the dust and debris appears in ALL directions, not on ONE side of the building. The building collapse and ejection of debris is symmetrical and does not appear to be affected by an external energy source.
5. Any explanation must account for ALL of the 11 characteristics of demolition that are observed to be present. Ignoring them is NOT scientific.
6. The energy required for a space beam would be incredible; it would be dangerous to use [i.e. if it missed—how could it be explained by the perpetrators?]. It would presumably go through buildings to hit other buildings. It would also presumably destroy the bathtub if directed from above. After all, the beam would have gone through a massive 110 floor building. How much energy would be required to make a beam completely destroy 110 office towers in less than 15 seconds?
And it would have to be amazingly accurate; it would have to explain how the towers were destroyed in a perfectly symmetrical way.
7. In one of the towers the antenna fell first, indicating structural collapse—controlled demolition. Space beams can't explain this. Why would a space beam be necessary if there was a pre-planned structural collapse of the building with controlled demolition as observed with the fall of the antenna in WTC1?
8. No such technology is known to exist capable of destroying 110 floor office buildings—the burden is on the theorists to prove that any such technology exists.
9. It can't explain the molten metal for weeks after 9/11. This is a chemical reaction that can be explained by thermate. How could a directed energy weapon have caused molten steel under the rubble of the trade center for more than a month?
10. It presumes there would be no visual reaction of the beam, or of the beam hitting the tower.
11. The so called "car evidence" is easily explained by the fact that the cars were under a bridge that is not damaged in any shape or form. Therefore, they must have been moved there.
12. How could a space beam be accurate enough to hit the towers and then be inaccurate enough to hit only cars a mile away? Is this actually being promoted as a logical argument?
13. What forensic evidence is there that supports the space beam theory? None that hasn’t been explained with conventional explosives and/or thermite and its variants.
14. What evidence is there that the bathtub was not significantly damaged? Not much as shown in the recent letter published in the Journal of 9/11 studies.
15. What evidence is there that the space beam is a falsifiable theory? How can the theory be disproved? A non-falsifiable theory is non-scientific by definition. A non-falsifiable theory can’t lead us to the truth about 9/11. Therefore it is a distraction to the pursuit of 9/11 truth.
16. Eyewitness testimony does NOT support the DEW hypothesis. Massive explosions were heard just BEFORE the towers began to collapse. Only controlled demolition can explain this.
17. The so called “dustification of the towers” fails to account for the fact that debris shot in all directions as far as 400 feet. This is characteristic of internal explosive force not external “space beams”. In other words, the debris would have been destroyed as well as the tower—it would not have shot away as far as 400 feet.
18. Total destruction is circumstantial evidence for the Directed Energy Hypothesis. It is not merely enough to say that the towers were destroyed by a DEW. It must be explained precisely how this was accomplished according to the laws of physics in reference to the implied technology.

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

I Hope you find this useful

Thank you for your thoughts, Arabesque. It is difficult to critique so many points on a blog. I wish I could write each point in line, but alas.

The strongest points (3 and 7) is that the collapse started near the impact zone, therefore how could any kind of known beam travel relatively unimpeded through the upper floors only to obliterate the structure somehwere in the middle. Fetzer has hypthesized that the beam came from building seven, in which case the 4-fold symmetry (the corners of the building behaved a little differently than the sides) of the debris would be a severe problem for him to explain.

Your point #6 I would word differently. Since the particle beam would necessarily be a photon beam in the spectral range ~1 to ~500 GHz where the reflectivity of metals is extremely high, why was no other building in the vicinity not severely damaged from the scattered beam? What about the survivors that were near ground zero (who are made of mostly water and would absorb the energy much more readily than the reflective metal)? etc.... Also, the power requirements are not feasible: ~4x10^13 Watts over the duration of the collapse to vaporize the steel, not including any losses (like reflections!).

Point #8 is key. If we consider all known types of directed energy beams, the concept is totally debunkable. This means it is falsifiable to the extent you can prove it so implausible as to squarely place the idea in the realm of the impossible. If you include magic, then.... well.... all rational thought stops.

Point #12 is good. The only way to dissociate the steel in the building is by vaporizing it. This means *alot* of heat, and *alot* of iron that should have been found coating everything in the area, and there should have been much more iron in the dust samples (I posted a more quantitative argument earlier on this blog). There is no evidence of this. Furthermore, the heat from the dissociated steel would have superheated the surrounding air causing optical distortions (the index of refraction of hot air is less than that of cool air) which would have been very visible.

I agree with point #18, although it is a pipedream to think that either Dr. Wood or Dr. Fetzer is remotely capable of such a feat. The only thing you will ever hear them say is that it was a magic beam. The reason they are forced to say this is because all known types of beams can be ruled out based upon the pesky laws of physics.

I Hope this is useful.....


With the recent hub bub at st911 I was beginning to wonder what the heck was going on with the whole space beam no plane crowd (read as dis-info).

After watching this video start to finish I can say that I am feeling much better about whether this dis-inf duo would have a major effect.

I cringed through the whole thing out of sympathy for her. It was truly sad, how did Dr. Jenkins maintain his calm professional demeanor? In between cringes I was awestruck at the absurdity of nearly everthing she said. It left me thinking wooooow, this is all they have to offer?

That said, I think the in-escapable conclusion is that Jim has been compromised. Some may say he has always been, not me, I used to really like the guy. I kinda still hope he somehow finds his way back to the light.


That night

I noticed that night at the Press Club, when Jim was asked about Steven Jones he started cutting on his religion. What the hell..... OK, he's a Mormon but really aren't most religions based on fantasy. I thought it was an emotional response rather than one based on science.

This was painful

Wood is a raving lunatic. She deserves Reynolds and Fetzer, as they are seemingly raving lunatics as well. The thought these kooks are representing even a portion of the Movement is depressing.

Holy crap

That was very very painful to watch. It is sad , and just proves credentials mean nothing.

GJ: Did you recreate energy beams dustifying steal in experimental conditions in a lab?

JW: Errrr, Uha!

GJ: What? What exactly?

JW: Errr all sorts of energies...

GJ: What kind?

JW: Errr, if you try your microwave....

God that was painful.



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:


the entire mountain of crap in it's full glory

Check out these two posts by Arabesque to see the entire mountain of crap in it's full glory ---

transcript of interview and the analysis: http://911blogger.com/node/8110

A brief analysis of Wood's latest RFC to NIST submission: http://911blogger.com/node/8294


*sigh*, Who else supports her theories other than fetzer and reynolds?



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:


the issue is dying a slow agonizing death

If you had asked last November, I would have said a lot of people. For instance, in S. Jones' talk at Berkeley late last year, after his ripping evidence based lecture, 3 of 4 post-questions were about Judy Wood's "work". I personally found this upsetting.

Now, S. Jones hardly gets any Q's at all regarding space beams, so the issue is definitively dying. You have some stubborn stragglers like Andrew L. Watson who have not caught on that Judy Wood has no idea what she is talking about, but these are pretty isolated events.

By the time I posted the interview, people on 911blogger were already overwhelmingly antithetical toward the space beam notion. However, many people were still empathetic. Now, the issue is in the later stages of a slow agonizing death.