Judy Wood

AE911Truth.org continues to grow, and a response to Judy Wood

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth recently passed another milestone, achieving over 20,000 members. As of today, there are 2,132 architects and engineers signed up AND 18,144 other supporters, for a total of 20,276.

I continue to support AE911Truth and congratulate their recent campaigns for public awareness and pending lawsuits against NIST. I have expressed my concerns regarding NIST analyses and lack of transparency through the years. I am glad to see this further action being taken.

Richard Gage recently gave a nice summary of the progress of AE911Truth.org, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q18pZXIaiOY#t=1586 . He quipped, "Steven Jones had a PowerPoint. I stole it seven years ago." Yes, he used my slides but it was with my permission. When I was "early retired" in January 2007, I found it increasingly burdensome to travel and Richard has picked up that role, and I for one appreciate that!

AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?

Some have suggested that much of the structural steel of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was turned to dust, or “dustified” – a term used by Judy Wood, the primary proponent of this hypothesis – with some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). Some of the observations cited by Wood include the voluminous dust created during the Twin Towers’ destruction, the “craters” in WTC 5 and 6, “toasted” cars, and small holes in glass windows.

While Wood and AE911truth agree that the official story of an “inevitable” collapse by gravity alone is impossible because it conflicts with laws of physics, we completely differ on the mechanism of the destruction.

The scientific method requires us to look at all the available evidence and then assess various explanations for their ability to account for the evidence. At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding.

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

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

Dr. Greg Jenkins[1]

Co-author: Arabesque[2]

Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"

Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood continue to promote the magical 'dustification' of large amounts of steel in the towers even though no significant amount of steel dust was found in dust samples (see paper referenced below for details). They both promote a video clip from '911 eyewitness' which, they say, proves that the steel core spires from the North Tower turn to dust. However, multiple camera angles clearly show the spires merely falling. Either Dr. Fetzer's analytical abilities are inept or his motives are unprinicipled since he was aware of the other video perspectives in early December, 2006.

Run time is 3.5 minutes:

Paper Link:

Google video compression makes the images slightly obscure, so make sure to check out the original video links from reference #41 in the above article:




The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics

Co-author: Matt Sullivan

“In fact, the whole interview with Greg Jenkins was very troublesome to

me because it was so clear that he was seeking to put words in Judy's

mouth and demand an exactitude of answers that she was going to be

unable to provide...”, Dr. James Fetzer during the Dynamic Duo radio

broadcast on 02/06/07 regarding an interview conducted at the National

Press Club on 01/10/07 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 )


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.”

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.


Proposal for Revitalization & Reconstruction of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Journal of 9/11 Studies

Following is a full, unedited copy of the “S911T & J911S Revitalization & Reconstruction Proposal” that Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood asked me to prepare after Morgan & Judy’s resignations from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  (Editing Exception: Formatting & contact information has been edited.)

After this blog is posted, I will post Steve & Jim’s response to this proposal.  However, after some negotiation, the parties ultimately rejected the following Proposal, and none of the contained sub-proposals have been implemented (or at least, not fully).

Dr. Jim Fetzer Interviews Dr. Judy Wood about "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" on RBN Live

Dr. Judy Wood is Dr. Jim Fetzer's special guest on Jim's internationally-syndicated RBN radio show tonight, Saturday night (November 11th).

Dr. Wood will discuss her new scientific article, "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon," available in preliminary form at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html (containing 150+ high-quality pictures). Her co-author for the article is Dr. Morgan Reynolds.

You can listen live to the show by clicking on one of the links at www.rbnlive.com/listen.html. Dr. Wood and Dr. Fetzer will be taking your questions -- live -- during the broadcast.

After you read the article and after listen to Jim Fetzer's show with Judy Wood, let's discuss it below.

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.

Important Information on Steven Jones' Research

As a former major supporter of Steven Jones I must convey the following


Steven Jones spends much of his time on molten metal, in particular the molten metal dripping from the South Tower. Using a picture from the NIST report, he determines the color of the molten metal in order to gauge the temperature. However, the NIST report states that the “intensity levels” of the picture were adjusted. This information was placed at the bottom of the picture, but for some reason Jones removed it.


Why did Jones use a picture that had its intensity level adjusted to determine the color or something?

Why did he hide the fact that the levels were adjusted?

Was the dripping molten metal really there? Notice that the windows switch.



Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones (Reynolds / Wood)

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood — August 29, 2006
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.

Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones

To our fans and opponents: Our critical review of the 9/11 work of Steven E. Jones appeared the evening of August 23. We understand that he responded on August 25, but we were not notified. We discovered it on the PhysOrg forum on August 27 and we replied to it on August 27. We posted our response and sent Jones the link. After posting our response, we learned that Jones had changed the file he had posted. So, it appears that to respond to whatever he posts is like aiming at a moving target.
Jones’ response has appeared at st911.org but not our original article nor ourreply. Only one side of the debate is represented at the Scholars’ site. Can there be better evidence of what Scholars’ "Truth" is really about?
It looks like Jones intends to issue a string of rebuttals over the next XX weeks. Once we judge that he has dribbled the bulk of his replies out, we will scoop them up and put them under the microscope and refute them.
In the meantime, we urge interested parties to consult our original critique since it contains a great deal of 9/11 analysis, including some original findings, in the context of knocking down Jones’ errors. Our original article and our reply to Jones’ August 27 response are key to uncovering the bogus nature of Jones’ work.