O, jeez - So much misrepresentation of her statements that Dr Wood has made over the years, so many straw man talking points raised, which has been discussed over the years, if only you did more research.... tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk....
Where to begin, or shall I write a whole article discussing your misrepresentations?
Or, wait - Let me start here....
You are promoting the explosives and thermite THEORIES right? So, let's address that real quick...
1. When Steven E. Jones / AE911 submitted their request for correction to NIST, why did it not mention their "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" and "thermite", which Richard gage also latched on to and is extorting money from people selling them this narrative?
2. Why has this "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" or thermite, never seen the inside of a court room?
3. Why did all of these talking points and the AE website only pop up AFTER Dr Wood filed her 2007 Qui-Tam whistleblower case against NIST's 23 subcontractors for science fraud?
Maybe you need to revisit the 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline, pulled back to 2005, when James Fetzer, Steven E. Jones and Dr Wood were part of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and then read up on what the various points of contention was in the early days of the 9/11 "truth" movement....
I have another question, dear writer - Can you count past 3?
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Relating to the straw man term Dr Steven E. Jones coined - "Laser beams from space", which you latched on to.... Maybe you should read Dr Wood's FAQ page - It seems you have not
Initially in 2012, most people weren’t familiar with the concept of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), so you had to find a way to get people’s attention…
So, Dr Wood wrote a paper, called “Star Wars Beam Weapons”.
Why was “Star Wars Beam Weapons” used as the title for that paper?
This term was used because it is a familiar term that has been used over the last 20+ years to describe weaponry under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
Since little is known about the technology specifically, though numerous articles and Defense websites describe its existence, plus the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been channeled to research in this area, it is reasonable to expect that tremendous advances have been made in technology over the past 50 years since microwaves and lasers were first developed. The title was later changed to “Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW), (brought to you by the Star Wars Program)”.
The other popular straw man distraction term used is “Space Beams” so again, let us go to the FAQ explanation… https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/faq/
Is your “space beam” hypothesis testable?
First of all, I have never used the term “space beams.” It is a derogatory term used to distract folks away from looking at the real evidence. The term was first coined by physicist Steven E. Jones within days of my first posting an article suggesting a high-tech energy weapon was used to destroy the WTC. It has been speculated that the purpose of using this name was to mock the hypothesis that unconventional methods were used to destroy the WTC. At this point, it has not been determined exactly what weapon was used, but the general category of what was used is fairly clear. The visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust. So, is this hypothesis testable? Yes! And each of the phenomena identified at the WTC complex on 9/11 has been reproduced in a lab. We present this evidence here. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/ This may or may not be the exact same way of creating the effects, but it is the same mechanism.
I suggest everyone reading this article goes through the FAQ page as you will then see how easy it was to refute Gage’s and architects for an engineered truth’s game in 2008 already and again in 2023.
O, dear - There you go referencing "Greg Jenkins" - You do know he has connections to the NSA and DEW? His work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA - read more here: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Dr Greg Jenkins’ “Directed Debunking Energy” and Dr Judy Wood
Scholarly Questions and Inquiry, or Badgering, Misrepresentation and Harassment?
On the toasted cars - AGAIN, you follow the lead of Richard Gage, giving half truths and misrepresenting what she presented - Have you even bothered to read her book or listen to any presentations she's given over the years, or do you just go off a cheat sheet, by Richard Gage or the architects for an engineered truth?
Let me give an accurate account of the "toasted cars"
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
The onset of the rust on the vehicles, were due to "molecular dissociation" of metal - same for the steel beams of the towers - Maybe this article will make it easier for you to understand:
The molecular dissociation of the thermite & nuke theories
I look forward to your part 2 - Maybe we can have a face to face discussion of the evidence someday - Then you'll prove you've got bigger balls than Richard Gage and the rest of his fan boys out there...
Warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse, and the truth of what really happened on 9/11
It’s intriguing how often the same misdirections resurface in discussions of 9/11, specifically surrounding Dr. Wood’s theories. While you’ve gone to great lengths to defend her ideas, many of the points you raise have already been thoroughly debunked, not through straw men, but by detailed, methodical analysis of the actual evidence at Ground Zero.
To begin with, your focus on seismic data overlooks a fundamental issue: the collapse of the towers did not involve traditional demolition mechanics. Comparing seismic signals between vastly different structures like the Kingdome and the Twin Towers is misleading. The nature of steel-framed structures, the way energy dissipates through collapses (especially those involving controlled demolition), and the actual wave cancellation effects were all factors considered by experts. The seismographic data *does* align with the expected outcome for buildings like the Twin Towers under these conditions.
Your defense of the "toasted cars" being caused by Directed Energy Weapons continues to be a weak argument. The idea that cars were somehow "toasted" by DEW while the immediate surroundings remained unaffected defies both physics and common sense. The more plausible explanation—molten metal, thermitic reactions, and fires caused by the debris—is backed by both photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony. Even the "molecular dissociation" theory you bring up lacks substantiated laboratory-based replication in the manner you're suggesting.
Regarding Dr. Wood’s claims about the towers turning into dust, the mountains of structural steel present at the site after the collapse make it evident that these claims don't hold up. The debris, both seen and cataloged, was significant, filling the basement levels and extending outwards hundreds of feet from the towers. The steel was not "dissociated" by any high-tech energy weapon, and the photographic and physical evidence speaks volumes against this idea.
I find it telling that you accuse others of avoiding "the real evidence" when the most obvious proof—thousands of tons of debris and molten steel observed by first responders—has been ignored or waved away by DEW proponents. The molten metal, witnessed by countless experts and firefighters, remains a central piece of evidence supporting controlled demolition via thermitic material, which, contrary to your claim, has seen the inside of legal proceedings and is supported by peer-reviewed studies.
As for the timing of Steven Jones’ work and the AE911Truth movement, the timeline doesn't prove a conspiracy of suppression. Rather, it demonstrates that serious scientists and architects gravitated toward explanations that best matched the available evidence, not fringe theories involving speculative, unproven technologies.
Regarding your challenge: Could we rebuild the towers with the debris left? No, of course not. But not because they were turned into dust by an unseen weapon. It’s because the controlled demolitions reduced the towers to manageable debris, in line with standard demolition practices. Much of the material was pulverized concrete—not magically “dustified” steel.
In closing, I find it amusing that you would accuse others of “warring against free speech” when the essence of scientific discourse is what has been continually engaged here—methodical examination of evidence versus the unproven, fantastical claims you’re promoting.
If you truly want a constructive debate, let's focus on what we can prove, not what can be speculated. I'm always open to a fair and civil discussion, but this conversation needs to be rooted in reality, not in science fiction.
9/11 Evidence presented by Dr Judy Wood – Prof David A, Hughes
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
And the Towers were literally turned to dust, as can be seen by the tiny amount of material left over, most of which was literally at ground level. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
And the Towers were literally turned to dust, as can be seen by the tiny amount of material left over, most of which was literally at ground level. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
O, jeez - So much misrepresentation of her statements that Dr Wood has made over the years, so many straw man talking points raised, which has been discussed over the years, if only you did more research.... tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk....
Where to begin, or shall I write a whole article discussing your misrepresentations?
Or, wait - Let me start here....
You are promoting the explosives and thermite THEORIES right? So, let's address that real quick...
1. When Steven E. Jones / AE911 submitted their request for correction to NIST, why did it not mention their "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" and "thermite", which Richard gage also latched on to and is extorting money from people selling them this narrative?
2. Why has this "explosive evidence" of "molten metal" or thermite, never seen the inside of a court room?
3. Why did all of these talking points and the AE website only pop up AFTER Dr Wood filed her 2007 Qui-Tam whistleblower case against NIST's 23 subcontractors for science fraud?
Maybe you need to revisit the 9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline, pulled back to 2005, when James Fetzer, Steven E. Jones and Dr Wood were part of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and then read up on what the various points of contention was in the early days of the 9/11 "truth" movement....
Read the article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
I have another question, dear writer - Can you count past 3?
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the buildings and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/what-exactly-happened-to-all-7-buildings
With regards to Dr Wood's statement: The building mostly turned to dust, before hitting the ground...
Here is a challenge a 5 year old would be able to answer you with:
When you look at the debris field...
If we were to play pick up sticks, would you be able to rebuild the towers?
The 5 year old answer is NOT A CHANCE...
A “Lengthy” Discussion of WTC Steel - As an attempt to numerically illustrate the level of destruction, an overall figure of the total length of steel, which should have been present in the debris pile, is here calculated. Article: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2007/11/03/a-lengthy-discussion-of-wtc-steel/
Relating to the straw man term Dr Steven E. Jones coined - "Laser beams from space", which you latched on to.... Maybe you should read Dr Wood's FAQ page - It seems you have not
Link: https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/faq/
Initially in 2012, most people weren’t familiar with the concept of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), so you had to find a way to get people’s attention…
So, Dr Wood wrote a paper, called “Star Wars Beam Weapons”.
Why was “Star Wars Beam Weapons” used as the title for that paper?
This term was used because it is a familiar term that has been used over the last 20+ years to describe weaponry under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
Since little is known about the technology specifically, though numerous articles and Defense websites describe its existence, plus the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been channeled to research in this area, it is reasonable to expect that tremendous advances have been made in technology over the past 50 years since microwaves and lasers were first developed. The title was later changed to “Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW), (brought to you by the Star Wars Program)”.
The other popular straw man distraction term used is “Space Beams” so again, let us go to the FAQ explanation… https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/faq/
Is your “space beam” hypothesis testable?
First of all, I have never used the term “space beams.” It is a derogatory term used to distract folks away from looking at the real evidence. The term was first coined by physicist Steven E. Jones within days of my first posting an article suggesting a high-tech energy weapon was used to destroy the WTC. It has been speculated that the purpose of using this name was to mock the hypothesis that unconventional methods were used to destroy the WTC. At this point, it has not been determined exactly what weapon was used, but the general category of what was used is fairly clear. The visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust. So, is this hypothesis testable? Yes! And each of the phenomena identified at the WTC complex on 9/11 has been reproduced in a lab. We present this evidence here. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/ This may or may not be the exact same way of creating the effects, but it is the same mechanism.
I suggest everyone reading this article goes through the FAQ page as you will then see how easy it was to refute Gage’s and architects for an engineered truth’s game in 2008 already and again in 2023.
Link: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
I highly recommend you read this article:
Secret Super Weapons, UFO's & 9/11
Scalar, Electromagnetics, RF Weapons and Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/secret-super-weapons-ufos-and-911
Next - You claim of the rubble being in the basement - Oops - You're full of it again... Tsk, tsk, tsk
The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.
Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the
Revisiting the basements of the WTC.
Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-basements-of-the-wtc
O, dear - There you go referencing "Greg Jenkins" - You do know he has connections to the NSA and DEW? His work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA - read more here: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Dr Greg Jenkins’ “Directed Debunking Energy” and Dr Judy Wood
Scholarly Questions and Inquiry, or Badgering, Misrepresentation and Harassment?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/dr-greg-jenkins-directed-debunking
On the "smoke issue" - Have a read....
The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.
The COLD rubble pile at the World Trade Center...
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-100-day-fuming-and-molecular
On the seismic data - 9/11 "Truthers" vs. The Seismic Evidence
No Primary or Secondary Waves Recorded
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truthers-vs-the-seismic-evidence
On the toasted cars - AGAIN, you follow the lead of Richard Gage, giving half truths and misrepresenting what she presented - Have you even bothered to read her book or listen to any presentations she's given over the years, or do you just go off a cheat sheet, by Richard Gage or the architects for an engineered truth?
Let me give an accurate account of the "toasted cars"
The 1400 "toasted" cars on 9/11.
"Toasted" means they're toast, done for, unfixable.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-1-400-toasted-cars-on-911
The onset of the rust on the vehicles, were due to "molecular dissociation" of metal - same for the steel beams of the towers - Maybe this article will make it easier for you to understand:
The molecular dissociation of the thermite & nuke theories
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite
For now, I've already given you enough "homework" but I'll leave you with my presentation:
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
I look forward to your part 2 - Maybe we can have a face to face discussion of the evidence someday - Then you'll prove you've got bigger balls than Richard Gage and the rest of his fan boys out there...
Warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse, and the truth of what really happened on 9/11
A War Room... Or a padded playroom, a safe space?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/cowards-for-911-truth
Francis - Are you being paid to spread provable disinformation?
911Revisionist (aka Norman Swanepoel),
It’s intriguing how often the same misdirections resurface in discussions of 9/11, specifically surrounding Dr. Wood’s theories. While you’ve gone to great lengths to defend her ideas, many of the points you raise have already been thoroughly debunked, not through straw men, but by detailed, methodical analysis of the actual evidence at Ground Zero.
To begin with, your focus on seismic data overlooks a fundamental issue: the collapse of the towers did not involve traditional demolition mechanics. Comparing seismic signals between vastly different structures like the Kingdome and the Twin Towers is misleading. The nature of steel-framed structures, the way energy dissipates through collapses (especially those involving controlled demolition), and the actual wave cancellation effects were all factors considered by experts. The seismographic data *does* align with the expected outcome for buildings like the Twin Towers under these conditions.
Your defense of the "toasted cars" being caused by Directed Energy Weapons continues to be a weak argument. The idea that cars were somehow "toasted" by DEW while the immediate surroundings remained unaffected defies both physics and common sense. The more plausible explanation—molten metal, thermitic reactions, and fires caused by the debris—is backed by both photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony. Even the "molecular dissociation" theory you bring up lacks substantiated laboratory-based replication in the manner you're suggesting.
Regarding Dr. Wood’s claims about the towers turning into dust, the mountains of structural steel present at the site after the collapse make it evident that these claims don't hold up. The debris, both seen and cataloged, was significant, filling the basement levels and extending outwards hundreds of feet from the towers. The steel was not "dissociated" by any high-tech energy weapon, and the photographic and physical evidence speaks volumes against this idea.
I find it telling that you accuse others of avoiding "the real evidence" when the most obvious proof—thousands of tons of debris and molten steel observed by first responders—has been ignored or waved away by DEW proponents. The molten metal, witnessed by countless experts and firefighters, remains a central piece of evidence supporting controlled demolition via thermitic material, which, contrary to your claim, has seen the inside of legal proceedings and is supported by peer-reviewed studies.
As for the timing of Steven Jones’ work and the AE911Truth movement, the timeline doesn't prove a conspiracy of suppression. Rather, it demonstrates that serious scientists and architects gravitated toward explanations that best matched the available evidence, not fringe theories involving speculative, unproven technologies.
Regarding your challenge: Could we rebuild the towers with the debris left? No, of course not. But not because they were turned into dust by an unseen weapon. It’s because the controlled demolitions reduced the towers to manageable debris, in line with standard demolition practices. Much of the material was pulverized concrete—not magically “dustified” steel.
In closing, I find it amusing that you would accuse others of “warring against free speech” when the essence of scientific discourse is what has been continually engaged here—methodical examination of evidence versus the unproven, fantastical claims you’re promoting.
If you truly want a constructive debate, let's focus on what we can prove, not what can be speculated. I'm always open to a fair and civil discussion, but this conversation needs to be rooted in reality, not in science fiction.
O, hello Gene - The COWARDLY, fake Christian...
Let's remind people who you really are.... How you are a man, NOT of your word, a charlatan, working for the devil...
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
Warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse, and the truth of what really happened on 9/11
A War Room... Or a padded playroom, a safe space?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/cowards-for-911-truth
Participation in the 9/11 "WarRoom"
A quick update on warring AGAINST free speech, open discourse, and the truth
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/participation-in-the-911-warroom
Psychology of resistance to truth about 9/11
An email discussion with Fran Shur & Marti Hopper, psychologists
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/psychology-of-resistance-to-truth
The disingenuous search for 9/11 Justice.
An approach set up to fail.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-disingenuous-search-for-911-justice
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
I concede that I am not a good witness for Jesus Christ. How about you?
Check that speck in your eye mate.
Gene - You and the evil masters you serve have been exposed...
Ephesians 5:11 - Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but expose them.
Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Tik, tok, tik, tok.....
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
You can download the Refutation of Richard Gage’s Game in 2008 AND 2023: https://truthsummit.info/media-files/DrJudyWood-refutation-RichardGage-claims.pdf
Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives
A special presentation refuting 10 thermite points of contention against DEW on 9/11
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives
9/11 Evidence presented by Dr Judy Wood – Prof David A, Hughes
Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion".
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce
Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!
What we saw on 9/11 was not due to jet fuel, bombs, or thermite
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/controlled-demolition-expert-speaks
Are you blind Gene?? Much of the relatively tiny 7 floor basement was intact: https://t.me/meslinks/23759
And the Towers were literally turned to dust, as can be seen by the tiny amount of material left over, most of which was literally at ground level. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
Not blind... I just read Part 2... and you should too.
LOL stop gaslighting and lying Gene.
You ask me if I'm blind and I'M the one gaslighting?! ...and then accuse me of lying?!! You doth project too much Matthew.
*chuckle*
Stop lying weird disinfo agent. I'll post my earlier comment since you haven't responded to it:
Much of the relatively tiny 7 floor basement was intact: https://t.me/meslinks/23759
And the Towers were literally turned to dust, as can be seen by the tiny amount of material left over, most of which was literally at ground level. https://snipboard.io/ulLJIT.jpg
Essential reading by Prof David Hughes...
How Not To Critique Judy Wood
Francis O'Neill's intellectually flimsy attack on Judy Wood bears all the hallmarks of propaganda, undermining his credibility as a dissident voice.
Article: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/how-not-to-critique-judy-wood
Misdirection. They got the new pearl harbour they planned as documented by the scum themselves.
I suggest you read this article, if you are a true, truth seeker...
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline