Anda di halaman 1dari 22

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood, Ph.D.

-Essay-Review I
Sunday, June 19, 2011 Donald Stahl This is a magnificent book, and a magnificent gift to the 9/11 Truth Movement and to humanity. Speaking as someone who has tried for several years to stay abreast of developments pertaining to 9/11, I must say that the amount of work that went into it is not just amazing it is shocking. It is a beautifully produced book of five hundred glossy pages, printed in China, filled with labeled, annotated and diagrammed photographs, maps and charts, completely referenced. How it can be offered at such a low price I dont know. Years of piecemeal perusal of such material give no inkling of what happened, compared with the clarity now provided by Dr. Wood. I found many, many photographs I had never seen before. Everyone should insist that their public library have at least one copy. You should buy your own at Dr. Woods websites, www.WhereDidtheTowersGo.com, or www.drjudywood.com. Many readers, especially those who see themselves as Dr. Woods adversaries, will be tempted to treat the book as a work of reference, looking only at the sections they have a particular interest in. Such treatment would be profoundly unfair. The books case is, among other things, cumulative, and it should be read starting at the beginning, proceeding through the middle, and continuing to the end. She is a writer deserving of this, too. Such a magnificent gift should be celebrated widely. Things being what they are, however, this will not happen immediately. The Truth Movement is unlike other movements commonly identified as political in nature, in that it is concerned not with values but with facts; not with good or bad, better or worse, but with true or false. Feelings, theoretically, play no part. Since this is so, it should be much easier, it would seem, to come to agreement. But there is a further matter. If something is true, what is the best way to communicate it to another? To large numbers of others? These questions are much more like matters of better and worse. If there is a fact of the matter, it is certainly unknown to anyone. It is much more like the question, What is the best thing for me to do now? Each one is likely to have their own opinion, and comparison and testing of such things is only beginning. We are in the alchemical stage. Chemistry does not yet exist. The less fact is available, the more strongly opinions are held opinions about what should be said to what audience, in what circumstances, when. Fellow alchemists, we are dealing, let us recognize, with explosives. I attended Dr. Woods lecture 9/11 - The New Hiroshima in Madison, on 7 August 2007. By the time I read her book I had forgotten that I had. I was well into the video of that lecture, before it came back to me. In 2007, it made little impression on me because I was viewing all 9/11 evidence through the prism of how easily it would be likely to be accepted by Joe Six-Pack. He was the one who counted, in my mind. Dr. Wood concentrated on things like the fuming of the debris pile, holes in buildings and streets, toasted cars, and the vanishing spire. I knew how easily Joe would shrug those things off. I recently met an engineer who is a long-time employee of a defense contractor. He had somewhat heard of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, but drew a big distinction between that group and

other Truthers, on the ground that the Architects were the only ones concerned with facts. Although no Bushnik, the others were, to him, just Bush bashers. It still seems to me that the process of informing him should not start with the (very real) difference between smoke and the fuming of the debris; and perhaps Dr. Wood would agree. But often Truthers talk among themselves, as we should, and there is no reason for us to silence ourselves when doing this, pursuing our own areas of special interest, and expressing our own differing views. Unfortunately, most of what is called the Truth Movement has not even gotten as far as considering the question of the best way of getting the truth to be believed privately, much less the distinct question of getting it publicly accepted, of overcoming pluralistic ignorance. Mere repetition is called discussion. Someone whose idea of the best way to proceed differs from ones own is not unlikely to be perceived as harming, not helping: a disinformation agent. Such partings of the ways may discourage for a while, but they are inevitable as the Truth Movement grows to encompass more and more divergent sectors of humanity, and they are of decreasing importance as the Movement grows larger and ceases to be a mere movement. One mistake the Truth Movement in its early stages has made is to judge the effectiveness of messages as if they were all directed to the same sort of audience; and that audience has typically been taken to consist of the medias Yahoo Chorus and the Morlocks who pay attention to them. For reasons you may discover in the books of Bob Altemeyer, they are not typical of the population as a whole, and they are not the ones we should address ourselves to. A common tactic of the enemies of Truth is to speak as if anyone who disbelieves the Official Conspiracy Theory, or as I prefer to call it, the Patsy Cline (I Fall to Pieces) Theory, must have a fairly detailed alternative to put in its place. Such an alternative, if provided, is then taken to be a statement of the Official 9/11 Truth Movement position, when no such position exists. Another common tactic is guilt by association. Because the Chorus is sure to use this weapon, the Movement has decided to adopt, or has not thought to disown, the idea it presupposes: that anyone appearing on the same stage or the same page as someone else, anyone guilty of talking with another, anyone belonging to the same organization or who believes some of the same things, must be as disreputable as that discredited other. There are indeed people whose idea of evidence is pretty hard to discover, and who are ready to believe and recommend anything that has the emotional tone they find congenial. Some of them have little learning, and little interest in getting more. Some of them must be frauds. Of course some of these people may be Truthers, just as they may be lefthanders or former Republicans. And some may be spies. The perception of a problem posed by this fact is illusory. Of course the media will say we are all like this. Let them. Be what you are, say what you think, and people will eventually recognize you. You need not wage war on heresy, because the Truth Movement is not a religion. It is more like what Dennett and Dawkins recommend. But note that saying what you think doesnt have to mean, always and everywhere, Say EVERYTHING you think, all the time. When so many New Yorkers have never even heard of Building 7, much less younger people who could not be expected to be aware of what was happening then, and have yet to discover the world beyond the corporate media, does this make sense? I recognize that my ideas of what is true and what it is appropriate to say will not always match others, but I do not see in that a reason not to further a project I approve of simply because another activist is involved; much less to shun them for life. The bare minimum of what unites the Movement is simply the position that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false. What most of the Truth Movement has been advocating since its inception has been precisely a public, (as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was not) unbiased investigation, with subpoena power, to determine what did happen. It is a close corollary of that minimal position that the OCT, or Patsy Cline Theory, cannot have been put forward honestly, and that, therefore, what is also called for is a National (or International)

Commission on the Cover-Up of the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. One of the things I much admire about Where Did the Towers Go? is its control of language. 9/11 showed the world things it had never seen before, things for which it had no words. Forced to talk about them, the world used the nearest words it could find, the most prominent one being collapse, (fall is a close second) which was instantly suggested and supplied by the media. Dr. Wood refuses to be coerced in this way, and creates her own, more truthful, vocabulary. I hope the growing Truth Movement at large will follow her lead and burst the linguistic straitjacket it was born wearing. We were shown an airplane crashing into an extremely tall building, shortly after another plane had crashed into another building. However horrific, those events were comprehensible. Then, an hour and more later, we were shown something no one had ever seen before: entire buildings disappearing by dissolving into dust from the top down. Wood says that they went poof, and they did. Her titles question is quickly answered. According to Chemical and Engineering News, a million tons of building were turned into aerosol in a matter of seconds. (pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html). This was accomplished, according to the Patsy Cline Theory, with no deposition of energy, but strictly by the force of gravity. Then they were literally blown away by the wind. One piece of terminology which I think is indisputable is disappeared. I think there can be no disputing that at one time an immense building was there, and a few seconds later it was not there. There was nothing left standing. Gone, man. If the Truth Movement had from the start adopted the use of this and similar and more effective terminology (vanished, etc., and also gravity) the last ten years would have been quite different. How does steel and concrete collapse to dust? In seconds? By using their words, as Lakoff says, we allowed them to frame the issue to our disadvantage. Initially, everyone was too frightened to insist on an apparently pedantic accuracy. Both the crashes and the disappearances were terrible to think about; therefore, the first must have caused the second. Obviously, the first had something to do with the second. If it didnt cause it, what was its reason for happening, for taking up so much space in our minds? Only much later did it become apparent that the planes had crashed to make us think that they had collapsed the Towers. No one could have dreamed of such a thing at the time. The point, the payoff, of The Big Wedding was then in the future. Oliver Wendell Holmes one-hoss shay broke everywhere, all at once, into dust, but he was only amusing his audience; he did not pretend, in real life, to be reporting on something he actually saw (or videotaped). The Towers, and the people in them, took about ten seconds to turn into dust, and when people were told that gravity did that to the Towers, just as gravity did it to the one-hoss shay, many accepted the story as complacently as his poem. But it is not amusing. Dr. Wood writes for two classes of her readers: A, the Patsy Cline Theorists, those who think steel and concrete disappeared because of gravity, and B, those who either, 1.) dont believe directed energy devices were involved because they dont exist, or, 2.) dont think they should be mentioned in public even if they do, because they are too unheard-of, and will make people discount everything else that is said about the absurdity of the Patsy Cline Theory. But the Patsy Cline Theory is so absurd that nothing can support it rationally. That Theory is a profound insult to the intelligence of the world, offered on the basis of a shrewd estimate of its courage. Its only hope lies in the ignorance of those who dont know what it says, and the fear of speaking of those who do. (And the loud support of those who favor everything that the sacrifice of 9/11 was designed to bring about, and are sorry that it didnt accomplish everything it was supposed to. Theres always next time, though.) The Patsy Cline Theorists constitute group A, and the Truth Movement constitutes group B. Such is the state of things that Dr. Wood puts quotes around the Truth Movement, and does not consider herself part of it. But we need a name for group B, and Truth Movement and Truther are pretty

well entrenched. (And the opposite of Truther is Liar.) I prefer to use the term simply as the complement of A, and as including Dr. Wood just as much as myself. Her alienation is due to the antipathy of those Truthers in subclass 2., who are so firmly persuaded that mentioning such things is the Kiss of Death for the Truth Movement. Why should it be? The hypothesis explains things nothing else does, and the Chorus will exercise its scurrility regardless of what we say. Instead of being coerced into answering questions about how secret weaponry works, (if we knew, would it be secret?) let us simply retort a question about what causes cars to catch fire spontaneously before peoples eyes; how they are moved into impossible positions with no apparent damage to them or their surroundings, how steel beams are suddenly bent into pretzels, and flat three-story sections of cladding are rolled up like carpets. By gravity? Cindy Sheehan was originally of the Patsy Cline school of thought, and was eventually converted to 9/11 Truth, but she draws the line at ideas she calls bat-shit crazy. That line will eventually recede, as she learns. Both Dr. Wood and subclass 2. are correct, or at least plausible, in what they advance positively, and ineffective in their attacks on what the other side says. Dr. Wood describes the ecumenical attitude of that last sentence as The Kitchen Sink. (p. 126.) Both she and her detractors have both right and wrong in what they say. Sorting out what, in my opinion, is which, is a large task, which I shall address in Part Two. The above originally appeared at: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/729/258/An_EssayReview_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D._Part_One.html

An Essay-Review of Where Did the Towers Go?


by

Judy Wood, Ph.D.

Part Twoi
Because Dr. Woods book contains so much materialii, and because I think that it is much more important to talk to the general public than to the Movement itself, I shall abandon the project of determining what is right and wrong in everything Dr. Wood and her detractors say about each other, and only address two issues in dispute between Dr. Wood and others within the Truth Movement (which she prefers not to be considered part of). Nobody asked me, but following is what I think about nanothermite and explosives generally, on the one hand, and directed energy technology, on the other. I shall examine Dr. Wood on explosion, and AE911Truth on dustification. Of course, I speak only for myself, and not for any organization, and my opinions are subject to change with the coming to light of new evidence. It is unfortunate that both sides of the disagreement between Dr. Wood and (what I hope she will forgive me for calling) the rest of the Truth Movement have been so affected by

partisanship as to have become unfair to the other side; most often writing as if the use of explosives (of whatever kind) and directed energy (whose existence as a weapon in the arsenal of the United States is not denied by the United States), were mutually exclusive. The issue has some organizational significance since the phrase explosive evidence is one of AE911Truths most prominent logos and the title of their latest movie.
Proving

what hit the Pentagon is not essential to the campaign and publicizing the fact that opinions differ is patently harmful, says Dr. Frank Legge.iii But almost nothing is essential to the campaign except exhibiting the implications of the Official Patsy Cline Theory. We do not need to talk about our ideas. We need to talk about the Governments ideas and claims, and express them in ordinary, everyday language that will show people what they have been told and have accepted. We need to confront the claims with the photographs. It is not patent to me that publicizing the fact that opinions differ is harmful (and since it is not, that proves that it is not patentthat is what patent means), and as far as I can see it may be a good thing. But a future in which the Truth Movement is largely occupied with an unnecessary disagreement about explosives versus directed energy would mean the diversion of a significant amount of energy (our energy) directed away from addressing the public.

Mark

observed that calling it simply an explosive would convey to most members of the public that it is a high explosive or, given its [sic] invocation by the hard evidence crowd, at least, has the ability to disintegrate concrete and even steel. Since that is the impression that has been indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, within and without the 9/11 Truth movement, until that claim is corrected, the 9/11 Truth movement will be based upon a provably false theory. (VT). But nothing can be indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, not even the idea that things dont fall up. The public is wonderfully malleable. Whether something has a central role or is the key to something is a vague question not worth quarrelling over. Establishing the use of EITHER explosives or directed energy is enough by itself to demonstrate that the airplane strikes were unnecessary, and intended simply as a diversion and a scam; and I think that both can be established. However, it is not necessary to establish ANY mechanism for the aerosolization of the Towers. It is enough to establish that the Patsy Cline Theory is false. Both Dr. Wood and Truthers who resist any talk of directed energy are correct, or at least plausible, in what they advance positively, and ineffective in their attacks on what the other side says. Dr. Wood describes the ecumenical attitude of that last sentence as The Kitchen Sink. (p. 126.) Both she and her detractors have made and will continue to make valuable contributions to the spread of the Truth, but they will not do it by warring on

each other. Dr. Wood to my knowledge does not explicitly deny the existence of nanothermite in the Towers dust, but simply remains unconvinced it is there. (Drs. Fetzer and Hightower, however, do admit the probative force of its existence.) AE911Truth, on the other hand, denies the existence of any evidence for the use of directed energy. Dr. Wood and AE911Truth are both convinced that there can be no reconciliation between directed energy use (dustification) and explosion. I consider myself a friend of both sides, whatever they consider me, and I claim that each has failed in the area Dr. Wood has called perceptual conformity.iv Dr. Jenkins states: Dr. Woods hypothesis is predominantly based upon the premise that large amounts of debris were missing from the post-collapse rubble. I cannot agree. It seems to me that her hypothesis is based more on the undisputed photographs of, and testimony of eyewitnesses to, phenomena which are not otherwise explainable, comparable to the photographs of objects affected by The Hutchison Effect which she reproduces in her book (see especially pp. 358-363) and at:http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html . Dr. Wood states: the gases from a C-4 explosion initially expand at about 26,400 feet per second, which is about 18,000 miles per hour, or 23.5 times the speed of sound. So detonating such an explosive in quantities great enough to destroy the Twin Towers would have produced significant blast waves. But nothing of the sort was reported by any witness on 9/11, nor was there any photographic evidence consistent with explosive forces of this nature. (p. 104.) I must take issue with that last statement. In my opinion, all the photographic evidence is consistent with multiple explosions of relatively small size, and if she means that their sum total was not great enough to account for the subsequent absence of the Towers, I simply do not know whether it was or not. Dr. Wood does not address the audible evidence, both recorded and testified to, of explosions.
With

explosives (kinetic energy devices), chunks go flying and remain in the form of chunks until they land. They do not dissolve into dust while traveling through the air. (p. 174). But many Truthers have seen Sandia's airplane hitting the concrete wall and its fragments each leaving a trail (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html). In one place Dr. Wood has spoken of the visible fragments of the Towers being pulled out, rather than being blasted out. At http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html Joe Princiotta has assembled evidence for them being pushed. I note only that the trajectories seem to indicate an extremely brief initial impulse.
A shock wave is a narrow region, of the order of the free path length of molecules, of a compressed substance propagating in space with supersonic speed. The time of increase in pressure (from zero to the

maximum value) varies from 10-12 to 10-10s, the time of exposure to high pressure varies about 10-6, and pressure drop (unloading) varies from 10-6 to 10-5 s.v

None of the Hutchison effects I have seen operate in this way. About the specific substance nanothermite Dr. Wood says: Finding traces of chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust would not prove that chocolate-chip cookies turned the buildings to dust. (p. 124.) But, nobody that I know of is pushing the idea that nanothermite was used *exclusively* in the demolitions.(VT). As late as May 3, 2011, on the Coast to Coast radio show (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/05/03, 1:46) Dr. Wood gave as explanation for the nanothermite found, the rust and powdered aluminum explanation used by debunkers. According to Dr. Harrit the nanoaluminum actually found is such an exotic material it can only be produced in national laboratories. The probative force of nanothermite recognized by Fetzer and Hightower is too valuable to do without, as Dr. Wood does, whether or not it was used as an explosive. At the same time, it must be said that the probative force of her website is likewise too valuable to do without. There are too many facts and photographs there which are not to be found elsewhere. Individually they are not enough to make an impression on most newcomers to the subject, and so are probably not suitable as things to lead with, but that they are astonishing is not a reason to suppress them, or deny them. I have mentioned in Part One the cumulative effect of the evidences Dr. Wood has assembled. Rather than repeat what she has said, I will confine attention simply to The Spire, and what the school represented by AE911Truth says about it.
However, upon studying the video of the spire, we find that the steel did not turn to dust (see for example the next to last segment in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ). The spire clearly simply fell after being attacked by explosive charges, leaving behind, in mid-air, the pulverized concrete that had been resting on, or statically stuck to, the steel. As is well known, air resistance causes dust to fall slower than macroscopic pieces of structural steel (note the final remaining column falling faster than the dust in the third photograph of the sequence). (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html)

Below I reproduce in toto Dr. Legge's amplification of AE911Truth's account of The Spire, entitled A Response to Reynolds and Wood, (http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html) which is intended as a refutation of Dr. Wood's assertions. He says:
A few seconds earlier the metal standing here was enveloped in a very dense cloud of dust, largely

concrete. This will have settled on every surface. Because the cloud was so dense it settled very fast leaving clear air in which we can observe what happened next. The next event would have been the explosive demolition of the steel lower down, out of sight. The impact of the explosion would have sent a shock wave up the steel, dislodging the dust. The steel then falls through the dust and disappears from view [!] leaving the dust, now widely scattered hence no longer so dense, falling slowly. There is no case here for anything hotter than thermite. There is a case for a high explosive to create a shock wave.

Now here it is again with my additions and interpolations in red.


A few

seconds earlier the metal standing here was enveloped in a very dense cloud of dust, largely concrete. This will have settled on every surface. Because the cloud was so dense it settled very fast See the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otgfwzA1ECc&feature=related . You can stop and slow-motion the video by double-clicking. One of the things that might be meant by calling a cloud dense is that you can't see through it, and that is certainly true of the cloud created in seconds out of the North Tower (by gravity, according to Patsy Cline theorists). But something else about being dense, in the sense in which the word means composed of relatively fine and relatively numerous particles militates directly against settling fast. The finer the particles, the more slowly they will settle; and obviously, the converse. There is no question that the dust settled fast. It's obvious from the video. Therefore the particles were not exceptionally fine; they quickly left a perfectly clear space through which you could see the blue sky. Starting at about 0:10 on the video you can see that what became the Spire started as a rather chunky upright mass, evidently composed of several columns like the one which subsequently became The Spire. Some of these columns, a bundle in fact, fall over ( straight down like The Spire) to the left, and another, slightly shorter one falls over to the right. This rightward falling column can resemble an object shooting upward if not examined carefully, because its top has been left relatively unaffected, while its length has left a trail of particulates, giving the misleading impression that the bulb-like top is a projectile moving, or which has moved, up. Around 0:15-0:17 you can see the thinned-out lower length of the right column falling over while it has largely ceased to leave that trail of particulates, while the upper length continues to do that, creating a sort of flagshaped impression.

By 0:20 you see The Spire sharply outlined and dense, against the sky. Two remaining columns of unequal length on the left bend and sway back and forth for no apparent reason, like objects in a Hutchison video, before falling straight down). Parts of their length seem at times to bend in different directions simultaneously. Starting at about 0:10 what is left is plainly at first not dusty at all, in the sense in which that means: that it is composed of dust, and its outlines are correspondingly fuzzy. The fuzziness of the outlines which appear subsequently (but quickly) is replicated not just at the edges but in the interior too, which becomes visibly less dark. leaving clear air in which we can observe what happened next. The next event would have been the explosive demolition of the steel lower down, out of sight. But this explosive demolition would not have vaporized the steel, would it? An explosive demolition would have removed a relatively short length of column, hardly enough to accommodate the length of what we see sinking straight down. Of course, Legge sees this. The impact of the explosion would have sent a shock wave up the steel, dislodging the dust. This is Dr. Legge's explanation of the non-solid appearance of The Spire as it sinks straight down. It looks like a column of dust because it is one. It retains the shape of the steel column because what we are looking at now is the outside shell of dust that that column collected on itself. However, the dust was not dislodged very far, because no thickening or widening of the structure's outline is apparent until the area inside appears to start lightening, or disappearing. If the dust was dislodged so uniformly by the shock wave as to retain its previous shape, and produce a dusttwin of the column outside and around it, the steel beneath it should still have been visible through the now-thinner dust coating. The steel then falls through the dust [!] and disappears from view [!] leaving the dust, now widely scattered hence no longer so dense, falling slowly. The column itself, however, remains unaccounted for. According to Legge's information, the steel removed itself from beneath its coating of dust without disturbing the shape of that coating of dust. But how it is supposed to have taken off its dust-coat without altering its shape remains mysterious. Apparently, it not only slipped away through its dust covering intangibly, but invisibly as well. In all the clips there is no sign of anything solid removing itself at lightning speed,

while the dust it leaves behind falls slowly. The dust falls as slowly, or quickly, as might be expected, and there is no visible trace of anything beneath it having removed itself. (To where?) What appears is simply that a solid object has TURNED INTO dust before our eyes. Legge's explanans is harder to believe than what it is supposed to explain away. There is no case here for anything hotter than thermite. Quite so. Nor has Wood suggested there was. Her suggestion of lack of heat has generated heat directed toward her. There is a case for a high explosive to create a shock wave.

The moral of the discussion has been that inability to see what is in front of your eyes is not just found in the Patsy Cline ranks.
Part One is at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:q0LQQxfyKMQJ:beforeitsnews.com/story/729/258/An_EssayReview_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D._Part_One.html+before+it's +news+stahl+wood&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com . Dr. Eric Larsen, who wrote the Foreword to Dr. Woods book, has a much more comprehensive discussion of it at: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidenceof-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html . The organization AE911Truths position with regard to Dr. Woods ideas is at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whatsyour-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html . Its response is largely taken from a paper of Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-DirectedEnergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf , to which it links, along with other papers. I shall use Dr. Jenkins paper and the others as standard statements of the positions under consideration. Much further discussion and debate concerning thermite in all its varieties is found on the site of Veterans Today, where Dr. Fetzer has become a columnist: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/ . I shall draw upon that discussion in what follows by quoting bits and pieces of it thus: Bold(VT). Frank Legge, A Response to Reynolds and Wood,http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html . Wood, pp. 347 f. Cf. Solomon Aschs experiments.

S.S. Batsanov, Effects of Explosions on Materials: Modification and Synthesis Under High-Pressure Shock Compression, (New York: 1994), p. 1.

A few

seconds earlier the metal standing here was enveloped in a very dense cloud of dust, largely concrete. This will have settled on every surface. Because the cloud was so dense it settled very fast See the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otgfwzA1ECc&feature=related . You can stop and slow-motion the video by double-clicking. One of the things that might be meant by calling a cloud dense is that you can't see through it, and that is certainly true of the cloud created in seconds out of the North Tower (by gravity, according to Patsy Cline theorists). But something else about being dense, in the sense in which the word means composed of relatively fine and relatively numerous particles militates directly against settling fast. The finer the particles, the more slowly they will settle; and obviously, the converse. There is no question that the dust settled fast. It's obvious from the video. Therefore the particles were not exceptionally fine; they quickly left a perfectly clear space through which you could see the blue sky. Starting at about 0:10 on the video you can see that what became the Spire started as a rather chunky upright mass, evidently composed of several columns like the one which subsequently became The Spire. Some of these columns, a bundle in fact, fall over ( straight down like The Spire) to the left, and another, slightly shorter one falls over to the right. This rightward falling column can resemble an object shooting upward if not examined carefully, because its top has been left relatively unaffected, while its length has left a trail of particulates, giving the misleading impression that the bulb-like top is a projectile moving, or which has moved, up. Around 0:15-0:17 you can see the thinned-out lower length of the right column falling over while it has largely ceased to leave that trail of particulates, while the upper length continues to do that, creating a sort of flag-shaped impression. By 0:20 you see The Spire sharply outlined and dense, against the sky. Two remaining columns of unequal length on the left bend and sway back and forth for no apparent reason, like objects in a Hutchison video, before falling straight down). Parts of their length seem at times to bend in different directions simultaneously. Starting at about 0:10 what is left is plainly at first not dusty at all, in the sense in which that means: that it is composed of dust, and its outlines are correspondingly

fuzzy. The fuzziness of the outlines which appear subsequently (but quickly) is replicated not just at the edges but in the interior too, which becomes visibly less dark. leaving clear air in which we can observe what happened next. The next event would have been the explosive demolition of the steel lower down, out of sight. But this explosive demolition would not have vaporized the steel, would it? An explosive demolition would have removed a relatively short length of column, hardly enough to accommodate the length of what we see sinking straight down. Of course, Legge sees this. The impact of the explosion would have sent a shock wave up the steel, dislodging the dust. This is Dr. Legge's explanation of the non-solid appearance of The Spire as it sinks straight down. It looks like a column of dust because it is one. It retains the shape of the steel column because what we are looking at now is the outside shell of dust that that column collected on itself. However, the dust was not dislodged very far, because no thickening or widening of the structure's outline is apparent until the area inside appears to start lightening, or disappearing. If the dust was dislodged so uniformly by the shock wave as to retain its previous shape, and produce a dust-twin of the column outside and around it, the steel beneath it should still have been visible through the now-thinner dust coating. The steel then falls through the dust [!] and disappears from view [!] leaving the dust, now widely scattered hence no longer so dense, falling slowly. The column itself, however, remains unaccounted for. According to Legge's information, the steel removed itself from beneath its coating of dust without disturbing the shape of that coating of dust. But how it is supposed to have taken off its dust-coat without altering its shape remains mysterious. Apparently, it not only slipped away through its dust covering intangibly, but invisibly as well. In all the clips there is no sign of anything solid removing itself at lightning speed, while the dust it leaves behind falls slowly. The dust falls as slowly, or quickly, as might be expected, and there is no visible trace of anything beneath it having removed itself. (To where?) What appears is simply that a solid object has TURNED INTO dust before our eyes. Legge's explanans is harder to believe than what it is supposed to explain away. There is no case here for anything hotter than thermite.

Quite so. Nor has Wood suggested there was. Her suggestion of lack of heat has generated heat directed toward her. There is a case for a high explosive to create a shock wave.

The moral of the discussion has been that inability to see what is in front of your eyes is not just found in the Patsy Cline ranks.
Part One is at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:q0LQQxfyKMQJ:beforeitsnews.com/story/729/258/An_EssayReview_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D._Part_One.html+before+it's+ne ws+stahl+wood&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com . Dr. Eric Larsen, who wrote the Foreword to Dr. Woods book, has a much more comprehensive discussion of it at: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-ofdirected-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html . The organization AE911Truths position with regard to Dr. Woods ideas is at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-yourassessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html . Its response is largely taken from a paper of Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-DirectedEnergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf , to which it links, along with other papers. I shall use Dr. Jenkins paper and the others as standard statements of the positions under consideration. Much further discussion and debate concerning thermite in all its varieties is found on the site of Veterans Today, where Dr. Fetzer has become a columnist: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/ . I shall draw upon that discussion in what follows by quoting bits and pieces of it thus: Bold(VT). Frank Legge, A Response to Reynolds and Wood,http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html . Wood, pp. 347 f. Cf. Solomon Aschs experiments.

S.S. Batsanov, Effects of Explosions on Materials: Modification and Synthesis Under High-Pressure Shock Compression, (New York: 1994), p. 1.

The above originally appeared at: http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2011/09/an-essay-review-of-where-did-thetowers-go-by-judy-wood-ph-d-1115182.html

Because Dr. Woods book contains so much materialvi, and because I think that it is much more important to talk to the general public than to the Movement itself, I shall abandon the project of determining what is right and wrong in everything Dr. Wood and her detractors say about each other, and only address two issues in dispute between Dr. Wood and others within the Truth Movement (which she prefers not to be considered part of). Nobody asked me, but following is what I think about nanothermite and explosives generally, on the one hand, and directed energy technology, on the other. I shall examine Dr. Wood on explosion, and AE911Truth on dustification. Of course, I speak only for myself, and not for any organization, and my opinions are subject to change with the coming to light of new evidence. It is unfortunate that both sides of the disagreement between Dr. Wood and (what I hope she will forgive me for calling) the rest of the Truth Movement have been so affected by partisanship as to have become unfair to the other side; most often writing as if the use of explosives (of whatever kind) and directed energy (whose existence as a weapon in the arsenal of the United States is not denied by the United States), were mutually exclusive. The issue has some organizational significance since the phrase explosive evidence is one of AE911Truths most prominent logos and the title of their latest movie.

Proving what hit the Pentagon is not essential to the campaign and publicizing the
fact that opinions differ is patently harmful, says Dr. Frank Legge.vii But almost nothing is essential to the campaign except exhibiting the implications of the Official Patsy Cline Theory. We do not need to talk about our ideas. We need to talk about the Governments ideas and claims, and express them in ordinary, everyday language that will show people what they have been told and have accepted. We need to confront the claims with the photographs. It is not patent to me that publicizing the fact that opinions differ is harmful (and since it is not, that proves that it is not patent that is what patent means), and as far as I can see it may be a good thing. But a future in which the Truth Movement is largely occupied with an unnecessary disagreement about explosives versusdirected energy would mean the diversion of a significant amount of energy (our energy) directed away from addressing the public.

Mark observed that calling it simply an explosive would convey to most


members of the public that it is a high explosive or, given its [sic] invocation by the hard evidence crowd, at least, has the ability to disintegrate concrete and even steel. Since that is the impression that has been indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, within and without the 9/11 Truth movement, until that claim is corrected, the 9/11 Truth movement will be based upon a provably false theory. (VT). But nothing can be indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, not even the idea that things dont fall up. The public is wonderfully malleable. Whether something has a central role or is the key to something is a vague question not worth quarrelling over. Establishing the use of EITHER explosives or directed energy is enough by itself to demonstrate that the airplane strikes were unnecessary, and intended simply as a diversion and a scam; and I think that both can be established. However, it is not necessary to establish ANY mechanism for the aerosolization of the Towers. It is enough to establish that the Patsy Cline Theory is false. Both Dr. Wood and Truthers who resist any talk of directed energy are correct, or at least plausible, in what they advance positively, and ineffective in their attacks on what the other side says. Dr. Wood describes the ecumenical attitude of that last sentence as The Kitchen Sink. (p. 126.) Both she and her detractors have made and will continue to make valuable contributions to the spread of the Truth, but they will not do it by warring on each other. Dr. Wood to my knowledge does not explicitly deny the existence of nanothermite in the Towers dust, but simply remains unconvinced it is there. (Drs. Fetzer and Hightower, however, do admit the probative force of its existence.) AE911Truth, on the other hand, denies the existence of any evidence for the use of directed energy. Dr. Wood and AE911Truth are both convinced that there can be no reconciliation between directed energy use (dustification) and explosion. I consider myself a friend of both sides, whatever they consider me, and I claim that each has failed in the area Dr. Wood has called perceptual conformity.viii Dr. Jenkins states: Dr. Woods hypothesis is predominantly based upon the premise that large amounts of debris were missing from the post-collapse rubble. I cannot agree. It seems to me that her hypothesis is based more on the undisputed photographs of, and testimony of eyewitnesses to, phenomena which are not otherwise explainable, comparable to the photographs of objects affected by The Hutchison Effect which she reproduces in her book (see especially pp. 358-363) and at:http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html .

Dr. Wood states: the gases from a C-4 explosion initially expand at about 26,400 feet per second, which is about 18,000 miles per hour, or 23.5 times the speed of sound. So detonating such an explosive in quantities great enough to destroy the Twin Towers would have produced significant blast waves. But nothing of the sort was reported by any witness on 9/11, nor was there any photographic evidence consistent with explosive forces of this nature. (p. 104.) I must take issue with that last statement. In my opinion, all the photographic evidence is consistent with multiple explosions of relatively small size, and if she means that their sum total was not great enough to account for the subsequent absence of the Towers, I simply do not know whether it was or not. Dr. Wood does not address the audible evidence, both recorded and testified to, of explosions.

With explosives (kinetic energy devices), chunks go flying and remain in the form
of chunks until they land. They do not dissolve into dust while traveling through the air. (p. 174). But many Truthers have seen Sandia's airplane hitting the concrete wall and its fragments each leaving a trail (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html). In one place Dr. Wood has spoken of the visible fragments of the Towers being pulled out, rather than being blasted out. At http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html Joe Princiotta has assembled evidence for them being pushed. I note only that the trajectories seem to indicate an extremely brief initial impulse.

A shock wave is a narrow region, of the order of the free path length of molecules, of a compressed
substance propagating in space with supersonic speed. The time of increase in pressure (from zero to the maximum value) varies from 10-12 to 10-10s, the time of exposure to high pressure varies about 10-6, and pressure drop (unloading) varies from 10-6 to 10-5 s.ix

None of the Hutchison effects I have seen operate in this way. About the specific substance nanothermite Dr. Wood says: Finding traces of chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust would not prove that chocolatechip cookies turned the buildings to dust. (p. 124.) But, nobody that I know of is pushing the idea that nanothermite was used *exclusively* in the demolitions.(VT). As late as May 3, 2011, on the Coast to Coast radio show

(http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/05/03 , 1:46) Dr. Wood gave as explanation for the nanothermite found, the rust and powdered aluminum explanation used by debunkers. According to Dr. Harrit the nanoaluminum actually found is such an exotic material it can only be produced in national laboratories. The probative force of nanothermite recognized by Fetzer and Hightower is too valuable to do without, as Dr. Wood does, whether or not it was used as an explosive. At the same time, it must be said that the probative force of her website is likewise too valuable to do without. There are too many facts and photographs there which are not to be found elsewhere. Individually they are not enough to make an impression on most newcomers to the subject, and so are probably not suitable as things to lead with, but that they are astonishing is not a reason to suppress them, or deny them. I have mentioned in Part One the cumulative effect of the evidences Dr. Wood has assembled. Rather than repeat what she has said, I will confine attention simply to The Spire, and what the school represented by AE911Truth says about it.

However, upon studying the video of the spire, we find that the steel did not turn to dust (see
for example the next to last segment in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ). The spire clearly simply fell after being attacked by explosive charges, leaving behind, in mid-air, the pulverized concrete that had been resting on, or statically stuck to, the steel. As is well known, air resistance causes dust to fall slower than macroscopic pieces of structural steel (note the final remaining column falling faster than the dust in the third photograph of the sequence). (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessmentof-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html)

Below I reproduce in toto Dr. Legge's amplification of AE911Truth's account of The Spire, entitled A Response to Reynolds and Wood, (http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html) which is intended as a refutation of Dr. Wood's assertions. He says:

A few seconds earlier the metal standing here was enveloped in a very dense cloud of dust, largely
concrete. This will have settled on every surface. Because the cloud was so dense it settled very fast leaving clear air in which we can observe what happened next. The next event would have been the explosive demolition of the steel lower down, out of sight. The impact of the explosion would have sent a shock wave up the steel, dislodging the dust. The steel then falls through the dust and disappears from view [!] leaving the dust, now widely scattered hence no longer so dense, falling slowly. There is no case here for anything hotter than thermite. There is a case for a high explosive to create a shock wave.

Now here it is again with my additions and interpolations in red.

A few seconds earlier the metal standing here was enveloped in a very dense cloud
of dust, largely concrete. This will have settled on every surface. Because the cloud was so dense it settled very fast See the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otgfwzA1ECc&feature=related . You can stop and slow-motion the video by double-clicking. One of the things that might be meant by calling a cloud dense is that you can't see through it, and that is certainly true of the cloud created in seconds out of the North Tower (by gravity, according to Patsy Cline theorists). But something else about being dense, in the sense in which the word means composed of relatively fine and relatively numerous particles militates directly against settling fast. The finer the particles, the more slowly they will settle; and obviously, the converse. There is no question that the dust settled fast. It's obvious from the video. Therefore the particles were not exceptionally fine; they quickly left a perfectly clear space through which you could see the blue sky.

Starting at about 0:10 on the video you can see that what became the Spire started as a rather chunky upright mass, evidently composed of several columns like the one which subsequently became The Spire. Some of these columns, a bundle in fact, fall over ( straight down like The Spire) to the left, and another, slightly shorter one falls over to the right. This rightward falling column can resemble an object shooting upward if not examined carefully, because its top has been left relatively unaffected, while its length has left a trail of particulates, giving the misleading impression that the bulb-like top is a projectile moving, or which has moved, up. Around 0:15-0:17 you can see the thinned-out lower length of the right column falling over while it has largely ceased to leave that trail of particulates, while the upper length continues to do that, creating a sort of flag-shaped impression. By 0:20 you see The Spire sharply outlined and dense, against the sky. Two remaining columns of unequal length on the left bend and sway back and forth for no apparent reason, like objects in a Hutchison video, before falling straight down). Parts of their length seem at times to bend in different directions simultaneously. Starting at about 0:10 what is left is plainly at first not dusty at all, in the sense in which that means: that it is composed of dust, and its outlines are correspondingly fuzzy. The fuzziness of the outlines which appear subsequently (but quickly) is replicated not just at the edges but in the interior too, which becomes visibly less dark. leaving clear air in which we can observe what happened next. The next event would have been the explosive demolition of the steel lower down, out of sight. But this explosive demolition would not have vaporized the steel, would it? An explosive demolition would have removed a relatively short length of column, hardly enough to accommodate the length of what we see sinking straight down. Of course, Legge sees this. The impact of the explosion would have sent a shock wave up the steel, dislodging the dust.

This is Dr. Legge's explanation of the non-solid appearance of The Spire as it sinks straight down. It looks like a column of dust because it is one. It retains the shape of the steel column because what we are looking at now is the outside shell of dust that that column collected on itself. However, the dust was not dislodged very far, because no thickening or widening of the structure's outline is apparent until the area inside appears to start lightening, or disappearing. If the dust was dislodged so uniformly by the shock wave as to retain its previous shape, and produce a dusttwin of the column outside and around it, the steel beneath it should still have been visible through the now-thinner dust coating. The steel then falls through the dust [!] and disappears from view [!] leaving the dust, now widely scattered hence no longer so dense, falling slowly. The column itself, however, remains unaccounted for. According to Legge's information, the steel removed itself from beneath its coating of dust without disturbing the shape of that coating of dust. But how it is supposed to have taken off its dust-coat without altering its shape remains mysterious. Apparently, it not only slipped away through its dust covering intangibly, but invisibly as well. In all the clips there is no sign of anything solid removing itself at lightning speed, while the dust it leaves behind falls slowly. The dust falls as slowly, or quickly, as might be expected, and there is no visible trace of anything beneath it having removed itself. (To where?) What appears is simply that a solid object has TURNED INTO dust before our eyes. Legge's explanans is harder to believe than what it is supposed to explain away. There is no case here for anything hotter than thermite. Quite so. Nor has Wood suggested there was. Her suggestion of lack of heat has generated heat directed toward her. There is a case for a high explosive to create a shock wave.

The moral of the discussion has been that inability to see what is in front of your eyes is not just found in the Patsy Cline ranks.
Part One is at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:q0LQQxfyKMQJ:beforeitsnews.com/story/729/258/An_EssayReview_of_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go_by_Judy_Wood,_Ph.D._Part_One.html+before+it's +news+stahl+wood&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com .

Dr. Eric Larsen, who wrote the Foreword to Dr. Woods book, has a much more comprehensive discussion of it at: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/13984-where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-ofdirected-free-energy-technology-on-911-book-review-by-eric-larsen-phd.html . The organization AE911Truths position with regard to Dr. Woods ideas is at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-yourassessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html . Its response is largely taken from a paper of Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-DirectedEnergy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf , to which it links, along with other papers. I shall use Dr. Jenkins paper and the others as standard statements of the positions under consideration. Much further discussion and debate concerning thermite in all its varieties is found on the site of Veterans Today, where Dr. Fetzer has become a columnist: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/ . I shall draw upon that discussion in what follows by quoting bits and pieces of it thus: Bold(VT). Frank Legge, A Response to Reynolds and Wood,http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html . Wood, pp. 347 f. Cf. Solomon Aschs experiments.

S.S. Batsanov, Effects of Explosions on Materials: Modification and Synthesis Under High-Pressure Shock Compression, (New York: 1994), p. 1.

i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix