A Scientific evaluation of the theories and evidence presented on http://www.drjudywood.com/ and in her book
"Where Did the Towers Go? - The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" by Dr. Judy Wood.

Understanding the Hutchison Effect

In one of my older videos called "The Power of Waves and Resonance" I proposed a theory for a mechanism to explain the Hutchison Effect. This theory was never proved experimentally since it was shown first to be impractical by some basic preliminary calculations for wavelength and frequency of the waves necessary. Although some modifications to the theory which include hyper-harmonic resonances may still show some validity, it is still up to experimental physics to validate the theory with a reproducable experiment. My recommendation is that Dr. Wood work with John Hutchison to share the details of how he produced these effects, so they can be properly documented and studied.

Proof of Mechanism

The Burden of Proof for Dr. Wood's theory relies on the ability to provide experimental scientific proof for a mechanism (technology) which can demonstrate the rapid molecular dissociation of steel and concrete in a manner resembling the actual destruction of the WTC. In my 9/11 Hypothesis Video I asked for Dr. Wood to put her efforts into experimental verification by formalizing a theory of the Hutchison Effect. Which is her proposed mechanism to explain the observed phenomena. If she wanted to get the mainstream scientific community to start paying attention, this would be an important first step. In addition to a formal paper explaining the Hutchison Effect, I'd also like to see some demonstrations of a technology that can "dustify" steel and concrete at high efficiency.

Electromagnetic beam effects on conductors and metals

The Skin Effect and Gauss's Law for closed conductors, are two examples of established science which disproves the idea of using microwave weapons to cause molecular dissociation of steel (or any other conductor), since the penetration depth of electromgnetic waves striking the surface of a conductor tend to set up electromagnetic Eddy currents in materials which only penetrate a small distance inside conductors (the formula varies for higher frequencies). In both cases the conductivity of the material is still the over-riding term, making the penetration depth vanishingly small, and thus the reason why currents tend to travel on the surface of conductors, where their influence upon neighboring ions is transmitted most efficiently. The free electrons move their position to balance the externally applied fields thus effecting neighbors and allowing for electrical signal and power transmission over long distances. Electricity takes the shortest path, and that happens to be along the surface of a conductor. According to Gauss's law closed, grounded conductive surfaces act like Faraday Cages, since the grounded electrons resist the temptations of externally applied fields. Ungrounded conductors have free electrons which align and balance with externally applied EM fields, EM waves will travel through a Faraday cage that is NOT grounded, however, they will not penetrate deeply inside the actual conductive materials, they will just be redirected around them.

The penetration depth of electromagnetic waves within materials is inversely proportional to the conductivity of a material. The "free-ness" of the electrons, determines the penetration depth. Conductors shield (reflect or absorb) a lot of em radiation and are much harder to penetrate than dielectrics such as glass, or the human body. Directed Energy Weapons work best with non-metal, non-conductive materials, since those are much easier to penetrate. I have seen no experiments which show how to cause molecular dissociation of steel. Or any metallic conductor for that matter.

Lasers can be used to heat and melt, or even vaporize metals. A laser works kind of like a magnifying glass focusing energy on a single point to heat it rapidly. When you divide that same power over a larger area it loses the effect. The WTCs were a very large area and would have required enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy to create this level of destruction with a DEW or laser weapon. For one the weapon would need to be enormous (larger than the WTC itself) there would need to be more than one, and there would need to be a way to produce that much power.

Chemical Bonding Theory and Calculating the Required Energy to Vaporize the WTC

Here is a video giving an overview on the theory of chemical bonding and how to calculate the energy of chemical bonds. For the case of the WTC we would need to take the sum of all the chemical bonds in the WTC steel and Concrete which Judy Wood claims was vaporized. That's 90,000 tonnes of steel and concrete * molecules per ton of steel * energy of each molecular bond!!! The real calculations for the WTC get tricky bc it's steel and there are many different types of bonds and no good data available on these types of bonding energies and so forth. A rough calculation using (Iron is 55.845 g/mol, or ~(1x10¹⁰) moles X Avagadros number (1x10²³) X the bond strength (which requires lengthy calculations even for the most simplest bonds).

It's still on the order of 1x10³³ x average Bond Energy in the material... even at 1 trillionth (10^-12) of a watt per bond, its still 10²⁴ or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts!!! This is an absurd amount of energy...

John Hutchison

John Hutchison has released many pictures and videos of strange effects he's been able to achieve with metal, but will not reveal his methods... making peer-review of his claims to "Adverse electromagnetic resonance effects" impossible.

Despite Dr. Judy Wood's Ph.D. Background she has not stepped up to the task of scientifically documenting these anomalous resonance or dissociation effects. Nor does a melted metal bar constitute evidence of such an effect.

Melted steel is not evidence of vaporized steel or molecular dissociation, and videos showing large volumes of concrete dust are not evidence of vaporization or what Judy Wood likes to call "dustification". It is also well known that explosives turn concrete to dust as well, and should've been the first thing that was looked for by investigators. Instead ground zero was treated as a waste dump and not a crime scene.

The Issue of Precision

In a conventional controlled demolition, engineers will usually figure out the main support structure of a building (Which in the case of the WTC was the 47 core columns at the center of the buildings) and figure out the best order to sever those supports in order to collapse the building in a CONTROLLED manner. Precision and control are an essential element for any large building demolition. There is a reason they call it a "Controlled Demolition".

The top-down demolition observed in both twin towers shows demolition "squibs" that appear to descend laterally at the location of corner box columns around the building in a spiraling fashion which is separate vertically by approx. 50 foot sections. This is an essential engineering requirement for the demolition of the WTC core. The Official Theory does not successfully account for the collapse of the WTC core, and neither does the Judy Wood hypothesis since it lacks the precision factor.

In addition to experiments proving the ability to "dustify" and demolish steel and concrete using this "microwave free energy technology", Judy Wood and her followers must also show that DEW's can sever WTC core columns after penetrating the Faraday Cage-like Aluminum superstructure, the way explosives could.

Appeal to Evidence?

Judy Wood often repeats that she is not formulating conclusions about 9/11 and that she is just looking at evidence. If you listen carefully to everything she says you will notice, Judy Wood often suggests that certain evidence (particularly the evidence for explosives and thermite) could be other things, though she is careful not to draws any definite conclusions about anything. Her tactics seem to be more focused on leading people away from real evidence and confusing them with bizarre "science" and seemingly plausible alternative explanations.

Why does Dr. Wood ignore evidence of explosives?

Judy Wood Falsely Claims that Nanothermite is Really "Dustified" Steel and Aluminum

In several of her interviews Judy Wood claims that evidence for nanothermite is really just dustified steel and aluminum (See May 2011 Coast to Coast Interview). She also explains that the numerous explosions heard by eyewitnesses and recorded in film that day could have been also due to "egg in the microwave" type pressure explosions. There is also the claim that steel was dustified.

The first problem with this, is that there is no evidence for dustification of steel ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm ). Steel contains impurities like carbon and manganese. The red layer of the "nanothermite" chips contains pure iron oxide.

If you look carefully at the SEM image above, and ask yourself how this perfectly microstructed layer could have been formed inside of a chaotic "DEW dustification"?

This is nanothermite. This is evidence of a high tech explosive/incendiary involved in the controlled demoition of the WTCs on 9/11. There is no hard evidence anywhere for the use of DEW weapons on 9/11. There are only anomalies, you can choose to focus on any number of these, but by far the biggest "anomaly" you will find that day is the evidence of nanothermite chips in the WTC dust.

The science and the evidence is clear and unbiased. It is what it is. Judy please stop muddying the water on 9/11 and filing fraudulent lawsuits and copyright claims against those who expose you for what you are! That means you too Andrew Johnson and Thomas Potter! Tell Judy to work with John to document the science and have John show us how to replicate his experiments. Show us dustification and vaporization in action, and make it look like the collapse of the WTC too.

Star Wars Defense Program and DEW Capabilities

Image Credit: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/sdi-image02.jpg

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983,[1] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles.

(From Wikipedia article on SDI) - Here is a list of technologies that were developed by the Star Wars SDI Program, and some comments on their capabilities.

X-ray laser

Chemical Laser

Neutral Particle Beam

Directed Energy Weapons

One major problem with laser weapons (and directed-energy weapons in general) is their high electric energy requirements. Existing methods of storing, conducting, transforming, and directing energy are inadequate to produce a convenient hand-held weapon. Existing lasers waste much energy as heat, requiring still-bulky cooling equipment to avoid overheating damage. Air cooling could yield an unacceptable delay between shots. These problems, which severely limit laser weapon practicality at present, might be offset by:

1. Cheap high-temperature superconductors to make the weapon more efficient.

2. More convenient high volume electricity storage/generation. Part of the energy could be used to cool the device.

Chemical lasers use energy from a suitable chemical reaction instead. Chemical oxygen iodine laser (hydrogen peroxide with iodine) and deuterium fluoride laser (atomic fluorine reacting with deuterium) are two laser types capable of megawatt-range continuous beam output. Managing chemical fuel presents other problems, so the problems of cooling and overall inefficiency remain. This problem could also be lessened if the weapon were mounted either at a defensive position near a power plant, or on board a large, possibly nuclear powered, water-going ship. A ship would have the advantage of water for cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

In 1979 Edward Teller contributed to a Hoover Institution publication where he claimed that the US would be facing an emboldened USSR due to their work on civil defense. Two years later at a conference in Italy, he made the same claims about their ambitions, but with a subtle change; now he claimed that the reason for their boldness was their development of new space-based weapons. In fact, there was no evidence at all that such research was being carried out, what had really changed was that Teller was now selling his latest nuclear weapon, the x-ray laser. Finding limited success in his efforts to get funding for the project, his speech in Italy was a new attempt to create a missile gap.[21]

The new weapon was the result of a 1977 development by George Chapline, Jr. of Lawrence Livermore's "O-Group". Livermore had been working on x-ray lasers for some time, but Chapline found a new solution that used the massive release of x-rays from a nuclear warhead as the source of light for a small baseball-bat sized lasing crystal in the form of a metal rod.[22] The concept was first tried out in 1978s underground nuclear test "Diablo Hawk" but had failed. Peter Hagelstein, new to O Group, set about creating computer simulations of the system in order to understand why. At first he demonstrated that Chapline's original calculations were simply wrong and the Diablo Hawk system could not possibly work. But as he continued his efforts, he found, to his dismay, that using heavier metals appeared to make a machine that would work. Through 1979 a new test was planned to take advantage of his work.[23] The follow-up test in November 1980s "Dauphin" appeared to be a success, and plans were made for a major series of experiments in the early 1980s under "Excalibur".[24]

Since the lasing medium was fairly small, a single bomb could host a number of them and attack multiple ICBMs in a single burst. The Soviet ICBM fleet had tens of thousands of warheads, but only about 1,400 missiles.[25] If each satellite had two dozen lasers, two dozen satellites on-station would significantly blunt any attack. In Molniya orbits, where the satellites would spend much of their time over the USSR, only a few dozen satellites would be needed, in total. An article in Aviation Week and Space Technology described how the devices "... are so small that a single payload bay on the space shuttle could carry to orbit a number sufficient to stop a Soviet nuclear weapons attack".[24] Some time later Teller used similar language in a letter to Paul Nitze, who was preparing a new round of strategic limitations talks, stating that "A single x-ray laser module the size of an executive desk... could potentially shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force..."[26]

Livermore is just one of several major US weapons labs. Other labs had been working on ideas of their own, from new space or ground-based missiles, to chemical lasers, to particle beam weapons. Angelo Codevilla argued for similar funding for powerful chemical lasers as well.[24] None of these efforts were taken very seriously by members of the Carter administration. In a meeting with Teller and Lowell Wood, a critic noted that the Soviets could easily defeat the system by attacking the satellite, whose only defense was to destroy itself. They also pointed out that the US public would be unlikely to accept nuclear bombs in space, regardless of the potential benefits. At the time Teller was stymied by these arguments; the concept was later adapted to be popped-up from submarines based off the Russian coast.

So how can Judy Wood propose that these SDI X-Ray Laser (or even perhaps some other advanced DEW weapon) had the capabilities to demolish such large buildings?

Where did the Energy Come from?

In chemistry, bond energy (E) is the measure of bond strength in a chemical bond. It is the heat required to break one Mole (unit) of molecules into their individual atoms.

So any laser weapon or DEW that can heat materials so rapidly that they dissassociate or "dustify", would require and amount of energy equal to the sum of ever chemical bond within the steel and concrete of the building.

Ask Judy Wood to run through some of those calculations... See what the numbers say about the energy requirements for what she is proposing and ask yourself how that energy was created, stored, and delivered, to the support structure of the WTC.

SPAR - Space Propulsion Advanced Reactor

In March of 2014 at the MIT Cold Fusion/LANR Colloquium I listened to a presentation by Robert (Bob) Smith, a Pentagon Star Wars SDI Space Program insider who helped design the power systems for these space based microwave lasers. According to him, the power for these weapons comes from something called SPAR or Space Power Advanced Reactor.

This lead me to more in-depth research on space power systems and Government Research and Development into such programs, and what their capabilities and level of advancement was. One such document I found was this PDF on Power Conversion Techniques in Space which has a chronology of developments of space reactor technology over the years.

I can find no other evidence for other space based power systmes being developed or patented prior to 2001 that could account for the energies (power) needed to demolish the WTCs on 9/11 in under 11-12 seconds.

Sidestepping the Energy Argument

Judy Wood and her supporters have offered two solutions to the problem of energetic requirements, for the source of the energy used by this mythical DEW that vaporized the WTC...AE911Truth's nanothermite/explosives hypothesis the energy comes from chemical energy in the form of explosives.

Free Energy Technology?

The first "excuse" is "Free Energy" technology. Long revered by the conspiracy community this is the perfect excuse for many people who believe that 1. Free Energy Exists and is possible within the laws of physics, and 2. The Government is hiding free energy technology from the public and using it in defense programs like SDI.

Evidence for "free energy" has yet to be confirmed... and many remain skeptical. But that's ok, because Judy Wood and her crowd have an even better bullshit argument, involving HAARP, Hurricanes and very few details...

Hurricane Erin

In order to produce the motion of Hurricane Erin as shown in the picture below, it would require large amounts of energy. That energy most likely came from natural pressure gradients in the earth's atmosphere (which were undoubtedly perturbed by the massive release of intense heat from the detonation of all that thermite inside the WTCs). Weather conditions on earth are chaotic by nature, and it's not uncommon for a hurricane to exhibit this type of motion.

Image Credit: http://www.drjudywood.com/pics/080601/erinpr1.gif

On her "9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects Introduction" page, Dr. Wood doesn't propose any qualitative formalization of the mechanism to explain the conversion of energy taken from Hurricane Erin, and no quantitative conversion formulas are given anywhere. "Field Effects" are eluded to in the title and in Section 8 - Weather Anomalies and Field Effects, but the page is still "Under Construction" and no formalized scientific theory is presented.

From a scientific standpoint it is just as worthy to argue that Hurricane Erin was forced to move away from NYC shortly after the demolitions by pressure gradients resulting from the intense heat released from such a large amount of nanothermite reacting. The theory that this was caused by the field effects of some large scale DEW, is not supported by any hard evidence. The nanothermite demolition theory is, dust samples all confirm tell tale signs of it's presence and use in the destruction of the WTC.

But most importantly, from a legal standpoint, Judy Wood's theory does not lead us to any viable suspects, and actually takes the focus off of the people who worked inside those buildings prior to 9/11. It is a calculated and articulate distraction away from the real evidence.

Top 40 DEW 9/11 Questions Answered

"1 The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed 'collapse.'"

Agreed. But this does not automatically mean that DEWs were used. And Dr. Wood's own calculations on the collapse rates of the Towers have been shown to be ludicrous.

"In an attempt to analyze the collapse times of the WTC towers (what she calls the "billiard ball" analysis), the conservation of momentum and energy are flagrantly violated. She assumes that with each collision, all momentum in the problem is obliterated. Her underlying assumptions are left unstated and the reader is left to ponder this egregious violation of physical law." http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NISTRFCWoodRebuttalGBU.pdf Better calculations of the collapse times of the Towers can be found here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

"2 They underwent mid-air pulverization (dustification) and were turned to dust before they hit the ground."

Specifically, the concrete and other non-metallic materials were pulverized. NONE of the steel from the Towers was "dustified." http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/

"3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers." False. The bathtub was significantly damaged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7LwySqtr4&t=41m14s

"4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any."

Quote:
"Another source of data that is cited by proponents of the `missing debris' hypothesis relates to the non-catastrophic damage to the Bathtub, the ground zero region which was encircled by subterranean walls to hold back water from the Hudson River. No credible analysis or quantitative measurements have been offered by the proponents of the `missing' debris hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been catastrophically damaged.
The measured seismic activity explains why there was no catastrophic damage to the Bathtub:
Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5.
From a paper by James Gourley, the Bathtub survived much more substantial seismic activity in the past:
Additional credible data is available that indicates NYC is located in an active seismic zone. A search of the Advanced National Seismic System catalog of earthquakes from 1970 to 2005, inside an area between 38N and 43N Latitude, and between 71W and 76W Longitude (an area that runs from just south of New Jersey north to the middle of New York state, and from just west of New Jersey east to Rhode Island) reveals that at least 21 earthquakes having a magnitude greater than 3.0 occurred in that area during those 34 years.? http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf "

"5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted."

See points 3 and 4.

"6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition."

See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 3

"7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up."

Buildings have been demolished this way with explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9z08ml230

"8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise."

It was not "whisper quiet." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkwHUB7tYc&t=1m54s Are you suggesting that WTC7 was also destroyed with DEWs?

"9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."

This is absolutely false. Steel was everywhere. http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o24GaV0lV5I and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcM-B-pFuc

"10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."

Evidence for this? And why only the inside? How would a DEW do that?

"11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived."

Not conclusive proof of DEWs.

"12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one."

Yes, because porcelain survives well in building demolitions.

"13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them."

They were blown in by the massive pressure waves of the collapses.

"14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage."

I think they were damaged by the STEEL from the Towers. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap6.html

"15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer."

See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 13

"16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day."

See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 15

"17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat."

See point 16.

"18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed."

See point 16.

"19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass."

Could have been caused by the collapse and the explosives.

"20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel."

There was no "instant rusting." See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 7

"21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating."

No evidence of heating? http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf

"22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies."

The dust clouds were reported to be hot: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/dustcloud.html

"23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis."

The columns could be bent in any direction in the collapse. And I thought the columns were supposed to be dustified, not bent.

"24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning."

See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 10

"25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust."

This does not support DEWs. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Szamboti_The_Damage_to_WTC_Bldg._s_3_and_6__and_the_debate_between_the_controlled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf

"26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed."

Interesting and good points to raise concerning the lack of air defense on 9/11. But not evidence of DEWs.

"27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers."

See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf

"28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings."

Perhaps, but this still is not proof of DEWs. The collapse of the Towers damaged several buildings hundreds of feet away.

"29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it."

See points 3 and 4.

"30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix."

The other WTC buildings were obviously closer to the Towers, so that makes sense.

"31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared."

Yes, it was crushed by the falling STEEL.

"32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume."

See point 15

"33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings."

Wrong. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

"34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud."

So you think WTC7 was demolished with DEWs? If the columns in the building were cut, the pile could fold and fit into the footprint. Which by the way is the point of demolitions with explosives.

"35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions."

Evidence for any of this? Explosions would be consistent with demolition with explosives.

"36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC."

Many of the trucks were on fire. Of course things in them would explode.

"37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage."

The collapse of two 110 story buildings can do that ya know.

"38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11."

How is this evidence of DEW? Also, see: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 6

"39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map."

Maybe it wasn't talked about on 9/11 because the worst terrorist attack in history was happening?

"40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails."

The smoking dust trails which can be seen in falling debris in WTC videos, could also be explained by concrete being pulverized by other forces, such as explosives.

"41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above."

None of which was caused by this effect or DEWs.

Debunking other Popular Judy Wood Claims

The Spire

In several videos of the WTC collapse, one of the core box columns can be seen left standing after the rest of the building falls. This lone standing spire, then slowly sways back and forth, sags, and then collapses straight down into itself while dust and debris (likely concrete and drywall gypsum) is knocked loose.

The Judy Wood crowd has argued that the dust in this video is, in fact, the "Structural Steel" that is being literally vaporized by some type of exotic weapon shown in this video... Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. No proof of concept of a weapon that can do this, no patents for such a technology, no peer review physics papers written on the topic, and no evidence that structural steel was vaporized.

The Judy Wood crowd has tried to discredit the evidence for HTAs or "High Temperature Accelerants" (like Thermite) by positing that the Iron-rich microspheres found all over the WTC Dust were in fact dustified structural steel. The only problem with this hypothesis is that the iron-rich microspheres lacked Carbon and Manganese which are two additives in structural steel. So if those Iron-rich microspheres did originate from structural steel, then the Judy Wood crowd will have to explain how this process extracted out those two elemental components leaving just the Iron behind.

Both dry-wall Gypsum and crumbling concrete create LARGE volumes of dust, especially when those materials are exploded with explosives. There are many known controlled demolitions that can be used as examples for this. On the contrary there is zero experimental evidence showing that a DEW can vaporize steel, turning it instantly into dust. Nor is this hypothesis consistant with what is actually observed in the spire video, which appears more like dust blowing off of the spire as it begins falling straight down into itself, appearing to have failed at a much lower point in the structure. The symmetrical failure and straight-down collapse of this core box column instead indicates that the spire's structural supports were removed from below, proabably through the use of explosives or cutter charges. Eventually the dust envelopes the area aroudn the spire making it difficult to see anything.

If Judy Wood and her supporters would like to prove that this spire is, in fact, turning to dust (and not just having dust blown off of it as it falls) then they are going to need to show:

An Experimental Proof of the concept of DEW induced "dustification".
Forensic evidence and analysis of the dustified structural steel from dust samples at ground zero which are consistant with the above hypothesis.

The Toasted Cars

Thousands of cars surrounding the WTC were toasted with what appears to be some type of high temperature corrosive attack (similar to the high temperature corrosion attack observed on WTC 7 Steel from the Metallurgical analysis contained in Appendix C of the FEMA Report

Judy Wood supporters will argue that this irregular damage is proof of some form of (yet unspecified) type of "Directed Energy Weapon"... They will point to the fact that the entire car is burned except for the rear fender panel, and argue that this damage could only have been caused by some type of exotic weapon.

However, they have provided no analysis to show the difference in materials between that back panel and the rest of the car. The fact that this panel was left undamaged by the corrosion and oxidation (rusting) may have just been due to it being made of a different material, like plastic or aluminum which will not rust rapidly the same way iron or steel will. Their argument would be much more convincing if the burn damage appeared in a straight line on the SAME panel made of the same material.

Without further metallurgical analyis it's difficult to determine exactly what happened to these materials. To me it looks like a combination of high temperatures + oxidizing agents (Nitrates from explosives possibly?). But it's impossible to prove definitively either way what exactly happened without metallurgical testing.

However, there is other evidence which can be used to rule out various other hypotheses for what caused this... One such examples are the toasted cars from the basement level parking garages.

Directed Energy Weapons are "Directed" and also "Directional", that is, they travel in a straight line and destroy anything in their path. So if these cars were toasted via a DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) then how is there is concrete parking garage roof still over them? These cars were clearly not toasted by a DEW because it would have taken out the concrete roof as well.

Overall the toasted car damage (high temperature corrosion and oxidation or rusting of steel or iron containing alloys) is much more consistent with the use of energetic materials such as those identified in dust samples by independent scientists. Nanothermite was originally patented and tested by companies like Battelle and SAIC, who were Defense Contractor who would later participate in the NIST Report Scientific Studies into the World Trade Center.

Conditions for re-evaluation:

If Dr. Judy Wood or any of her suporters, can provide scientific documentation in the form of a repeatable experiment to prove the existence of the Hutchison Effect or some other DEW related mechanism which causes the molecular dissociation of steel and concrete, then maybe she will have some scientific credibility or basis for her theory.

In order for me to believe that this technology was actually used on 9/11, I would need to see convincing evidence that this technology can actually be used in a demolition scenario.

I would also need to see evidence of this "free energy" technology and how it was used, where the actual satellite weapons are that did this.

Additional Sources and Information Debunking Judy Wood:

Here is an interesting claim made by some of the Judy Wood Supporters:

"Dr. Judy Wood is the ONLY 9/11 researcher ever to file evidence with a court-of-law in pursuit of the truth." - http://sites.google.com/site/reynoldslitigation/ "Stephen Jones wouldn't DARE file a legal document claiming thermite did it, because fraud is a crime and Steven Jones isn't stupid."

Wrong!

Many 9/11 resarchers have filed lawsuits pertaining to 9/11! However, many were also silenced in agreement with the 9/11 victims compensation package. That 90% of the Family members accepted.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://ae911truth.org/ "1,509 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 12,235 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."

More people to file lawsuits/referendums:
http://www.nyccan.org/
http://davidraygriffin.com/books/911-contradictions-an-open-letter-to-congress-and-the-press/
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14724
http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5479.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Eckert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgeMdOcBGf0 (April Gallop)

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011
(Part 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0vukXoWGU
(Part 2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9VvSBwVT_A

Dr. Gregory Jenkins debunks Judy Wood by asking her a few simple questions

Dr. Gregory Jenkins has done some excellent scientific assessments of Dr. Judy Wood's theories:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/a-study-of-some-issues-raised-in-a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Szamboti_The_Damage_to_WTC_Bldg._s_3_and_6__and_the_debate_between_the_controlled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-national-press-club-regarding-the-use-of-directed-energy-beam-in-the-demolition-of-the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf

9/11 Experiments: Bringing REAL Science to The Table!

"Experiment is the arbitrator of competing hypotheses - Galileo

In order to distinguish between REAL science, and FAKE JUNK science we use a very important tool called "The Scientific Method" which relies primarily on something called EXPERIMENT! If you can't show that your theory works live in-action with actual experiments, then no one should have any reason to believe you.

Working off these basic principals of science, Jonathan Cole PE of AE911Truth and myself decided to put 9/11 Theory to the test by performing actual experiments to prove/disprove some of the various claims made by Debunkers vs. Conspiracy Theorists to see what actually stands up to the facts.

Here is the 9/11 Experiments YouTube Channel. These videos were a landmark for 9/11 Science and Truth. We successfully debunked several of the debunkers claims by direct undeniable proof through experiment.

It's time the Judy Wood crowd stepped up to the plate and started showing the same level of scientific integrity. Stop the character assassination, dirty tactics, and all the nit-picking, and put some REAL, solid, scientific arguments and experimental evidence on the table!

Post a live experiment showing the dustification of steel and concrete by use of Judy Wood's/John Hutchison's technology, and explain how it is done so that others can repeat it, and you render my entire argument invalid!

Avoid this challenge and continue with your pointless character assassination and tangents on completely unrelated topics, and you essentially admit that you are totally incapable of understanding or participating in real science or real scientific debate. Most of th

- End of Scientific Discussion -

- Beginning of Personal Opinions and Speculation -

Dirty Tactics

All my arguments against Dr. Judy Wood's 9/11 demolition hypothesis are based on HARD SCIENCE and the request for experimental verification of her claims. Please compare my purely scientific approach with the approach taken by Dr. Wood's supporters who have attacked me. Andrew Johnson rather than address my scientific arguments, instead resorts to the classic disinfo tactic of "Character Assassination". Anyone who begins their counter argument with a tirade on character assassination, obviously has no real case to argue.

Andrew Johnson instead makes the baseless assertion that Judy Wood's DEW technology "has been documented (see Where did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 http://wheredidthetowersgo.com ). The technology has been proven; it has been patented (see Chapter 17 of the book). And it has been reproduced in a lab (see Chapter 17 of the book) as well as the provided references and documentation." So rather than provide the actual references and documentation, or show me a link to them anywhere on Judy Wood's website, instead we are referred to CH 17 of Wood's book, which means absolutely NOTHING in terms of real science or experimental evidence/verification.

Where are your experiments? Where is the video demonstration of this technology working, and the energetics calculations to go with it? Where is the independent laboratory verification of this effect? Where is your science?

Here is a link to my 9/11 Collapse Hypothesis Video: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msq_eXyA0cA ) which was removed for a false copyright violation claim by a man named Mr. Thomas Potter. In order to remove this copyright infringment against my YouTube Account I must provide YouTube with all my legal information, which they then send to the party who filed the Copyright claim.

Here is the original YouTube Copyright notice that was filed against my account. Rather than confront my scientific arguments head on, Judy Wood and her followers instead decided to play dirty.

This "Thomas Potter" individual is a very suspicious individual. Internet searches reveal that he spread disinformation about Osama Bin Laden to news media outlets in Ohio around the time of the alleged killing of Bin Laden, and his tax information turns up someone with a slightly different name.

Around May of 2012 my physics department chair forwarded me an email related to 9/11 science and conspiracy theories knowing that is a topic I was interested in. It turned out to be an advertisement for Judy Wood's book, and at the bottom it was signed by:

Thomas Potter
9770 Sugarbush Circle
Olmsted Falls, Ohio 44138

How this "Thomas Potter" (who's real name is apparently "T Homenuk Potter" or "Steven M Homenuk" according to property records on city-data.com) convinced YT to take my videos and my channel down, without having any authentic ownership rights over the material in question is beyond me. Why Judy Wood would hire this individual as her "Copyright Agent" is even more questionable.

I will be investigating this further and keeping you all updated.

AlienScientist YT Channel Terminated (by Mr Thomas Potter)

March 5, 2013

On Feb 26, 2013 I submitted a counter-notification to YouTube, arguing that my use of pictures depicting Judy Wood or her book were covered under "Fair Use" and did NOT infringe upon her rights or copyrights in any way shape or form.

I had to submit all my legal information to YouTube, yet YT has never provided me with the Legal information of the claimant making the request. I had to find that on my own...

Hi there,

Thank you for your counter-notification. It has been forwarded to the party that sent the takedown notification. If we receive no response, your material will be restored between 10 and 14 business days from today.

Regards,

The YouTube Team

I am now working with attorneys to build the case for Fair use, and we are going to sue this Mr. Thomas Potter fellow, who purjured himself by providing false information through a legal process for copyrights he has no right to or ownership of.

Get ready for more character assassination against me from the Judy Wood Liars club, since they won't dare touch my arguments or the real science.

Functionality of Judy Wood's Disinfo/CoIntelPro

Judy Wood has functioned on several different levels throughout her career as a Disinformation Agent, the following is a list of just a few ways that Judy's disinfo has furthered the 9/11 Cover-Up, and obfuscated the public's understanding of 9/11 and the conspiracy theories surrounding it:

iscrediting and Distracting people away from the nanothermite evidence - While Judy Wood's supporters will claim the opposite is true, and that all 1,500 members of AE911Truth are controlled opposition spreading lies about nanothermite to hide the truth about DEWS Dustification weapons... However, given that only a small concentrated group of internet shills are the only ones who seem to actually support the Judy Wood theory (aside from a few gullible stooges who have fallen for her misifno), it doesn't take much more than a little common sense to quickly realize which of the two possibilities is more likely...

Discrediting the views of other Ph.D.'s who question 9/11 - This technique relies on stereotyping or association. By having a credentialed expert like Judy Wood promote absurd and ridiculously implausible scenarios surrounding the events of 9/11, it severely harms the credibility of other similarly credentialed experts and Truth activists. It also gives the illusion of division and disagreement within the movement, even though the majority of experts subscribe to the AE911Truth side of things.

Identification with "Free Energy" Conspiracy counter-culture - The idea of "Free Energy" and Government suppression thereof has been actively circulating conspiracy airwaves for a very long time. It was a clever move on her part to play the "Free Energy" card when she couldn't answer tough scientific questions about the source of the energy/power that would be required for her DEW-demolition theory. Claiming "Free Energy" provided not only a conventient excuse to ignore the energetics issue, but it also provided a common ground with a lot of conspiracy minded individuals.

Possible Agency Connections?

I do not believe that Judy Wood is an agent working directly for the United States Government or some agency of intelligence or counter-intelligence professionals working for or otherwise connected with the 9/11 perpetrators. That would be much too obvious and not deniable. Instead I think she has a lot of interesting "friends" who help promote her theories and her book, get her on radio shows to do interviews, and otherwise help to promote her and make her money.

But let's play conspiracy theorist for just a moment... Judy Wood was a professor at Clemson University which has connections to the Savannah River Technology site, which in turn has connections to sol gel technology which is used to make nanoparticulate and nano-composite layered materials like the one in the SEM photograph above.

If Judy Wood's followers want to accuse Richard Gage, Myself, and all of AE911Truth of being frauds, or disinfo agents... Why don't we investigate whether or not Judy Wood has any ties to SRNL, and she may just lead us directly to who produced the nanothermite on 9/11, since why else would she go through such great lengths to help cover up and disguise the evidence for nanothermite using her DEW Dustification Theories?

The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here - http://srnl.doe.gov/mat_sci.htm
Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here - https://www.llnl.gov/str/News597.html

This probably means nothing, and I really just think that Judy's reasons for doing this is either that she truly believes it herself for some reason, or that she may have lost some significant portions of her brain during that coma she was in... I really don't think she's an agent or connected to anything serious, but you never know.

Divide and Conquer: Judy Wood and Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Scholars For 9/11 Truth was created in response to professor Steven Jones, of Brigham Young University. After he announced his research that shows that the World Trade Center buildings appear to have been brought down with explosives, Professor Jim Fetzer, of the University of Minnesota, convinced him to join with him in creating an organization to expose 9-11.

Professor Wood was a full member of Scholars For 9/11 Truth from its beginning in January 2006, but she did not seem to encourage students or faculty at the University to look into the issue. The students apparently had to discover the information on their own.

Why would Professor Wood join a group that exposes 9-11 if she had no interest in educating students or faculty? Was she too afraid to talk to the students or faculty about 9/11? Or did she join the organization for some other reason?

Judy Wood supporters attack AE911truth

AE911 make up over 1500 Architects and Engineers and over 12000 Students. They have based their entire research on science and physics alone. There have been many attempts to discredit their research, cast doubt on, and distract people away from the important work being done in the name of Science and 9/11 Truth.
Steven Jones and 9 other of his colleagues co-wrote the Nano Thermite peer reviewed article. Published by Bentham Journal. Try debunking the paper instead of attacking the authors!http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm
Many of you reading this now, who have perhaps fallen for Judy Wood's disinformation scam, obviously do not understand science, energetics, physics, chemistry, etc. quite as well as myself and the other distinguished members of AE911truth. Just make sure that when you argue science, you talk science, and use sound scientific principals (such as proof by experiment), and avoid any other justifications for your conclusions or reasoning. If you can't formulate an argument or an experiment to prove your science and your theory, then what exactly are you trying to argue?
Focus on the science, ignore the he-said she-said bullshit and name calling. I don't need anything other than science to debunk Judy Wood. Contrary to her supporters who attack me!
Scientist do not use words like "Ray Beam" "Dustification" "Fuzzyblobs" "fuzzball" and "Jellification" "transmutation" "Cheetos" and "Holes" as scientific evidence! All these words have been used by Judy Wood. Terminology is an important part of the scientific process, and is normally decided upon by boards of scientists including language experts so that the terminology can be understood by the most people in all parts of the world. This bizarre terminology only indicates to me that Dr. Wood cannot scientifically define the phenomena being observed, and is simply compensating for that lack of coherent definition and real understanding that is crucial to science.
If AE911 was based on half truths, why doesn't the Media and US govt release the info to the people and show these "outright lies". What better way to discredit the entire truth movement but to expose this "fraud". The Meida and Government have purposely avoided the Thermite debate altogether (aside from a failed attempt by National Geographic), they don't dare get into the nuts and bolts of it. Operation Blackout:
http://world911truth.org/operation-blackout/
Not Dr. Steven Jones, Neils Harrit or anyone at AE911 says thermite destroyed the World Trade Center alone. Nano Thermite was used to weaken the structure and EXPLOSIVES finished the job.

Listen to Niels instead of putting words in his mouth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o (10 mins)

The "Directed Energy Weapons" Hypothesis vs. Real Science