by Adam Taylor
One of the most frustrating claims I hear from DEW supporters is that “you need to read Judy Wood’s book before you can critique her arguments.” They of course ignore the fact that she’s had her arguments debunked over and over again for the past several years, and to the best of my knowledge these critiques of her work have gone unrefuted. But DEW supporters seem to think that if you don’t debunk Dr. Wood’s book, you haven’t debunked Dr. Wood. This would only be true if there was some kind of new phenomenal evidence presented in her book that has never been discussed elsewhere by her in her online articles. I’ll freely admit that I haven’t read the book, partly because I doubt there’s anything substantially new in it that hasn’t already been refuted by others. And I have good reason to think this.
When I debated with DEW supporter “Emmanuel Goldstein” (whose real name is Thomas Potter) on Amazon, he listed off 41 points that supposedly show that the Towers were “dustified.” He’s obviously read her book (given that he defends it so passionately; and if he hasn’t, then who’s he to criticize others for not reading it?), and supposedly based his arguments off of information from said book. And I was able to immediately respond to every single one of these points because I had heard them all before. I saw nothing new in any of his arguments, and had an answer ready to go for each of them. So there are really only two possibilities: either there’s nothing new in Judy Wood’s book, or there’s some ground breaking evidence presented in the book that DEW supporters don’t feel like sharing with the rest of us. Either way, I still see no great incentive to buy her book. I may someday if I feel like wasting a chunk of my cash (her book currently sells anywhere from 45 to 60 dollars, and there’s no preview for it on Amazon). Below I’ve reproduced my refutations of Mr. “Goldstein’s” arguments, which I hope will help others in dealing with this absurd disinformation.
“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.”
“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.”
“7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.”
“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 collapses.
“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.”
“16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Not sure what that’s supposed to be. Elaborate please.
“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.