Saturday, September 09, 2017

Controlled Demolition, Directed Energy, and 9/11

Starting Point

Mark Basile, a chemical engineer who graduated from Worchester Polytechnic Institute appears in a 2010-released documentary entitled: ‘9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out’ that is produced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Mr. Basile has been working in the chemical industry for some 25 years with a primary focus on performing analytical work in relation to materials of different compositions.
In the video, he talks about becoming interested in 9/11 through certain problems that occurred to him in relation to the R. J. Lee and FEMA reports – two early reports that analyzed various data concerning the World Trade Center. Mr. Basile became especially interested in Appendix C of the FEMA report that contained some metallurgical analysis by two professors at his old school, WPI (Worchester Polytechnic Institute) in relation to several steel beams from the debris pile at Ground Zero.

The samples analyzed had melted at some point during, or while in, the debris pile. These samples showed signs of melting, as well as other signs of having been exposed to high heat such as: Being thinned and having Swiss cheese-like holes in certain portions of the metal.

The scientists at Worchester Polytechnic Institute who performed the analysis that, eventually, was written up as Appendix C of the FEMA report found that the steel had been attacked by a eutectic mixture of: Iron, iron oxide and iron sulfide. When sulfur is added to an appropriately proportioned mixture of aluminum and iron oxide, the mixture is known as thermate. The addition of sulfur helps lower the melting point of whatever one is trying to melt. 
Thus, for example, instead of needing to bring steel up to 1500° centigrade in order to be able to melt it, one could use the right kind of eutectic mixture that contained sulfur. One of the products of such a reaction is iron sulfide, and iron sulfide was found in the WTC samples studied by the scientists at WPI.

Under the conditions (insufficient oxygen and quantities of combustibles) existing in the WTC on 9/11, Mr. Basile believes that jet fuel could not have generated the kind of heat that would have been necessary to be able to melt steel in the Twin Towers. So, this raises the question of what could have melted the steel that was found in the samples studied by the researchers at WPI and whose report on such steel became Appendix C in the FEMA report.
A number of years later (2007), Mr. Basile attended a conference in Boston. Steven Jones was gong to be speaking about his work involving iron-based microspheres and some “red-gray” chips that Dr. Jones reportedly had found in some of the dust samples he examined that, allegedly, were from the World Trade Center.

Mr. Basile indicates that after the talk he approached Dr. Jones and expressed interest in being put in touch with the individual who served as the source for the dust samples Dr. Jones used in his studies. Mr. Basile wanted to do some independent analysis of the dust samples in order to be able to confirm or dis-confirm the findings that have been released by Dr. Jones.
In January of 2008, he received his first package of dust from Jeanette McKinley -- who lived across from the WTC on 9/11 and who had supplied Dr. Jones with his dust samples. Mr. Basile began analyzing the dust and found both the iron-based microspheres and the red-gray chips that had been mentioned by Steven Jones in the latter individual’s talk at the aforementioned conference.

Mr. Basile said that he had wanted to do further studies on the “red-gray” chips but could not get access to a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. Consequently, he set about putting together other kinds of experiments that might help him to elucidate some of the properties of the red-gray chips in the samples.
When he ran his experiments, he found that the red layer of the chips was thermitic – that is, it has the properties of thermite and, therefore, consists of both aluminum powder and iron oxide. When activated, he got iron microspheres as a by-product.

He also discovered the red-gray chips in another sample of allegedly WTC dust that he was able to obtain independently of Jeannette McKinley. This sample came from a museum located in New York that has requested anonymity in the matter.
Mr. Basile emphasizes in the video that he believes the thermitic material he found in the samples provided to him did not come from a chance conglomeration of aluminum from the aircraft and/or from other sources of aluminum and iron from the WTC buildings. He is of the opinion that they are not materials that would have naturally and spontaneously formed at the World Trade Center on, or shortly after, 9/11.

He says that the samples he studied consisted of nano-sized aluminum particles that were uniform in size and shape and were embedded in a silica-based matrix that held the reactants together. When the materials are ignited, the iron droplets that are formed eat through the silica-based matrix and, in the process, create a set of large voids in the residue of the chip whose interior portions are coated with iron films. 
However, if a person sections the chips before igniting them, one finds: No iron microspheres, no iron particles; and no iron films. The foregoing features are found only after the chips are brought up to their ignition point that initiates a thermitic reaction that, as a result, generates liquid iron with a concomitant release of energy.

He goes on to indicate in the video that the red-gray chips he studied do not constitute what might be called “normal” thermite. Normal thermite, consisting of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder is something anyone could put together with a little bit of knowledge about how to combine aluminum and iron oxide in proper proportions to produce a thermitic reaction. 
Normal thermite consists of a combination of aluminum and iron oxide that is mixed together in what are referred to as stoichiometric proportions. Such proportions ensure that the right numbers of atoms of each component are present to enable the reaction to go forward efficiently.

Aluminum is very reactive. When it meets with iron oxide, it removes the oxygen from the iron oxide and forms aluminum oxide and, in the process, liberates iron and generates a substantial quantity of heat energy.
The amount of heat being released takes place within a very short time frame, and the quantity of heat is so large that both the aluminum oxide being formed during the reaction, together with the iron being that is being liberated, are in a molten state. Iron melts at approximately 1500° Centigrade, and the melting point for aluminum oxide is above 2,000° Centigrade.

According to Mark Basile, the ingredient he found that tends to indicate the anomalous nature of the thermite in the samples he studied is the nano-aluminum that is present in the dust. Nano-aluminum is a controlled substance. The government places limits on how much of the material any individual, lab, organization, or institution can purchase. 
Moreover, he stipulates that nano-aluminum is very difficult to produce in any appreciable quantities. It is not something that the average person could manufacture on his or her own.

The presence of nano-aluminum in the samples he studied indicated to Mark Basile that the thermite didn’t come from some cave in Afghanistan. Only a sophisticated process of engineering could have manufactured that material.
Mr. Basile notes that thermite does not explode. It reacts, and as it reacts it produces certain molten by-products and a great deal of heat energy. This heat energy not only melts the components of thermite, but such heat energy also is capable of melting almost anything else that is fairly proximate to the reaction that is producing that heat.

He indicates that thermite, in the form of thermite grenades, can be used in decommissioning certain equipment or rendering such equipment useless if it should have to be left behind on the battlefield. Mr. Basile further indicates that thermite can be used in processes of controlled demolition and speaks about a patent from 1984 that involved thermite cutter charges which used the molten iron created in a thermitic reaction, within a matter of milliseconds, to cut through the steel in a building’s structural core and frame.
Mr. Basile is of the opinion that thermite was used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. He believes the presence of nano-thermite – a government controlled material --in the dust samples he studied strongly suggests that someone else other than, or in addition to, the 19 alleged hijackers played a role in the tragedy in New York and elsewhere on 9/11.

Good science requires replication of results. Mr. Basile took several samples of dust, and independently of Steven Jones, confirmed that he found the same sort of red-gray chips as Dr. Jones reported. He further confirmed that the chips he analyzed were thermitic in nature, and when he raised the chips to an appropriate temperature of ignition, this brought about a thermitic reaction that formed molten iron, molten aluminum oxide, and released substantial quantities of heat energy.

In addition, Mark Basile also indicated that he found nano-aluminum in his samples. Nano-aluminum is a material controlled by the government, is difficult to manufacture, and under normal circumstances should not have been in the dust samples from the World Trade Center.
Dr. Judy Wood and others have raised questions about the provenance of the aforementioned dust samples. In other words, did the samples studied by Mark Basile and Steven Jones really come from the World Trade Center dust debris? Were those samples tampered with by anyone along the way? Could the red-gray chips in the dust samples merely have gotten into the dust at, and around, the WTC as a result of the activities of some of the teams that had been commissioned to clean up the debris pile at the WTC?

In a very important way although the question about the provenance of the samples that were provided to Mr. Basile is a legitimate one, there is an important sense in which the question is irrelevant. And, this is so for reasons that go much more to the heart of the position that is being advocated by Dr. Wood.
Many people in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center were brought down by controlled demolition. Thermite and thermate are theorized to have played a role in such alleged demolitions by cutting through the structural beams of a building in a controlled sequence of explosions that injects molten iron (produced by the thermitic reaction that was initiated by the explosion) into the structural beams of a building -- cutting through them in a matter of milliseconds -- thereby bringing about the simultaneous collapse of all parts of the building being brought down in such a controlled fashion.

NIST, among others, has indicated that it found no evidence of explosives being used in relation to any of the buildings of the World Trade Center. As it stands, the foregoing statement is quite true because NIST never really looked for that sort of evidence.
However, there have been a large number of reports by a variety of people – including first responders – who have testified that they heard explosions. William Rodriguez, who was on the custodial staff at the Twin Towers on 9/11, has indicated that he – along with a number of other employees – experienced and saw the after-effects of huge explosions in the sub-basement of the Twin Towers that took place before either of the Twin Towers was allegedly struck by commercial jets. Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, also reported a massive explosion in Building 7 hours before that building came down – it was an explosion that almost cost him his life.

Could the foregoing sort of explosions have been connected to a process of controlled-demolition? The findings of individuals like Steven Jones and Mark Basile have fueled the fires of such speculation.
Listening to the Evidence

Unfortunately, there is a fairly sizeable fly in the ointment in which the foregoiong kinds of theories are embedded. More specifically, the Twin Towers did not just come down, they were pulverized – even Governor Pataki remarked on this pulverized dust issue when he was being interviewed near Ground Zero shortly after 9/11.
A number of individuals from some of the clean-up crews remarked how little debris there was from such massive (110 storey, 500,000 tons) buildings. Other individuals commented how one did not find any: Office equipment, toilets, phones, or computers in the debris pile … everything had been pulverized to a fine dust.

Dr. Wood notes that the part of Building 6 – an 8-storey structure – that was still standing on 9/11 loomed over the debris pile for Building 1, a 110-sorey tower.  Moreover, Building-7 -- which was a much bigger building than Building 6 (47-stories versus 8-stories) – also had a debris pile that was larger than that of Building 1 – although the debris pile for Building 7 was still substantially less than one might suppose should have been the case in relation to a 47-storey building – although Building 7 is less than half the height of Building 1.
To be sure, there were some steel columns that formed part of the debris piles at Buildings 1, 2 and 7 (the three buildings that people saw come down on 9/11), and I will have more to say on this point a little later. Moreover, although one might anticipate that one should find concrete slabs, office equipment, and so on that would be broken-down due to the weight of collapsing materials helping to slam things into the ground, nonetheless, one would not expect to see roughly 80 % of each of the Twin Towers and approximately 90% of Building 7 – including buildings and contents -- reduced to dust (just one file cabinet with folder files was reportedly found in the debris pile).

Neither thermite nor thermate is capable of bringing about such a degree of pulverization. Mark Basile, himself, indicated during his interview that thermitic reactions do not explode. They melt things. And, while thermitic reactions may be initiated through explosions, the explosions do not pulverize materials but merely help to inject molten iron into steel columns and, thereby, permit those columns to be cut in a very short time frame (milliseconds).
Consequently, for purposes of argument, one does not need to find fault with issues concerning the provenance of the materials studied by Mr. Basile involving the apparent presence of thermite and thermate in the dust from the debris pile at Ground Zero. One can acknowledge the likely presence of those materials in the dust samples, and one can agree that their presence is anomalous and needs to be explained, and one can concede, as well, that there is a need to explain how the controlled material, nano-aluminum, got into the dust samples studied by Steven Jones and Mark Basile.

However, conceding the presence of super-thermite (which contains nano-materials) in the dust from the WTC does nothing to explain a number of other issues – such as the degree of pulverization that occurred at the WTC on 9/11. Furthermore, there are other issues – which will be addressed shortly -- that cannot be adequately explained simply by admitting the presence of thermite, super-thermite, or thermate at the WTC.
If two 110 storey, 500, 000-ton buildings collapsed to the ground (whether through controlled demolition or through some sort of a conventional, progressive collapse that involved a pancaking of floors one on top of another), one would expect to find 220 stories of material on the ground. Yet, photographs of Ground Zero on the morning of 9/11 (one can see the not-yet destroyed Building 7 in the background) show that after the two towers had disappeared, there was not much more than piles, here and there, of 12 to 14 stories worth of steel on the ground.

Some people have argued that the reason why there is so little debris above ground at Ground Zero is because the weight of the “collapse” drove all that material down into the sub-basements. However, Dr. Wood has found “official” photographs demonstrating that the tunnels, rails, and cars for the Path Train that ran under the WTC showed only minor damage. Moreover, there was no debris from the towers down in the Path Train tunnels.
In addition, many of the stores in the concourse beneath the Twin Towers were not damaged. One of Dr. Wood’s favorite photographs in this respect is a picture of a store in the concourse with a window full of famous Warner Brothers dolls – such as Bugs Bunny, Foghorn Leghorn, and the Road Runner – yet, the store (and this was true of many other stores) was not damaged.

Even more significantly, the World Trade Center was built over a section of concrete foundation that was poured over bedrock. The poured concrete is referred to as the ‘bathtub’ and it is intended to protect Lower Manhattan from being flooded by the Hudson River. 
The bathtub-structure is, in some respects, fairly fragile. This was problematically demonstrated when some of the earth-moving equipment that had been brought in to help with the clean up process at Ground Zero were responsible for cracking the bathtub structure in a number of places.

Yet, one is led to believe that the collapse of 2, 110 storey, 500,000-ton buildings did not put so much as a scratch in that fragile bathtub structure. Cranes weighing only a fraction of what the Twin Towers weighed could crack the bathtub structure, but the mammoth Twin Towers could not accomplish this. Surely, this is an anomaly that begs for critical reflection.
There is another problem surrounding the attempt to explain the destruction of the World Trade Towers either through a conventional progressive collapse due to fires or due to controlled explosions. More specifically, the seismic signal associated with the demise of the two towers was significantly less than one would expect to be associated with the ‘collapse’ of two weighty buildings.

This was especially evident in the demise of the 47-storey Building 7. The destruction of this building had a seismic signal of .6 and was barely distinguishable from normal background noise for an average workday in Manhattan.
The seismic signal associated with the destruction of Building 1 was 2.3. The seismic signal for the demise of Building 2 was 2.1.

Those readings are comparable to the seismic reading associated with the Seattle Kingdom when it was brought down through controlled demolition. The difficulty here, however, is that the height and weight of the Twin Towers should have given expression – but did not -- to a potential energy that was some thirty times greater than the potential energy possessed by the Kingdome when the latter energy was released upon destruction.
There is an additional problem surrounding the length of the seismic signal according to Dr. Wood. For example, the length of the seismic signal for the South Tower’s demise was about 8 seconds.

Most proponents of the controlled demolition idea with respect to the Twin Towers (and Building 7) often mention that all three buildings came down at close to free fall speeds. A conventional, progressive collapse (e.g., as in the pancake theory in which upper floors come crashing down on lower floors in a sequential manner) cannot be reconciled with such near free-fall speeds and would require much more time to crumble to the ground due to the resistance that each floor puts up before succumbing to the forces being exerted on those individual floors by the collapsing upper floors … this is the principle of the conservation of momentum in action.
However, the idea of controlled demolition cannot account for why, say, the South Tower was destroyed at a rate that is faster than free fall. Yet, the roughly eight- second seismic signal associated with the destruction of the South and North Towers indicates that those events took less time than would have been the case if one dropped a bowling ball from the roof of the 110-storey structure unimpeded by air-resistance (approximately 9.5 seconds … and factoring in air-resistance would slightly lengthen the duration of free fall for such an object).

Instances of controlled demolition approach near free fall velocities because buildings are rigged with cutter charges in such a way that the support columns are knocked out in a sequence that removes any resistance to the falling floors. Consequently, in such cases, the time it takes for a designated building to come down is like dropping an object to the ground from the top of whatever building is being demolished through such controlled demolition.

For a building’s destruction to register a seismic signal whose length indicates a time that is shorter than free-fall speeds tends to indicate that something is going on in that process of destruction other than controlled demolition. A seismic signal of such short duration could mean that the building is not just falling freely through space (notwithstanding air-resistance) but is being propelled downward by some force.
On the other hand, a seismic signal of such short duration also might indicate that some kind of force had destroyed the building in such a way that eight, or so, seconds was all it took to register what was left of the building plus its contents with respect to impacting the ground. For example, if – for the sake of conversation – one was to hypothesize that some sort of force reduced a large number of floors to nothing more than dust and that such dust dispersed in a cloud over a large area, then the length of the seismic signal for such an event would be like dropping an object off a much shorter building, and, therefore, the time of free-fall would be much less than one would expect for a taller building.

I’ll be coming back to this theme of a force or set of forces other than controlled demolition a little later in this posting. At the present time, however, I would like to take a quick look at some other issues that tend to argue against the idea of controlled demolition being the sole cause of the destruction of the three steel-framed towers at the World Trade Center.
I will pursue these issues not with the intention of trying to argue that thermite and thermate might not have played some role in the destruction of those buildings. Rather, my belief is that whatever role they may have played, it was not a central one … or, more directly, controlled demolition is not the primary cause for the destruction of those three buildings.

To begin with, during the press conference that marked the release of its initial, final report on Building 7, NIST indicated that the destruction of Building 7 was “whisper quiet”. NIST – through its spokesperson, Shyam Sunder – used that description in conjunction with the demise of Building 7 in order to respond to a question about the possible use of explosives (in the form of controlled demolition) with respect to the destruction of Building 7.
Some might wish to argue that by saying what he did Sunder was merely lying in order to try to hide evidence pointing to the presence of explosives and controlled demolition. However, by saying what he did about the fall of Building 7 being “whisper quiet”, Sunder actually was undermining the position of NIST.

NIST claimed that Building 7 came down as a result of a progressive collapse that had been initiated through the way fire caused girders to expand and, in the process, generated torque forces on a key core beam and, thereby, led the beam to buckle. However, if Building 7 came down due to a progressive, pancake collapse, then, there should have been a lot of noise associated with such a collapse as one floor slammed into the next and, in addition, successive core beams and floor assemblies buckled and came apart.
However, if the demise of Building 7 was “whisper quiet”, one is not talking about a conventional progressive collapse of the kind to which NIST subscribed. No noise, no conventional, progressive collapse.

By saying what he did in the press conference, Sunder is not only ruling out controlled demolition and explosions, he also is ruling out his own theory. So, if Building 7 came down “whisper quiet”, then, one needs to find some other explanation for how that building came down.
In support of Sunder’s “whisper quiet” comment, Dr. Wood indicates that some people were doing a video with Building 7 as a relatively distant backdrop. The building was coming down so silently that none of the participants realized what was going on until the building was already part way down.

A second point to consider in relation to the possible role of explosives or controlled demolition in bringing down three buildings at the World Trade Center revolves around the following anomaly. On five, different occasions the Earth’s magnetic field shifted during 9/11.
The times of these abrupt shifts in the magnetic field correspond very closely with five events at the World Trade Center. The first shift in Earth’s magnetic field occurred precisely at the time when whatever struck the North Tower created a hole in that building. A second shift in the magnetic field took place at the exact time when the South Tower was impacted by something … most people believe a commercial jet was implicated with respect to the holes in the Twin Towers. Three further shifts in the magnetic field happened at the precise time that Building 1, Building 2, and Building 7 came down.

Controlled demolitions could not have caused those sorts of shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field. Conventional progressive collapses cannot account for such abrupt shifts either.

The shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field were recorded through a magnetometer site in Alaska. The site consists of a number of different stations, and the shift recordings were drawn from six of those stations.
In each of the foregoing cases, the magnetometer indicated that for a period of time the magnetic field signal started going down prior to a given event at the World Trace Center (i.e., being struck by something or coming down). When the five aforementioned events took place, the magnetic field signal began to rise again.

Of course, one might wish to argue that the correlation between the two sets of data – one set in Alaska involving magnetic field readings and one set in New York involving three, steel-framed, high-rise buildings – was purely coincidental. And, if the foregoing sort of correlation occurred with respect to just one of the five events in New York, but not in the other four, then, a person might be inclined to accept such a possibility, but when the abrupt shifts in the magnetic field occur on five different occasions and are tied to specific times at which events in New York transpired, then one might be wise to do due diligence and begin looking for some other explanation.
A third area of contention concerns the question of whether, or not, molten metals were present in the World Trade Center debris. Although there were a number of eyewitnesses who reported seeing what they believed were pools and streams of molten metal deep in the debris piles at the WTC, there are some counter considerations that must be taken into account before reaching any conclusions on the matter.

For example, the United States Geological Survey people conducted a number of satellite studies that, among other things, recorded thermal temperatures in relation to the World Trade Center following 9/11. Five days after 9/11, one set of those recordings indicated a range of temperatures ranging from: 801° Fahrenheit (427° Centigrade), to: 1,377° Fahrenheit (747° Centigrade).
There were various hot spots at, or near, the upper range of the foregoing temperature scales in the South Tower, the North Tower, Building 7, and in the vicinity of the towers. As a result, various parts of the debris pile were being sprayed with water. There also had been a rainstorm.

Yet, the debris piles continued to produce high temperatures. The question is: What was behind those high temperatures? What was causing them?
There were news reports about how the soles of the steel-toed boots of some workers seemed to be disintegrating or falling apart. Some people attributed this to the presence of molten metals in the debris pile.

If the boot damage of the workers were due to high heat, one also would have expected to hear reports of lots of workers suffering burns to their feet. However, there were no such reports. Whatever was causing the boots to come apart was something other than heat.
In addition to the foregoing issue, one might wish to consider that there is an official FEMA picture of a grappler at Ground Zero picking up an object of some kind that appears to be glowing a sort of yellow-orange. Some people have interpreted this “object” to be a piece of molten steel/iron.
If that object had been a piece of glowing, molten steel/iron, the temperature of the object would be in the vicinity of 1200° Centigrade (2700° Fahrenheit). However, Brendon Casey, a hydraulics engineer for some fifteen years who has written a well-respected book on hydraulic systems, indicates that the maximum temperature to which a hydraulic system can be exposed before permanent damage is done to the system is 82° Centigrade.

There were no reports of grapplers breaking down at Ground Zero because their hydraulic systems were failing due to exposure from molten metals. So, whatever the yellow-orange glowing object was, it wasn’t molten metal.
Dr. Wood has spoken and written about a water main on West Street that broke on the afternoon of 9/11 in an area of Ground Zero that according to the USGS was registering temperatures of some 800° Fahrenheit. The broken water main created a small lake.

She notes the existence of official photographs showing a firefighter who was wading knee deep in the ‘lake’ water. Yet, despite the high temperature for the area being recorded by USGS, the water was not boiling, giving off steam, nor was the firefighter wading in the water injured.

Dr. Wood also indicates that there are official photographs depicting a person who is going down a hole that leads to one of the sub-basements of a WTC tower. The area being inspected by the worker is, according to the USGS temperature data, one of the hottest areas in the entire World Trade Center area, and, yet, the worker is unaffected.
There is a substantial disjoint between the different sets of data involving, on the one hand, the USGS temperature readings and, on the other hand, what was being photographed and observed on the ground. If the USGS recorded temperatures were due to the presence of molten metal, one would have expected: Fire hoses to have melted, or firemen to have burned their feet, or people wading in the ‘lake’ on West Street to have been boiled alive, or workers inspecting holes leading to the sub-basements of one of the towers to have been severely burned, or for their to have been Chernobyl-like steam explosions as water came into contact with the molten metal, and, yet, none of this took place … so, whatever was causing the high recorded temperatures must be due to something else beside molten metal.

The high temperature readings for Ground Zero persisted for months. What was causing them?
If the three buildings had come down through a conventional progressive collapse brought about by the effects of fire, there would have been limited oxygen and combustibles in the pile to be able to generate the sort of high temperatures that were recorded five days after 9/11. Furthermore, remember, clean-up crews indicated that they found little, or no, office equipment or furnishings in the debris pile, and, more importantly, the debris piles were not only relatively small, they did not extend down into the sub-basements.

The foregoing considerations have led some to maintain that the reports of: molten steel, streams of molten metals, and high USGS temperature readings indicate the possibility of something like thermite or thermate being present at WTC.  This idea is given some credence when one factors in the research of people like Dr. Steven Jones and Mark Basile who have found evidence of nano-thermite in the dust samples that allegedly have been drawn from in and around the World Trade Center destruction, and the thermite idea is also given additional support when one learns that thermite reactions can proceed in the absence of oxygen.
Both the conventional pancake account of the WTC destruction, as well as the super-thermite (nano-thermite) explanation of that destruction, suffer from the same weaknesses. Whatever eye-witnesses claimed to have seen in relation to the possible presence of molten metals in the debris piles at the WTC, the physical evidence tends to run against such eye-witness reports.

If molten metal had been present in the debris pile – whether created by conventional burning of combustibles or due to the presence of thermite reactions -- fire hoses would have burned, and the feet of firefighters and cleanup crews would have burned, and people wading in the ‘lake’ on West Street would have been cooked alive, and their would have been numerous steam explosions as water came into contact with molten metal, and the hydraulic systems of grapplers would have ceased up, and the people inspecting holes leading into a sub-basement tower that, according to the USGS data, was more than a thousand degrees Fahrenheit, would have been severely burned. However, none of the foregoing incidents took place.
Whatever was causing the high temperature readings that were recorded by the USGS officials in relation to Ground Zero, the physical evidence at the WTC indicates that it was not molten metal that was generating the heat. Moreover, despite eyewitness testimony suggesting the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero, none of the physical evidence at the WTC supports such an interpretation of what was seen … in other words without denying that people saw something that they interpreted to be molten metal, the physical evidence at Ground Zero indicates that such an interpretation is not warranted.

Furthermore, just as one needs to raise questions about the plausibility of trying to claim that there were sufficient amounts of combustible elements (and oxygen) in the debris pile to fuel conventional fires for months (the fires weren’t completely put out until early in 2002), one must also raise a similar question in relation to the issue of super-thermite. More specifically, how much super-thermite, regular thermite and thermate would have had to have been present in the debris pile to be able to generate temperatures of hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit for months on end?
Super-thermitic, thermitic, and thermate reactions are all very rapid processes. Such materials would be consumed at a fairly high rate so one might suppose that the amount of thermitic material that would be necessary would have had to have been enormous.

I’ll leave the foregoing calculation as a homework exercise. However, the supporters of the controlled demolition/thermite hypothesis in relation to the cause of not only the destruction of three towers at Ground Zero but, as well, the continued high temperature readings at Ground Zero which were present for months following 9/11 will have to explain where so much thermite/thermate came from and how it got into the Twin Towers, and why there was very limited, if any, physical evidence at Ground Zero suggesting the presence of such large quantities of thermite or super-thermite or thermate following the fall of the three towers at the WTC (that is, as pointed out earlier, there should have been certain kinds of injuries and problems that would have arisen at Ground Zero if molten metals had been present, but none of these problems were in evidence).
There are a number of other factors that should be mentioned in conjunction with events at the WTC that cannot necessarily be explained by either a conventional, progressive collapse approach to the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, nor can such data necessarily be explained by a thermite/controlled demolition approach to such destruction. For example, many people reported hearing explosions on 9/11 in and around Ground Zero prior to any of the buildings coming down, and the proponents of controlled demolition maintain that such explosions demonstrate the existence of the sort of sequential explosions that take place in conjunction with controlled demolition.

Dr. Wood states that not everything that explodes is the result of explosives. For instance, many of the Scott packs, or oxygen containers, used by the first responders were exploding while sitting on the fire trucks at street level. In addition, when Building 2 was being destroyed, a number of eyewitnesses reported that cars which were parked several blocks from Ground Zero were bursting into flames due to some form of spontaneous combustion or explosion … that is, they had not been hit with any kind of debris.
The issue of cars that inexplicably burst into flames or exploded leads to another issue. There were more than 1400 cars that were a number of blocks – down under FDR Drive near the East River -- from Ground Zero and which had to be towed away because of the damage to those vehicles – but the damage was not from falling debris.

Dr. Wood uses the term: ‘toasted’, to refer to those damaged cars … toasted in the sense of being inoperable and not functional. These cars exhibited a variety of anomalies.
Many of them were missing engine blocks and door handles. In some cases, half the car’s exterior enamel somehow had been removed even as the rest of the car had a shiny enamel finish. Most of the vehicles were rusting even though whatever had happened to them had just happened to them. Some of the cars were flipped upside down while other cars immediately adjacent might have been untouched and undamaged. The windows on some of the cars did not appear to have burst as might happen with car fires but, instead, were missing – along with their frames -- from the vehicles altogether. Rubber down to the belts would be missing from some tires but not others.

A conventional, progressive collapse cannot account for the foregoing sorts of damage. A theory based on controlled demolition and thermite cannot adequately explain the foregoing kinds of anomalies either. 
For example, due to the phenomenon of heat conduction, if a car has been burning, one won’t find areas of that car which are completely burned over to a precise line of demarcation, and, then, all of a sudden, have another point one nanometer over from that line which is in pristine condition. If the cars burned as a result of falling debris from a conventional, progressive collapse or burned from nano-particles of thermite that, somehow, were ignited in relation to cars that the nano-thermite had fallen on, one would not have observed the foregoing sudden transition in effect from one point to the next … heat conduction wouldn’t permit this to occur.

Dr Wood also found it strange that although cars spontaneously burst into flames or were ‘toasted’ in the strange ways noted above, there was loose paper all about those cars that remained unburned. Cars burned, but paper near those cars did not burn.
Another anomaly that requires something beyond what a theory of conventional, progressive collapse or a theory of controlled demolition might be able to adequately explain concerns strange holes that were found in many of the remaining buildings at Ground Zero, as well as in and around grounds of the WTC. For example, Building 6 – an 8-storey structure -- has a huge, round hole in the center of the building – one couldn’t see it if one were walking by at ground level -- that goes from the roof right down to the bottom of the building and from which about 50% of the buildings mass has been removed, and, moreover, adjacent to where Building 2 used to be, there was a big hole in Liberty Street that appeared to be about 60 feet deep – and, yet, neither the hole in Building 6, nor the hole in Liberty Street, ever contained any debris that would have created that sort of a hole.

These holes – and Dr. wood notes that there were many of them all around Ground Zero – are about 24 feet in diameter. In fact, the circular hole in Building 6 appears to have been created through a conglomeration of a number of the those sorts of holes.
The aforementioned holes were not created by falling debris because there is no debris in them. They are just circular holes of a somewhat uniform size. So, what caused them?

Early in my own investigations into 9/11 – and, prior to even learning about Dr. Wood’s research – I remember seeing a video clip of a portion of the North Tower that still remained standing after the rest of the structure had collapsed. Building 7 appears in the foreground of the video.
Building 7 is 47-stories tall. The massive core columns of the North Tower that are being focused on in the video clip stand about 15 stories, or so, above Building 7.

At the beginning of the video, a number of core columns are shown as a freestanding structure. These columns stood for roughly 20 seconds to half a minute before anything began to happen.
In other words, those columns appear to be quite rigid, and, therefore, are, presumably, still sufficiently strong to be able to stand so straight. If the several columns were flexible due to being exposed to some sort of heating or melting process, the columns would not have been so straight under the weight of those 60-stories worth of steel.

Within about 20-30 seconds of the start of the video clip, the columns move slightly and, then, before your eyes, turn to dust. They disintegrate. 
The columns don’t bend over or rotate as they disappear before one’s eyes. The mammoth columns (and it is easy to forget just how huge these columns are when being videoed from a distance) just turn to dust and fall to the ground. Dr. Wood refers to this phenomenon as “dustification”.

How does one go from straight, rigid and strong at one moment to being disintegrated into dust at the next moment? Neither a scenario of a conventional, progressive collapse nor a theory involving thermite-based controlled demolition will account for what happened to the “spire” -- as it has been dubbed – in the video clip to which I am alluding.
Another building at Ground Zero that Dr. Wood finds interesting is Building 3, a 22-storey structure.  Most of the building is missing from the same sort of vertical, cylindrical holes previously mentioned with respect to Building 6, but what she finds to be of even more interest is that there is no debris pile to speak of associated with Building 3 … it is pretty much at ground level but little of the 22-storey structure is to be found.

One finds similar sorts of anomalies in the case of Building 4, a nine-storey structure. The main perimeter of this building was close to Tower 2. However, only the north wing of Building 4 remains standing, while the rest of the building is completely missing 
It is almost as if the main portion of Building 4 had been surgically removed from the rest of the structure. The mass is just missing.

A conventional, progressive collapse cannot lead to this. A thermite-based controlled demolition cannot produce this …  and “this” refers to the relative absence of a debris pile.
Another anomaly entailed by 9/11 has to do with the individuals who died at the World Trade Center on that day. Of the nearly 3,000 people who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, there were approximately 1100 bodies that were never recovered – not even in trace amounts.

If a building came down through a conventional, progressive collapse or if it came down through a thermite-based controlled demolition, one would expect to be able to locate all of the bodies. To be sure, the bodies would have been subjected to all manner of forces during such a tragedy, but those bodies still would have survived in whole or in part … even if they suffered severe burns.
Cremating a body and reducing it to dust requires a body to be exposed to a heat of about 3000° Fahrenheit for more than three hours. Where are the 1100 missing bodies?

Another anomaly connected to the WTC victims is that some of those people jumped from the Towers – apparently feeling that jumping was a better option than whatever was taking place in the towers. Difficult to explain, however, is the fact that the bodies of some of these people were found 3-400 feet from the building. How did they get that far from the buildings?
In addition, Dr. Wood indicates that she has pictures of a rather grisly and disturbing nature concerning the condition of some of these ‘jumpers’, and, so, she has kept such photographs off of her web site. However, Dr. Wood indicates that the condition of these bodies is difficult to explain.

There have been stories of people whose parachute did not work and who hit the ground at a high rate of speed. Some of these people even survived, but in the case of those who did not survive, their bodies were still intact … although, obviously, possessing a great many internal injuries.
Similarly, if one is driving along at 80 miles per hour and strikes a deer, the deer will die from the numerous injuries caused by the impact. Nonetheless, the body of the deer remains intact.

This was not the case for some of the ‘jumping’ victims on 9/11. The least grisly thing one can say is that some of their bodies were like a puzzle of pieces that had to be reassembled to be able to yield a recognizable human being.
Another anomaly of 9/11 at the World Trade Center involves the presence of the phenomenon of ‘fuming’. This is a generic term Dr. Wood has coined to refer to the mists, vapors or fumes that were seen to arise from various parts of the area of Ground Zero.

The fumes are not connected with fires. People are seen walking in and around the fumes, and they do not get burned.
More puzzling still is that the fumes disappeared for a time after being watered, and, then, began to rise again once the watering ceased. This is quite different from what happens when one waters materials that are burning – that is, burning materials  tend to send up smoke when they are watered and stop doing so when they are not watered.

The fumes do not seem to rise up like smoke. Rather, they appear to just hover over the area that is fuming, and Dr. Wood believes this aspect of hovering or looming is an indication that some sort of reaction is still taking place.
Possibly connected to the ‘hovering/reactive’ quality of the fumes is the way those fumes have persisted for many years from various parts of Ground Zero. For example, there are portions of the area on which Building 4 stood that have continued to fume for more than seven years following 9/11.

When Dr. Wood visited Ground Zero in January 2008 she saw a rather strange, repetitive process being carried out by clean up crews. Dirt would be scooped up and removed from an area of Ground Zero. New dirt would be brought in to replace the old dirt. Then, the whole process would be repeated again … many times.
She also notes how at the time this was all going on people in Hazmat suits were directing traffic in and around the area. Perhaps, the reason for the Hazmat suits was because oftentimes when the grapplers dug into the old dirt to remove it, a white powdery ‘something’ would wisp up into the air.

The foregoing fuming issue might, or might not, be connected to some of the problems that have been encountered in the re-building of the Banker’s Trust structure that stands just across from where Building 2 once resided. The Banker’s Trust Building had a substantial gash – of unknown origins -- in its front side as a result of something that happened on 9/11. In addition, there was a beam in the damaged portion of the Banker’s Trust Building that was strangely shriveled up and one wonders how that occurred.
In time, the gash and other damage were repaired. Oddly, however, the construction crews had to dismantle the repairs and start again.

During the second reconstruction project, the contractors for the job had to remove several floors in order to gain access to what appeared to be the source of their problems. Apparently, part of the steel had been turned into iron, because there was a rust-like residue on the beams. In addition, there was a considerable amount of degradation in the problematic steel beams … a process of degradation that seems to be continuing to take place … just like the fuming process.

The rusted beams in the Banker’s Trust Building are reminiscent of many of the beams that were left over in some of the debris piles at Ground Zero after 9/11. The term that Dr. Wood uses in reference to the rust coating that was on those beams is “furry rust” because it looks like a sort of furry, orange colored coating has been applied to the beams.
One of the reasons for using steel in construction rather than iron is because steel is rust-resistant. Yet, within hours, if not days, of 9/11, many of the steel beams in the debris piles at Ground Zero gave showed substantial signs of rust.

Steel consists of 99% iron with 1% other additives such as carbon and a few additional smidgens of ingredients to help make the iron stronger and rust-resistant. Apparently, on 9/11 something took place that permitted the bonding between iron and the ingredients that permit iron become steel to dissociate in some fashion, thereby allowing the iron to rust … but at a highly accelerated rate.
The conventional progressive collapse of a building will not cause such rusting to occur, nor will it cause the fuming process noted by Dr. Wood. The use of thermite-based controlled demolition will not lead to rapid rusting, nor will it bring about a fuming phenomenon that will last across many years.

Neither conventional, progressive collapses nor thermite-based controlled demolitions can account for the phenomena of: ‘dustification’, ‘fuming’, ‘furry rust’, or ‘toasted vehicles’ that have been documented by Dr. Wood in relation to Ground Zero. Neither conventional, progressive collapses nor thermite–based controlled demolitions can account for the following facts: (1) the debris piles for Buildings 1, 2 and 7 are far too small and cannot be reconciled with the size of the structures through which those piles arose; (2) the degree to which 220 stories of concrete and office equipment from the Twin Towers were pulverized and reduced to dust; (3) the length of the seismic recording for the South Tower suggests that materials came down faster than free-fall speed; (4) the size of the seismic recording for Building 7 was almost indistinguishable from background noise; the destruction of Building 7 was “whisper quiet”; (5) the relatively fragile ‘bathtub’ foundation structure beneath the WTC was not damaged when the  Twin Towers came down; (6) many of the stores in the concourse beneath the World Trade Center, as well as the Path train and tunnels beneath the WTC were not damaged as one would have anticipated when 2, 500,000 ton structures supposedly crashed down on them; (7) the bodies of 1100 victims at the WTC were never recovered; (8) the Earth’s magnetic filed abruptly shifted five times on 9/11 in precise synchronicity with five events at the WTC (the creation of two holes in the Twin Towers and the destruction of Buildings 1, 2, and 7); (9) while researchers for the United States Geological Survey organization were getting temperature readings of more than a thousand degrees Fahrenheit for a number of locations within the WTC following the events of 9/11, no physical evidence was ever found at the WTC that could plausibly account for such high temperatures or why they persisted for many weeks; (10) dirt was routinely removed and brought in at Ground Zero – and one might keep in mind that dirt is often used in processes of de-contamination; (11) Scott packs (oxygen tank apparatus) and cars were seen to explode inexplicably – that is, without being touched by any falling debris; (12) the faster than free fall destruction of the Twin Towers; and, finally, (13) the strange, roughly 24-foot diameter holes that populated many of the buildings and the ground in and around the World Trade Center.

There were other 9/11-anomalies that cannot be explained by either a theory of conventional, progressive collapse or thermite-based controlled demolitions in relation to the buildings of the WTC. For example, from 9/11 onward there were electrical outages ranging over a fairly extensive area in New York City that took more than three months to repair. Furthermore, despite a constant hosing down of the WTC area and notwithstanding the occurrence of a number of substantial rainstorms in Manhattan, fires persisted for, approximately, 100 days.
If neither conventional, fire-induced progressive collapses nor thermite-based controlled demolitions can plausibly and credibly account for any of the foregoing issues, what can? Judy Wood has a few ideas in this respect.

Dr. Wood is a strong proponent of a methodological principle called: Listening to the evidence. She believes that if one will listen to what the evidence is saying – rather than try to force the data into preconceived theoretical categories -- the evidence, itself, will point one in the right direction to be able to work toward an understanding of how that evidence came to have the characteristics it does.
One of the first things that caught her attention in relation to 9/11 was what happened in conjunction with the demise of the South Tower – the first building to be destroyed on 9/11. The top 20-stories of the building began to fall sideways and rotate eastward relative to the rest of the building, and, then, all of a sudden was lost in a tremendous cloud of pulverized material.

Examining the photographs and videos of this part of the demise of the South Tower, Dr. Wood said that what she was seeing reminded her of what happens when water turns to steam and expands in volume by some 1600 percent. The tons of material in the falling, rotating, exploding top 20, or so, floors of the building seemed to be transitioning into molecules that were repelling one another.
What she was seeing was not like a conventional form of explosion. There was no sound associated with what was taking place in that rapidly expanding cloud of dustified material.

The cloud that had replaced the top portion of the South Tower was rapidly increasing in volume as steam does when water is transitioned into a gaseous vapor. This is not what happens in the case of either a progressive collapse or a controlled demolition, for although dust would – to a degree -- be generated in both of the latter instances, the creation of dust in such cases would not remotely approach what Dr. Wood – and millions of others – were witnessing in conjunction with the initial phases of destruction of the South Tower.
Dr. Wood started to look for a force that might be able to bring about what she had witnessed in relation to the destruction of the top portion of the South Tower. Her research led her first to the Casimir Effect or, as it sometimes is known, the Casimir-Polder Force. Hendrick B.G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed the idea of such a force in 1948 while working at the Phillips Research Labs and, subsequently, the existence of the force was experimentally verified.

The Casimir-Polder Force occurs when one places two, uncharged metal plates a few millimeters apart within a vacuum that is devoid of an electromagnetic field. Under such circumstances and from the perspective of classical physics, one would not expect to see any electromagnetic field created between the two plates, and, yet such a field is observed.
There are different theories about why and how the electromagnetic field arises under the foregoing conditions. Some people talk about the exchange of virtual particles and some people talk in terms of the zero-point energy that is believed to exist in a vacuum.

The net charge observed in the Casimir-Polder Force can be either positive or negative. Which it is depends on how the two plates are juxtaposed in relation to one another.
The force has the capacity to both propel objects and levitate them. The propulsive possibility inherent in the Casimir-Polder Force reminded Dr. Wood of how what she calls “wheatchexs” – the sections of aluminum cladding that cover steel-assemblies that make up the exterior structure of the Twin Towers – seemed to be coming down – at least some of them appeared to be doing this -- at rates that were faster than free fall speeds. If whatever was causing the dustification of the top portion of the South Tower was also generating an explosive increase in the volume of the materials being dustified, then, this might explain why some of the “wheatchexs” appeared to be coming down at faster than free fall speeds … something that neither conventional collapses nor controlled demolition collapses can explain.

The Casimir-Polder Force was not the final stop for Dr. Wood in her journey to try to understand what had happened to the buildings in the World Trade Center. It was only the first way station of a longer journey.
Eventually, she came in contact with the work of a Canadian researcher by the name of John Hutchison. Hutchison had been following up on the work of the Serbian scientist, Nikola Tesla, who had been exploring the many phenomena that are linked to electromagnetic fields during the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries.

Among other things, Tesla introduced alternating current technology to the world. However, the research of Tesla went far beyond such technology, and at a certain point Tesla was working to generate a wireless transmission of energy but backed away from that work due to his fears that it would become hijacked by individuals who might use it for destructive rather than constructive purposes.
Among the things that John Hutchison had discovered is that one can use different kinds of electromagnetic energy fields to interfere with one another in specific or directed ways. In essence, the Hutchison Effect – as it has come to be called – is what occurs when different kinds of electromagnetic fields are brought in contact with one another in ways that create interference patters in those fields.

John Hutchison had produced various effects in the lab by using, first, a Tesla Coil and, then, a Van de Graaff generator. These devices generated electromagnetic fields that could be directed to interfere with one another, and during the process of interference, some rather astonishing phenomena arose.
Dr. Wood discovered that many of the anomalies associated with 9/11 were capable of being reproduced in the lab and John Hutchison – working without 9/11 in mind – already had accomplished such things. The only difference was in the scale of the two sets of phenomena … in other words John Hutchison was producing in his lab many of the kinds of phenomena on a small scale that had been observed on a much larger scale on 9/11.

The Hutchison Effect was capable of generating a wide array of results. Metal bars made of steel, copper, molybdenum, or aluminum could be twisted, jellified, or riddled with Swiss-cheese-like holes … something that reminds one of some of the beams found at the WTC after 9/11 and reported by on by the researchers at WPI that were mentioned toward the beginning of this post. Such metals could be made to glow (that is exhibit luminescence) without being hot to the touch … an effect which might account for why so many people believed they had seen molten metal at Ground Zero and, yet, there were no correlative physical effects to be found indicating the presence of such molten metals. Such metals could be disintegrated – something that may reflect the extensive dustification that occurred on 9/11, as well as the fact that the debris piles for the destroyed buildings was much smaller than one might have predicted, as well as the fact that the bodies of 1100 victims were never found at the WTC. Such metals could be levitated and flipped about … something that might explain the flipped cars that were found at various locations – some quite a few blocks from the WTC -- on 9/11.
In addition to the similarities noted above between phenomena observed on 9/11 and what John Hutchison could produce in the lab, the Hutchison Effect might also explain why Scott Packs were exploding on 9/11 for no apparent reason. More specifically, if a container is subjected to a set of interfering electromagnetic fields in the right way, the metal in the container will disintegrate and at a certain point will become thin enough to lose integrity and, as a result, lead to an explosion as the pressurized gas inside the container breaks through and is released.

The foregoing considerations also might explain why so many explosions were reported in the Twin Towers. There were hundreds of pressurized containers on numerous floors of the Twin Towers that contained water to be used in tandem with toilets that regulated the amount of water that would be released when such toilets were flushed, and if the metal of these pressurized tanks loss their integrity as a result of being subjected to interfering electromagnetic fields of the right sort, those containers would explode.
The Hutchison Effect might also account for why cars inexplicably caught fire or why there were electrical outages over an extensive area in New York City that took weeks to repair. Both of the foregoing effects might have given expression to some sort of electromagnetic pulse phenomena that caused the electrical systems of cars to explode and catch fire or caused the power to go out for such an extensive time and area in various parts of New York City.

Dr. Wood refers to what John Hutchison has done in the lab as a “proof of concept”. In other words, by being able to use electromagnetic fields to interfere with one another in a directed fashion and, thereby, produce many, if not all, of the sorts of anomalies that were observed in New York on 9/11, John Hutchison had demonstrated or proven that the concept of a ‘directed energy weapon’ is not only feasible but realizable.
Many critics of Dr. Wood’s research have wanted her to specify exactly how what was done on 9/11 was brought about. They want her to specify the precise nature of the ‘weapon’ and who manufactured it and where it was positioned on 9/11. Those critics want her to produce the calculations that indicate how much energy would be required to operate such a weapon and bring about such effects.

Dr. Wood doesn’t have an answer to those questions … yet. However, in many ways, she doesn’t need to provide answers at the present time to those questions because the ‘proof of concept’ idea indicates that, in principle, the technological understanding already exists (in the person and work of individuals such as John Hutchinson) to be able to generate in the lab the same kinds of effects that were observed on 9/11.
More importantly, Dr. Wood points to something that is readily apparent when one actually listens to the physical evidence. Theories involving conventional, fire-induced progressive collapses and/or thermite-based controlled demolitions cannot explain any of the anomalies that have been noted by Dr. Wood’s careful observation of the physical data entailed by the events of 9/11 in New York City. Yet, nonetheless, the three buildings of the World Trade Center came down in ways that cannot be explained by those who champion either the official government conspiracy theory (which is based on, among other things, the idea of conventional fire-induced progressive collapses) or the anti-official government conspiracy theory (which is based on, among other things, the idea of thermite-based controlled demolition scenarios).

In other words, irrespective of whether, or not, one can explain the precise nature of the weapon used to bring about the destruction of the World Trade Center, the fact of the destruction is undeniable. Moreover, the character of that destruction cannot be explained by either the idea of conventional progressive collapses or the idea of thermite-based controlled demolitions.
Dr. Wood notes that on 9/11, three buildings at the WTC didn’t collapse. Much of the material of, and in, those buildings simply disappeared.

She believes that the molecular basis of matter in those buildings was disrupted. The relationship of molecules to one another in the buildings was profoundly altered and accompanied by an incredible release of energy that did not manifest itself in conventional ways, but, instead, the energy release was manifested in the form of the many anomalies (e.g., dustification, fuming, toasting, rusting, tortured metals, explosions, 24-foot diameter holes, spontaneous fires, problematically-sized debris piles, puzzling seismic readings, abrupt shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field, and so on) that have been noted by Dr. Wood in conjunction with the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.
Dr. Wood doesn’t necessarily claim that what went on at the WTC on 9/11 is the Hutchison Effect in action. However, she does believe that the underlying physics is essentially the same.

John Hutchison produced his effects with Tesla Coils, Van de Graaff generators, and microwaves. There are many other facets of the electromagnetic spectrum that could be used to produce similar, and/or more intense, results by directing those energy fields to interfere with one another in certain ways and under certain conditions.


Dr. Wood notes another anomaly that is associated with 9/11. This anomaly may, or may not, have anything to do with what transpired on 9/11, but the anomaly is so anomalous that, at least in passing, it should be mentioned.
Not many people realize that on 9/11, there was a hurricane – Erin -- parked off the coast of New York City. For a time, as it headed up the east coast, it was classified as a Category 3 hurricane, but by the time it reached the New York area it had been downgraded to a Category 1 hurricane as it began to spread out and lose some of the energy associated with a tighter spinning low-pressure area.

However, it was still a potentially dangerous storm. The outer bands of the hurricane extended from the tip of Long Island on the West side, to Cape Cod on the East side and down as far as off the coast of Washington, D.C. on the south side. 
The overall size of the hurricane was approximately 500 miles in diameter. It was about as large as Katrina.

Although there was a high-pressure area coming in from the Mid-west that likely would prevent Hurricane Erin from coming ashore, there should have been considerable uncertainty about whether, or not, the hurricane might be kept relatively stationary for a period of time. If this were to occur, it would create storm surges along the New York, New Jersey coastal areas that could bring about substantial flooding., destruction, and, possibly, death.
Yet, no storm warnings, surge warnings, or flood warnings were given on 9/11 for the New York or New Jersey coastal areas. In fact, Dr. Wood indicates that not only did she check all of the weather reports for the major, local New York stations prior to the events of 9/11 and found that not one of those stations made any mention of Hurricane Erin, but, as well, she contacted the Meteorological Weather Service and was told that there had been no hurricane off New York City on 9/11 … despite the existence of satellite imagery for that day depicting the presence of such a hurricane.

Hurricane Erin had been tracked and talked about on radio and television as it traveled up the east coast. Meteorologists had been expressing concern about the possibility of storm surges all along the Virginia coastline.
Inexplicably, however, the storm suddenly dropped off the radar of public awareness. In fact, one didn’t hear about the storm again until it reached an area near Nova Scotia.

The fact that the existence of the storm off the coast of New York, together with its very real potential for generating dangerous storm surges in New York and New Jersey coastal waters (and remember, JFK airport is at sea level as is much of Manhattan) was not reported in the local media weather reports is, in and of itself, strange. However, the anomalous character of Hurricane Erin may be enhanced when one realizes that there are electromagnetic fields associated with hurricanes.
People’s memory of 9/11 is of a bright, sunny day. However, all three airports in and around New York City (LaGuardia, JFK and Newark) reported thunder on the morning of 9/11.

Thunder and lightning are field effects that often occur ahead of a storm or beyond the perimeter of such a storm. In addition, there are many kinds of field effects that take place within the hurricane itself.
Hurricane Erin didn’t have to be hovering over New York City for its electromagnetic field to be able to have an impact. The hurricane only had to be sufficiently close to New York City for the storm’s field effects to be felt in that location.

Is it possible that the electromagnetic field energy associated with Hurricane Erin was interfered with in some manner on 9/11 by some other source(s) of directed electromagnetic field(s)? Dr. Wood doesn’t know, but the anomalous character of the circumstances surrounding that storm does raise some questions … especially when those anomalous circumstances are linked to the issue of the Hutchison Effect and the odd phenomena that can be produced when electromagnetic fields are induced to interfere with one another.

On January 10th,  2007 an interview took place at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The interview was sort of a rogue operation because the National Press Club had not sanctioned it.
The person conducting the interview was Dr. Greg Jenkins, a physicist. The person being interviewed was Dr. Judy Wood.

The time of the interview was quite late – midnightish or after. It occurred following a number of talks, together with ensuing discussion, that had transpired in relation to the issue of 9/11 and some of Dr. Wood’s work in that matter. 
Dr. Jenkins asked Dr. Wood if she would be willing to answer a few questions. Dr. Wood consented.

The interview began in a seemingly very friendly manner. Dr. Jenkins welcomes Dr. Wood on behalf of what he describes as the ‘rag-tag group’ of people that constitutes D.C. 9/11 Truth. 
After some introductory remarks, Dr. Jenkins launches into some questions concerning the types of weapons that might have been used in conjunction with the destruction of the World Trade Center. He wants to know the form of the weapons that Dr. Wood believes were used on 9/11.

Dr. Wood replies with words to the effect that she doesn’t feel questions about the form of the weapon is the best place at which to start. She believes one should start by taking a look at the evidence.
She continues on by saying that everyone has been given a story about 9/11 with respect to things like eyewitness accounts involving molten metal at the World Trade Center. She feels that people should leave the rumor mill behind and start looking for actual evidence of things.

Dr. Jenkins raises the issue of ‘dustification’ and mentions the vaporization of metals. He asks Dr. Wood if she has done any sort of measurements to determine the scale of energy that might be necessary to turn metal into dust. 
Dr. Wood suggests that at this point in time such questions are more of a distraction than something of a constructive nature. Moreover, she rhetorically asks: When one looks at the debris piles at the World Trade Center, is there any question that the buildings have been pulverized?

The implication of her question is that irrespective of whether, or not, we know what the precise character of the weapon is that brought about such devastation, the very fact of the extensive degree of pulverization that took place on 9/11 in conjunction with the WTC is something that exists and cannot be explained through the ideas of either conventional fire-induced progressive collapses or thermite-based controlled demolition. Therefore, we need to search for some other form of explanation.
Dr. Jenkins returns to the question concerning the energy scale that would be needed to accomplish what Dr. Wood is suggesting. He wants to know whether, or not, there is anything that has been done in laboratories that shows that steel could be turned into dust.

One is only a few minutes into the interview, but there seem to be several questions that are hovering in the air. First, one wonders if Dr. Jenkins actually is listening to what Dr. Wood is saying. Second, one wonders if – despite his doctorate in physics -- Dr. Jenkins actually knows how to do science.
Dr. Jenkins is trying to get Dr. Wood to specify the weapons system that was used on 9/11. He also wants her to commit to particular figures with respect to the scale of energy that would be necessary to operate such a weapon.

Dr. Wood is indicating to Dr. Jenkins that those sorts of questions are premature. First, one needs to begin collecting data, and one of the most basic pieces of information one runs into if one actually looks at the evidence at the World Trade Center is that there are a number of issues – such as the extensive nature of pulverization present at the WTC – which cannot be explained by theories of: fire-induced progressive collapses or thermite-based controlled demolitions.
Following a discussion of the principles underlying microwaves, Dr. Jenkins comes back to his initial concern – namely, he doesn’t know of any way to ‘dustify’ steel. The implication of his assertion is that unless Dr. Wood can answer his questions in the way he wants, then he is disinclined – and, by implication, everyone who watches the interview should be so disinclined -- to accept what she is saying.

Dr. Jenkins has missed the implicit question that is being directed to him by the things that Dr. Wood has said to this point in the interview. More specifically, if you start by looking at evidence -- and part of the evidence entails the massive degree of pulverization that is evident in relation to the buildings at the WTC – how does one explain the existence of that evidence … evidence that is inconsistent with either a fire-induced progressive collapse theory or a thermite-based controlled demolition theory?
Moreover, Dr. Jenkins is committing a basic mistake with respect to science. He is letting his ignorance get in the way of doing research.

Because he knows of no way to reduce metal to dust, he wishes to deny the actual evidence of 9/11. The evidence at the WTC is telling anyone who cares to look at it that somehow metal has been turned to dust because, among other things, the buildings have, in fact, been largely reduced to dust with only 12 or 13 stories of actual structural components making up the rubble piles for more than 220 stories worth of materials – both structural and office equipment/furnishings.
Dr. Wood stipulates that there is an order to doing science. First, one must begin with what happened, and, then, one proceeds on to questions about how the ‘what’ was done and, finally, one addresses who might have done that ‘what’.

She points out that determining what happened doesn’t depend on how one understands the world. If all one has in one’s arsenal of knowledge are ideas about slingshots, bee-bee guns and firecrackers and, as a result, one claims that one doesn’t understand how any of these ‘weapons’ could have brought about the destruction of 9/11, one is letting one’s preconceived ideas about how the world operates dictate the nature of one’s research … this is not how science works.
At this point, Dr. Jenkins wants to raise some questions about an analysis appearing on Dr. Wood’s web site that compared what happened at the Kingdome, when it was brought down by controlled demolition, and what happened at the WTC. His question is related to the height of the debris piles in each case.

Dr. Wood indicates that the part of her web site to which he is referring is still under construction. She further adds that she hasn’t taken a look at those figures recently so she is not intimately familiar with them.
Dr. Jenkins says: “Fair enough.” Then, despite having said this, he again wants to ask questions about the part of her web site dealing with the Kingdom … as if he wasn’t being sincere in what he said and as if he hadn’t really been listening to what she said to him about the matter.

Dr. Wood indicates that she hasn’t double- or triple-checked her calculations. She was more interested in general trends and that the trends indicate that the debris pile associated with the Kingdome are greater in size than the debris piles associated with the Twin Towers even though the Kingdome was a much smaller building than either of the two towers.
Dr. Jenkins contends that neither of the twin towers came down in their own footprint. He claims that the buildings collapsed in an area with a radius that was approximately six times their footprints.

Dr. Wood questions the six times their footprint assertion. She, then, remarks that a more realistic figure might be to talk about an area with a radius of 1,000,000 times either of the Twin Towers’ footprint due to the ultrafine dust that wafted up into the upper atmosphere.
Dr. Jenkins responds by saying that United States Geological Survey people had sampled the dust. He said that, on average, the dust sampled was 70 microns, and, therefore, not all that small.

Dr. Wood asked him if they had sampled the dust in the upper atmosphere. Dr. Jenkins replies by indicating that he didn’t see any dust going up into the upper atmosphere.
There are several issues that arise in conjunction with the foregoing exchange. First, when Dr. Jenkins is asked about where the dust samples were collected and where they collected in the upper atmosphere, Dr. Jenkins deflects and doesn’t answer the question being asked but makes a comment about how he didn’t see any dust going into the upper atmosphere.

Secondly, if the dust that is being alluded to by Dr. Wood were ultrafine, Dr. Jenkins wouldn’t have been able to see it. Moreover, even if the dust had been 70 microns in size, Dr. Jenkins still wouldn’t have been able to see it with his eyes. 
Why has Dr. Jenkins suddenly made his eyes the instrument of choice when it comes to looking for ultrafine dust? Part of doing good science is choosing the right instrument for gathering evidence, and when it comes to ultrafine dust or even dust that is 70 microns in size, the unaided human eye is not the appropriate instrument to use.

In addition, the issue of: Where dust samples were taken from, is an important theme. If the dust to which Dr. Wood is alluding is in the upper atmosphere and if the dust samples that were collected were taken at various locations in lower Manhattan, then the latter samples might have absolutely nothing of relevance to say about the character of the dust to be found in the upper atmosphere – especially since anything that is found at, or near, ground level is likely to be far coarser in size than is dust that is light enough to be carried into the upper atmosphere.
At this point of the interview, Dr. Jenkins provides a picture of one of the towers. He makes a reference to the smoke that is coming from the building, and indicates that the smoke is coming from the fires in the building.

Again, Dr. Jenkins has committed a mistake. He is assuming that he knows what he is looking at. He believes that the ‘smoke’ to which he is referring is nothing but smoke from a fire … even though he has not analyzed that smoke to determine what is in the rising cloud.
Is it possible that within the ‘smoke’ are ultrafine dust particles of disintegrated steel? Dr. Jenkins implies that the answer is ‘no’ because he has identified the rising cloud as being nothing more than smoke from a fire even though he has no empirical data to back up his assertion.

Dr. Wood points to a section of the building depicted in the photograph that is around the 50th floor. She says the fire was supposed to be around the 80th floor, so she asks him about the nature of the stuff that is rising into the air from near the 50th floor.
Dr. Jenkins wants to return to the issue about the debris pile. Dr. Wood counters by pointing out that since the current part of the discussion is not serving his interests, he wants to change the subject.

Dr. Wood indicates that Dr. Jenkins had been arguing that all the dust from the buildings came down. Now, when he is confronted with evidence indicating that something other than smoke from a fire may be rising into the atmosphere, he wants to change the subject.
She also points out that the tower in the photograph provided by Dr. Jenkins seems to show that much of the area of the building above the 50th floor is gone. She draws attention to the snowball-like cloud that is above the 50th floor and indicates that the size of the cloud is not big enough to account for the volume of the rest of the building that is missing, and Dr. Wood asks him to explain where the missing mass went.

Dr. Jenkins says that he sees debris falling in the photograph. By saying this, Dr. Jenkins appears to be missing the point being made by Dr. Wood.
The issue is not whether there is debris in the picture that can be seen falling to the ground. The issue is how much debris is falling.

Dr. Jenkins claims that he can’t understand how Dr. Wood fails to see any debris falling in the photograph he is showing. Dr. Wood indicates that she is not saying there is no debris falling in the photograph, and at one point in the exchange, Dr. Wood makes a rather sarcastic remark about how some people may have had some pennies on their windowsill that fell to the ground, but whatever fell down did not constitute a significant amount of material.
There seems to be some sort of disconnect in Dr. Jenkins’ thinking. He keeps talking about debris in the photograph and making comments about how he can’t understand how she can’t see falling debris in the picture while the point being made by Dr. Wood is that whatever debris came down is insignificant compared to what should have come down but didn’t. The photograph being discussed indicates that over half of the building is gone, but the volume of the cloud above the 50th floor is not sufficiently large to account for the missing mass … so where did the rest of the building go?

Dr. Jenkins goes on to argue that if one were to melt all the steel in a 110-story building down into its footprint, one would end up with a slab that was six feet tall that covered the building’s dimensions. He further stipulates that if you melted all the concrete and office furnishings down, the resulting pile would not add much to the initial pile of melted steel.
The implication of the argument is that one shouldn’t expect a very big debris pile. After all, he is alluding to a mathematical way of calculating dimensions that demonstrates how 110-stories of structural steel, concrete, fixtures, elevators, and office furnishings could be melted down to a slab that was slightly more than six feet tall distributed across the cross-sectional footprint of the building.

In several respects, the foregoing ‘observation’ is rather a dumb argument to make. To begin with, the issue being discussed was in relation to a photograph that had been supplied by Dr. Jenkins. Dr. Wood raised a question concerning the photograph: Whatever falling debris was depicted in the picture, it, together with the volume of the snow-ball cloud above the 50th floor, was not sufficient to account for the mass and volume of the 110-storey structure that was being destroyed, so, where did the rest of the building go?

Therefore, the issue was not whether there was a way of mathematically calculating things that would permit one to reduce 110-stories of structural materials and building contents down to a pile six feet high, spread out over several hundred feet. The issue was what had happened to the upper half-to-two-thirds of the building as the structure was being destroyed since the amount of falling debris and volume of the explosive cloud above the 50th floor (i.e., the so-called ‘snowball’) was not nearly large enough to accommodate the quantity of material that should have been in evidence at that time.
Earlier in the discussion, Dr. Wood has asked Dr. Jenkins -- in relation to the photograph being discussed -- if he was trying to claim that over half of the building had burned up in 5 or 6 seconds. Dr. Jenkins stipulated that he wasn’t trying to say that.

Well, if he wasn’t trying to say that over half the building had burned up in 5, or so, seconds (the time which expired while this portion of the building went missing in action), then where did the missing part of the building go? And, more importantly, what did his comment about having a mathematical way of reducing 110-stories down to a relatively small slab of melted materials have to do with the question that Dr. Wood was asking?
The dumbness of the mathematical argument being put forward by Dr. Jenkins at this point is exacerbated by the fact that Dr. Jenkins has absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that any of the 110-stories melted -- along with the fixtures, office furnishings, elevators, and equipment – let alone all, or most, of them. So, why is he talking about such things?

He does so because he is trying to counter the point being made by Dr. Wood that the debris pile for the Twin Towers is far, far, far smaller than what one would expect if two, 110-storey buildings came down through either a fire-induced progressive collapse or a thermite-based controlled demolition. The small size of those piles raises some rather critical questions about the nature of the process that would have been able to make much of the mass of those two buildings disappear.
At one point during the interview, Dr. Wood asks Dr. Jenkins whether, or not, his questions are sincerely motivated. At another juncture, she comments that what is going on between the two of them is not productive or educational.

On each occasion, Dr. Jenkins protests that he is being sincere and that he finds the discussion educational. Yet, it seems fairly obvious that there is some sort of subtext to the discussion that is emanating from the side of Dr. Jenkins.
As I watched the interview, a line from a movie kept going through my head. The movie is: ‘The Shawshank Redemption”, and the line actually is a question that the Tim Robbins character, Andy Dufresne, asks the Bob Gunton character, Warden Samuel Norton. Andy asks the warden: “How can you be so obtuse.”

The foregoing question echoed in my mind as I witnessed Dr. Jenkins proceed to exhibit various degrees of obtuseness during his interview with Dr. Wood. Many of the questions he asked, and the comments he voiced, and the mistakes he committed, and the assumptions that he made at various points during the interview all had an aura of obtuseness about them … perhaps deliberately so.
In any event, the interview finally comes to an end. Dr. Wood leaves the set.

After Dr. Wood has departed, the camera stays on Dr. Jenkins. He says: “I was not protecting any interests. I was just trying to see what kind of scientific basis there was, and, ah, I think I found out” … and he shrugs his shoulders and raises his eyebrows as he does this.
I felt that keeping this portion of things in the final video product that was released on the Internet was highly unethical. I feel this way for several reasons.

First of all, I didn’t hear anyone ask Dr. Jenkins whether, or not, he was trying to protect any interests. However, even if someone from off-camera did ask him that question, the manner in which he responded was problematic.
Dr. Wood had no opportunity to respond to the manner in which he was trying to frame the interview for people who might, subsequently, view the interview. He was trying to imply that there was no scientific basis to what Dr. Wood was saying, and, yet, in my opinion, the only person who had conducted himself in a way that did not reflect good scientific practice during the interview was Dr. Jenkins.

Secondly, Dr. Wood had agreed to an impromptu interview at a late hour that was supposed to consist of only a few questions. Not only did the interview consist of more than just a few questions, but, as well, it was obvious that Dr. Jenkins was less interested in using the interview to provide Dr. Wood with an opportunity to talk about her views on various 9/11 issues than he was interested in using the interview to try to frame her position in a negative way … his body language, tone of voice, questions, comments, and attitude all indicated that the purpose of the interview was not intended to be constructive or educational.

In addition, throughout the interview, the lighting was done in such a way that Dr. Jenkins was always well lit but Dr. Wood was often lit up in shadowy, unflattering ways. The pervasiveness of this disparity of treatment either was a reflection of the lack of ability and considerateness of the videographer or it was deliberately done in an attempt to try to create a negative visual impression of Dr. Wood.
The latter possibility is actually lent some degree of credence when one notes what was done to the video in post-production. Following the interview footage, a section was added to the video that began with what purports to be a quote from Dr. Judy Wood about how some people may have had some pennies on their windowsill that fell to the ground in the way of debris.

Not only is the quote taken out of context, but, as well, it is not actually something that Dr. Wood said. Rather, it consists of an amalgamation of several things that she said and is made to look like it is one continuous quote.
After the quote, images of debris piles from the World Trade Center are shown in a sort of slide show. Accompanying the slides is someone singing the song: “Pennies from Heaven.”

Dr. Wood never said that there were no debris piles at Ground Zero. She said that the amount of debris piles that were present there does not reflect the quantity of debris that should have been present in relation to 2, 110-storey buildings filled with various kinds of material content – not to mention the other buildings at the World Trade Center that had their own debris to contribute to the piles at Ground Zero.
Furthermore, there is no indication in the photographic slideshow at the end of the video of when or where in the WTC grounds the photos were taken. There were debris piles from some of the other buildings in the WTC that were about as large as what had been left in relation to either of the Twin Towers, and, in addition, Dr. Wood has indicated that debris piles arising from the bottom 13- or 14-stories may have been largely unaffected by whatever helped destroy the Twin Towers and, consequently, showing pictures of debris piles doesn’t really address her primary point – namely, the size of those piles is significantly less than what one might expect from the “collapse” of two, 110-storey buildings filled will various assortments of: steel beams, concrete slabs, floor assemblies, equipment, fixtures, furnishings, and the like.

The foregoing video with its derogatory post-script is not an isolated incident. There have been a variety of attempts to discredit Dr. Wood and her work – ranging from: Someone impersonating her on a radio interview, to: Certain people within the so-called 9/11 truth movement who have sought to cast Dr. Wood in a negative light.
Whether the foregoing kinds of activities are the expression of some sort of counter-intelligence strategy by agents unknown, or whether those activities merely are the result of bruised egos that are upset because Dr. Wood is putting forth research which indicates that their pet scientific theories don’t reflect the actual evidence very well or very credibly, I don’t know. What I do know is that her research should neither be ignored nor framed in distortive ways because that research clearly demonstrates that the official, government conspiracy about 9/11 is in error when it comes to the events that took place at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

The one area where I might disagree with Dr. Wood has to do with the issue of where do we go from here. Dr. Wood is of the opinion – one which I share with her up to a point – that before one begins trying to answer the question of who is responsible for 9/11 or why they did what they did or how they pulled it off, one needs to establish the ‘what’ of 9/11.
One of the reasons why Dr. Wood feels it is important to proceed in the foregoing fashion is because it is just good scientific practice. One needs to establish the facts of a matter before moving on to other kinds of questions concerning those facts.

Another reason for proceeding in the way she does is because she is concerned about issues of double jeopardy. In other words, if one accuses someone of murder and, in the process, claims that the weapon used to carry out such a murder is, say, a gun, and it turns out that one’s theory about the character of the weapon is incorrect because the person who was murdered died of strangulation, then this jeopardizes one’s case, and if one should charge someone with murder but lose the case as a result of such issues, one can never charge that person with that murder again.
Consequently, she would like to nail down all the facts about the ‘what’ of 9/11 – at least with respect to the physical evidence – before proceeding further into the investigation and, especially, before making any legal charges against anyone. She does not know who is responsible for 9/11 or why they did what they did, but she does know that the official conspiracy theory about how the buildings at the World Trade Center were destroyed is not tenable or credible.

While I agree with Dr. Wood about the problems surrounding any attempt to proceed prematurely with respect to issues of legal charges and prosecution against this or that individual, organization, body, agency, or the like, I disagree with her about where things stand at the present time in relation to the ‘what’ of 9/11. Dr. Wood would like to spend more time on the ‘what’ of 9/11, and I do not feel this is necessary.
The reason I am inclined in this manner is not because I feel that all of the questions have been answered about the ‘what’ of 9/11. However, I believe that enough of the ‘what’ has been overwhelmingly demonstrated to prove that the official government conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 is wrong at almost every – if not every – juncture.

However, this does not mean that the next step in the process is some form of legal prosecution. The next stage should involve a thoroughly transparent investigation into 9/11 that is conducted by the American people, with full subpoena power and adequate funding, and that is not conducted by government-appointed bodies filled with individuals who will do the bidding of the government, the media, the military, or corporations in relation to 9/11.
The Constitution provides a number of sources of authorization for such an investigation. For example, grand juries are empowered to investigate any issue they wish in order to determine if there might be some degree of culpability associated with a given event, and if special grand juries were impaneled in every state of the union with proper funding and empowerment, then I believe any number of reports would be forthcoming that would help the American people to get closer to the truth and would permit America to look at 9/11 in a much different way than currently is the case.

If, on the other hand, one doesn’t like the idea of grand juries investigating 9/11, there are other provisions in the Constitution that do provide for such a possibility. These other provisions are inherent in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, as well as in the 9th, 10th,, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
I have written about these issues elsewhere (e.g., The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle For America’s Soul and Final Jeopardy: Sovereignty and the Reality Problem, Volume V) so I won’t repeat myself here. People have priority over either states or federal governments, but this principle has been lost sight of during the last several hundred years.

What I am trying to do in the present work is to prove that the official government conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 is not defensible. What I believe Dr. Judy Wood already has demonstrated is that the official government conspiracy theory concerning the events at the WTC are not defensible.
At this point, one does not necessarily have to prove what happened on 9/11. One only has to prove what did not happen on 9/11. What did not happen on 9/11 is the narrative that has been laid out by the official government conspiracy theory.

Proving what did not happen is the key to enabling further investigations into 9/11 … investigations that can be funded and empowered by the people – not the government – of the United States. The official government conspiracy theory attempts to claim that it has the basic answers to questions about 9/11, when, in truth, the official government conspiracy theory has no credible or tenable answers with respect to 9/11.
Dr. Wood is concerned about the issue of double jeopardy. However, it is the government that has placed the investigation into 9/11 at risk.

The burden of proof in any prosecution is on the government. It is not up to the defense to prove what happened, but, rather, it is up to the prosecution to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime.
Dr. Wood’s research indicates that there is not just reasonable doubt that can be raised in conjunction with the government’s theory of 9/11, but, her research demonstrates that the government’s official conspiracy perspective concerning events at the WTC on 9/11 is not plausible, tenable, or credible. Furthermore, the material in the rest of this book demonstrates the same point but in a different way.

The government has not met the burden of proof with respect to 9/11. The government has acted precipitously and recklessly in relation to 9/11 and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of people have died, thousands more have been maimed, and trillions of dollars have been wasted in defense of an untenable theory about 9/11. In addition, the Constitution has been shredded as a result of a false theory about what happened on 9/11.
A number of successive governments need to be held accountable for what they have done on the basis of a ridiculous conspiracy theory about 9/11. The media needs to be held accountable as well.

The best way to hold them accountable is to establish an investigation into 9/11 that is run by the people and not the government. What did not happen on 9/11 – i.e., the government’s official conspiracy theory -- already has been demonstrated or proven many times over. 
The purpose of a new investigation is to establish what actually did happen on 9/11. The money that is being spent on two wars, maintaining hundreds of military bases around the world, as well as subsidizing a military-industrial complex to the tune of trillions of dollars should be used to fund such projects as a new 9/11 investigation run by the people and not by the government … because, quite frankly, neither the government nor the military nor the intelligence community nor the media nor academia has solved the problems leading up to or entailed by the issue of 9/11.
For those who might wish to read further material concerning 9/11, please go to: 

No comments: