In Defence of Judy Wood

Contrary to the "nanothermite" hypothesis of the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth," the Twin Towers were evidently destroyed at low temperatures, revealing the reality of "Cold Fusion"

This is the accompanying article to my audio-visual presentation by the same title.

Introduction

Dr. Judy Wood is one of the most maligned researchers on the planet. She has been on the receiving end of a relentless stream of attacks and smears, as documented by Andrew Johnson in his two books, 9/11: Finding the Truth (2009) and 9/11: Holding the Truth (2017). Nevertheless, Where Did The Towers Go? (2011) stands as the most complete forensic investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The evidence Wood provides points towards the existence of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, which could in principle be used to solve the world’s energy needs, yet was instead weaponized on 9/11 in an act of mass murder used to legitimize the “War on Terror.”

This is a dangerous idea: it has global revolutionary potential. The ceaseless attacks on Wood and her work are intended to ensure that the idea does not spread.

Contrary to claims that Wood presents a “theory” that directed energy weapons were what destroyed the Twin Towers, she does nothing of the kind. Instead, in the vein of genuine forensic investigation, she looks carefully at evidence and considers its implications. She is keen to stress (in Chapter 4) that we must look at evidence with our own eyes and think for ourselves, rather than accepting preconceived ideas, such as that the towers “collapsed” or “exploded” or were “pulverized.”

Some critics take exception to Where Did The Towers Go? because it employs simple metaphors in order to avoid prejudicing interpretation when describing phenomena that are otherwise not easily captured, e.g. “cheetos,” “rolled up carpets,” “shaving cream,” etc. Critics who cannot handle such metaphors only reveal their own cognitive limitations.

Evidence

In a 500-page book full of high-quality colour images, Wood examines virtually every aspect of the Twin Towers’ destruction, drawing to public attention evidence that may otherwise have been missed or ignored. The following evidence is, in my view, particularly worthy of attention. All page references are to Wood (2011).

• The Twin Towers did not “collapse.” As anyone can see from video footage, they mostly “turned into powder encountering nothing other than air” (p. 15).

[Source: drjudywood.com]

• What caused the massive section at the top of WTC2 to come apart from the rest of the building and rotate eight degrees before disappearing into dust (pp. 185-190, 478)?

[Source: drjudywood.com]

• As the destruction advanced down each tower, the top half had already turned to dust while the bottom half, for a brief moment, remained standing (p. 140, Fig. 133). Dark dust rose upwards into the atmosphere, while light dust came back down. Why the different types of dust?

[Source: drjudywood.com]

• The “bathtub”—the underground concrete slurry wall structure sitting on bedrock, which was designed to keep out the Hudson River did not sustain massive damage, as one would expect by the fall of two 110-story skyscrapers, weighing an estimated half a million tons each, and nor were many of the underground structures it contained (Chapter 5). Therefore, the Twin Towers were not “pulverized” as they allegedly hit the ground:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

• Immediately after their destruction, the debris from the Twin Towers was practically at ground level, no higher than their lobbies (Ch. 9). Where did the rest go?

Two 110-story buildings weighing an estimated 1 million tons [Source: skyscrapercity.com]

Following their destruction, which took about 10 seconds per building, the debris was close to ground level [Source: fbi.gov]

• Seismic signals recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Palisades, New York are inconsistent with the “collapse” of two 110-story buildings (Ch. 6).

• If the Twin Towers “collapsed,” or were rigged with explosives, what explains the survivors on Stairwell B of WTC1 (pp. 181-84)?

• The survival of large amounts of paper is inconsistent with high temperatures, but is consistent with a possible microwave energy field (p. 262).

• What explains the “toasted cars” in nearby streets and parking lots outside the debris field (Ch. 11)? Why did cars display “atypical burn patterns” (p. 220)? Why were some cars missing engines or sunroofs, but others not? Why were some cars flipped upside down when vehicles next to them were not?

[Source: drjudywood.com]

• Why did the “toasted bus” on Barclay Street (p. 234) degrade over the course of the day?

[Source: Johnson 2017, p. 1: WTC7 still stands in the top photograph but not in the bottom one]

• What explains the peculiar rusting effects that were witnessed and the strange fate of the Bankers Trust building (Ch. 12)?

• What explains the smoothly bent beams recovered from the debris, in particular the astonishing “horse shoe” beam (pp. 358-9)?

[Source: Telegraph]

• What explains the high Tritium levels found in samples taken from a WTC storm sewer and the basement of WTC6 (pp. 372-3)?

• Why are certain beams recovered from the debris twisted into very peculiar shapes, sometimes folding around their vertical axis instead of being crushed from above, which is inconsistent with a gravity-driven collapse and explosives (Ch. 21)?

• What was the strange “fuming” that continued to rise from Ground Zero for months, even years after the event (pp. 380-81), and why were the authorities so keen to cover everything in dirt (normally designed to dampen/decontaminate a nuclear signature)?

“Fuming,” 21 September, 2001 [Source: 9/11research.wtc7.net]

There is plenty more to uncover in Wood’s book, but neither the official explanation of “collapsing” buildings, nor “nanothermite,” nor “mini-nukes” can account for all this evidence.

Temperatures at “Ground Zero”

The key battle lines between Wood’s work, on the one hand, and the “nanothermite” and “mini-nukes” hypotheses, on the other, are drawn along the issue of temperature. Wood rejects the claim that extremely high temperatures were involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers. In contrast, her opponents claim that temperatures in the hundreds, if not thousands of degrees Celsius must have been involved.

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T, 2010), “The heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent.” Jones (2006, pp. 5, 8) claims the presence of “molten iron at very high temperatures—initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F),” with pieces of metal later being retrieved at “845-1,040˚C.” Harrit et al. (2009, p. 19) claim that “iron-rich spheres” found in dust samples “demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures [...] in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide,” since “the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes.”

In the “mini-nukes” camp, Heinz Pommer (2020, pp. 166, 63), assuming uranium fission, posits temperatures of 7,200 ºF in the “liquified granite” bedrock and 3,092 ºF (1,700˚C) at the top of the towers. Pommer’s failure to obtain spectroscopic confirmation of radioactive cesium-137, however, which would corroborate his nuclear fission hypothesis, generates a palpable sense of frustration in him, hence he attacks so-called “wild theories” such as cold fusion and the Hutchison effect (2020, pp. 47-49).

The highly energetic rollout of the dust clouds has been likened to a space rocket launch or pyroclastic flows from volcanic eruptions, both of which involve extremely high temperatures.

How might these hypotheses of extremely high temperatures be verified? Proponents typically invoke scores of claims of such temperatures as well as thermal imagery data. There is seldom any critical evaluation of those sources; they are simply taken for granted. Before we come to those sources, however, let us first consider the type of evidence that proponents of extreme high temperatures typically ignore.

Primary Evidence: Photographs and Other Empirically Verifiable Phenomena

Not all evidence is equal. A second-hand report of molten metal, for instance, of which there are many, is not as good as photographic evidence of molten metal. There is no photographic evidence of underground molten metal at “Ground Zero.”

To illustrate, in the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds, structural engineer Richard Garlock claims: “Going below, it was smoky and really hot [...] The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.” Yet, the accompanying image shown by PBS offers no sign of “molten metal”:

[Source: web.archive.org]

The photographic evidence of “Ground Zero” contradicts claims of extreme high temperatures. Wood, for instance, notes that in the following picture, taken within hours of the Twin Towers’ destruction, the pool of water is undisturbed by the alleged extreme high temperatures below:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Keep in mind that, on their own terms, the “nanothermite” and “mini-nuke” proponents are claiming that two 110-story buildings weighing an estimated 1 million tons have just been destroyed at temperatures hot enough to melt metal—and that underground temperatures remained extremely hot for months.

Below ground (there are only six basement floors to the bedrock), there should be huge quantities of molten metal generating incredible amounts of heat. Yet, as Wood notes, there were no steam explosions when the millions of gallons of water percolating downwards made contact, nor was the water on the surface evaporated, nor were the first responders cooked (see Video 6 and Figures 16, 19, 20).

In fact, photographic evidence reveals that rescue workers were entirely unconcerned about a raging inferno beneath them:

“Ground Zero,” 12 September, 2001 [Source: nytimes.com]

“Ground Zero,” 13 September, 2001 [Source: nymag.org]

Based on other first-order photographic and video evidence, Wood (2011, p. 127) asks what explains “the presence of so much paper, a substance that could not conceivably have survived the intensely high temperatures created by thermite”? The mystery is still greater when one considers the disappearance without trace of the estimated 45,000 metal filing cabinets that housed most of that paper.

[Source: i.dailymail.co.uk]

Even a copy of the New York Times from June 23, 1969, and a Bible unaffected by “molten metal” flowing onto its pages survived intact:

A Bible fused into steel with “molten metal” on the front (centre-left). What can bend steel without burning paper? [Source: redice.tv]

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., claimed that “For six months after Sept. 11 [i.e. to March 2002], the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher” (cited in Walsh, 2002). Photographic evidence contradicts such claims. By January 2, 2002, “Ground Zero” was just an excavation site with a pool of water at the bottom:

[Source: theguardian.com]

If below-ground temperatures were in the hundreds/thousands of degrees Celsius, virtually everything beneath the Twin Towers would have been destroyed, if not liquified. This was not the case, however. For example, the large Freon tanks used for air conditioning did not explode and were recovered mostly intact, with only one leak from one of the tanks, according to OSHA (2002, p. 21).

A freon tank is removed from Ground Zero, not melted. [Source: osha.gov]

Extremely high underground temperatures should have destroyed/badly damaged the 2,000 or so cars in the WTC parking garage. Yet, although “Some had exploded and were completely burned-out […] others were in pristine, drivable condition” (Professional Safety, 2002, p. 26).

The 72,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in a tank on basement level 7 did not ignite: “Although slightly damaged, no leaks were found. The fuel was removed” (Professional Safety 2002, p. 26).

The 1.2 million rounds of ammunition stored on the third floor of WTC6 was found “melted together into large ‘bullet balls’” (Professional Safety, 2002, p. 26), yet somehow it had “melted” without going off.

The heavy equipment used to remove debris would have failed in very high temperatures:

If an excavator or grappler ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. […] The photos we have reviewed on various websites do not show any of this. (Protec, 2006)

In fact, temperatures above 82ºC (180ºF) would have knocked out the hydraulics systems (Wood, 2011, p. 265). Fuel hoses running across the debris did not melt.

The survivors on Stairwell B were not burned or incinerated.

As for “pyroclastic flows,” Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory records that the dust clouds were “without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.” Indeed, the thousands of people caught up in them were not burned, and burns accounted for only 40 of the 2,680 injury payments made, with no obvious correlation to the dust clouds.

Secondary Evidence: Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”

Now that readers have seen with their own eyes the primary photographic evidence against extremely high temperatures at “Ground Zero,” let us turn to the secondary level of evidence, i.e. hearsay/second-hand reports. These initially came from the mainstream media, government agencies, and government contractors, and spread of their own accord once the seed had been sown.

Origins of Reports of Extremely High Temperatures and “Molten Metal”

The first mention of extremely high temperatures in the pile is an ABC News report from September 18, 2001, claiming temperatures of “near 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit,” adding that “the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to.” If the fires were too deep to get to, in an oxygen-starved environment, on what basis was the 2,000-degree Fahrenheit claim made? The report notes concern for the Freon tanks, which, as we have seen, emerged relatively unscathed.

On October 1, 2001, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health put out a report featuring Alison Geyh’s claim that “in some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” This is the earliest reference to “molten steel” at Ground Zero. In June 2001 (i.e. three months before 9/11), Johns Hopkins had run Operation Dark Winter (O’Toole et al. 2002), a disaster planning exercise which pins blame for a major terrorist attack on the United States on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in an attempt to win popular support for U.S. war in the Middle East. How remarkably prescient. Johns Hopkins also hosted the Event 201 simulation in October 2019, which uncannily modelled a global coronavirus pandemic a few weeks before the outbreak of “Covid-19.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2021, 382) describes Tara O’Toole, director of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies in 2001, as a “CIA spook.” All of which begs the question: was “molten metal” a CIA invention?

Other alphabet agencies quickly followed suit. On October 10, 2001, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news. Led by Gumbel’s evidence-free claim that “there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees,” Allbaugh referred to “very hot, molten material.”

On October 11, 2001, James M. Williams, President of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, wrote: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fascinatingly, he adds: “All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view.” Did the FBI privately show photographs of molten steel to trusted people in influential positions, falsely claiming they were from “Ground Zero,” so that those trusted individuals would disseminate the “molten steel” idea?

Keith Eaton, the Chief Executive of the UK’s Institution of Structural Engineers, wrote in its flagship publication: “They showed us many fascinating slides [..] ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event […]” (cited in Jones, 2006). It is not specified who “they” are, but the parallels are obvious. Once the heads of structural engineering societies were convinced of “molten metal,” they themselves propagated the concept, from a position of trust.

In 1995, the Murrah Building was demolished within weeks of the OKC bombing, and, as with 9/11, all the debris was hastily removed to secure locations, with the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), being subcontracted by Tully Construction on both occasions. Its president, Mark Loizeaux, was one of the key witnesses claiming to have seen molten metal up to five weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Tully’s president also claimed to have seen pools of “literally molten steel” at Ground Zero. Yet, as 9/11 Research notes, “The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence.”

Atlantic correspondent William Langewiesche (2002, p. 32) writes of “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” However, The Atlantic admits that “Langewiesche became the only journalist to be ‘embedded’—to use the Pentagon term for reporters who live and travel with the units they cover – in the World Trade Center operation.” The whole point of embedded journalists is that they write what the military tells them to write (Lukin, 2014).

In sum, government agencies, contractors, and the military were all over the promotion of the “molten metal” narrative.

Did Firemen’s Boots Really Melt?

Claims that firemen’s boots “melted” while on the pile go back to a magician, Ben Robinson, who wrote on illusiongenius.com on October 17, 2001: “The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel.” The CIA has always been fascinated with magic as part of the art of deception, and GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group follows in the tradition of “magicians, the military, and intelligence.” Robinson claims to have been addressing a NYPD contingent at the invitation of a clown. The mockery is obvious for anyone with eyes to see.

According to National Fire Protection Association regulations, “The sole must be a melt-resistant Vibram-type sole.” This sole-type meets National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 1971 (pre-dating 9/11), according to which, “After 20 minutes on 260°C (500°F) plate, the insole surface in contact with the foot shall not exceed 44°C (111°F)”; “Shall not melt at or below 260°C (500°F).” Are we really to believe that firefighters were walking around on a 260°C surface in view of the above photographs of first responders swarming all over the site within 48 hours of the towers disappearing?

Hearsay

If we reasonably disregard the above claims of extremely high temperatures at “Ground Zero,” all we are left with are second-hand reports, i.e., hearsay. Congressman Pete Hoekstra wrote on September 19, 2001: “Many of the beams are still red hot as they are uncovered, and start new fires as the oxygen reaches them.” He was only on site for half an hour, and would not have seen this for himself.

Father Edward A. Malloy, president of the University of Notre Dame, writes of his visit to Ground Zero on October 24, 2001: “The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1,500 F” (my emphasis). Who said it, and why should we trust them?

Guy Lounsbury, who worked to secure the site perimeter from September 22 to 6 October, 2001, reflects: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains” (my emphasis).

9/11 chaplain Herb Trimpe, working for the American Red Cross (which historically has close ties to the military), claimed on September 8, 2002: “I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal […]” (my emphasis).

The problem with hearsay is that it works in both directions. For example, Protec (2006), which was subcontracted to document the debris removal, reports:

We spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero […] To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.

Granted, Protec may have had conflicts of interest, but the point is that hearsay in general is unreliable.

Apart from David Icke and Thierry Meyssan, virtually no one saw any reason to doubt what they were told about 9/11 in 2001/2, at least not in published form. The tendency to repeat information uncritically was strong. Rumours of “molten metal” spread easily.

Thermal Imagery Data

Thermal imagery data comes from three sources: EarthData International, NASA AVIRIS, and SPOT.

EarthData International

Nearly all thermal images were generated by a single company, EarthData International (see Table 2.1 in Huyck & Adams, 2002), whose business model meant it was “positioned […] to capitalize on government outsourcing.” This alignment with government means that EarthData is not a good source for sceptics of the official 9/11 narrative to appeal to.  

The first EarthData images were taken on September 16, 2001, five days after the WTC complex was destroyed. They were not GPS referenced and had to be superimposed on ICONOS imagery. The result appears crude and in principle producible using software such as Microsoft Paint: 

[Source: loc.gov: The “hottest areas of the rubble,” 16 September, 2001]

Response crews found that EarthData imagery tended not to correlate with what they were finding, calling its reliability into question (Huyck & Adams, 2002, p. 24).

From October 18, 2001, EarthData began showing absolute temperatures. By this time, the remaining “hotspots” were mostly between 50-100°F (yellow and light orange), with the highest temperature shown being 150°F:

October 18, 2001 [Source: web.archive.org]

This is orders of magnitude lower than the temperatures claimed by nanothermite and hot mini-nuke proponents. For perspective, the temperature in New York in October ranges from 50°F to 64°F.

NASA AVIRIS

NASA’s Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) produced four images between September 16-23, 2001. The first and last of these images appear as follows:

[Source: pubs.usgs.gov: “Hot spots show as orange and yellow areas. Yellow is hotter than red.”]

Thus, as the United States Geological Survey notes, most hot spots “had cooled or the fires had been put out by September 23,” contradicting the idea of an underground inferno that raged for months.  

The USGS claims that the September 16 image shows over three dozen hot spots, with eight highlighted ones measuring between 700-1,020° Kelvin. But as Wood (2011, pp. 272-3) points out with reference to one such “hotspot,” photographic evidence (which I have independently verified correlates with the location of that “hotspot”) does not support such high temperatures:

The sub-basement of the South Tower on 18 September, 2001 [Source: city-data.com] — where is the evidence of a “hotspot”?

SPOT

The SPOT satellite image of Manhattan was taken at 11:55 EST on September, 11, 2001:

[Source: spaceflightnow.com]

Dreger (2008) provides an enhanced image of the WTC area:

This is not a thermal image, however; it does not show absolute temperatures. Moreover, Dreger (2008, pp. 30-31) demonstrates that the red dots do not correlate with obvious hot spots, but, rather, the places shown by the red arrows below:

Thermal Imagery Summary

The thermal imagery data does not provide reliable evidence of extreme high temperatures at Ground Zero.

Does the above evidence mean that there was no evidence of unusual heat at Ground Zero? Of course not.

Combustible materials were present both in and beneath the WTC buildings, including “large quantities of oil in various forms in the Consolidated Edison substation” beneath WTC7 (Cahill et al. 2004). 1,000 gallons of gasoline, contained in individual five-gallon cans, were not recovered (Professional Safety, 2002, 26). In a disaster of this scale, it is to be expected that some material would ignite. Firemen often mentioned the heat, though it did not stop them from doing their job. It is also possible, as Bollyn (2016) argues, that whatever hit the Twin Towers contained depleted uranium, capable of generating very high temperatures on impact, the effects of which would be later found in the dust.

All of this is a far cry, however, from claims that the Twin Towers were destroyed in a process requiring many hundreds, if not thousands, of degrees Celsius. 

The Nanothermite Hypothesis

The dominant consensus among sceptics of the official 9/11 narrative, oriented around Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is that nanothermite, a military-grade substance with alleged explosive properties, was the hidden technology deployed (Harrit et al. 2009). This comports with the known world of science and military technology, yet is problematic for numerous reasons, most of them raised by Wood in her book. In addition to the lack of extreme heat argued for above, the main problems can be summarized as follows.

Light

When Harrit et al. (2009, pp. 25-7, 22) heated the alleged “super-thermite” found in the WTC dust, which they thrice refer to as a “pyrotechnic,” there was a “bright flash” and a “horizontal orange streak.” Conventional thermite glows a brilliant orange.

Critics sometimes refer to small pinpricks or “blinks” of light that are visible during the destruction of the Towers (Schneider 2017, pp. 45-58; see Figure 8 for Steven E. Jones), or to the momentary horizontal emission of light at the onset of the North Tower’s disappearance, or to the alleged “Salmon-to-yellow-hot molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse” (Jones 2007, p. 39).

Eye witnesses also report seeing flashes, particularly towards the base of the towers.

However, we miss what is in front of our eyes when conditioned to look for something else, and the dominant feature of the Twin Towers’ destruction was the overall lack of light emitted as they turned into giant grey dust clouds:

Ansgar Schneider (2017, Figure 39) points to flashes of light such as the “blink” as evidence of explosives. The overwhelming signature of destruction, however, is the giant grey dust cloud that does not emit light.

Were the towers rigged top-to-bottom with nanothermite, there should have been, by the terms of its proponents, an amazing pyrotechnic display with bright flashes and molten metal lighting up everywhere. Explosives expert Brent Blanchard (2014) claims: “It would have created a whole lot of light. It would have created a lot of fire, a lot of flame, of glow, smoke, all prior to the collapse. It didn’t, because there was no thermite.” Such evidence perhaps explains why Richard Gage moved the goalposts in 2020 by claiming that thermite was, in fact, intended to minimize light emission.

Explosive Force

When Steven E. Jones (2007, p. 35) proposes thermite, it is in the context of “high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HDX, RDX, or some combination thereof. These are explosive materials that are routinely used to melt or cut steel.” But as Wood points out,

Thermite is not an explosive but instead operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet. (2011, p. 122)

According to Jones (2006, p. 391), the mechanism was to “cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings.” But we know from Wood’s work that the Twin Towers did not undergo a gravity-driven collapse.

So, the narrative had to change: thermite and cutter charges were replaced by nanothermite, which “reacts very rapidly, even explosively” (Harrit et al. 2009, p. 23).

To be sure, there is ample evidence of explosions at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. But are we really to believe that explosives (even military-grade) were powerful enough to eject massive I-beam structures weighing many tons large distances horizontally at an estimated 60 mph, such as the 300-tonne structure ejected 600 feet into the Winter Garden?

Whatever destroyed the Twin Towers was powerful enough to separate the top 30 or so stories of WTC2 from the rest of the building, which then rotated eight degrees (i.e. acquired torque) before disappearing into the dust cloud. Can nanothermite or explosives do that? 

If so, then it remains a mystery why, for WTC1, the upper floors (whose destruction appears to have proceeded along a mostly vertical axis) were not blown apart with the same kind of horizontal (and even upwards) force as the lower floors.

[Sources: 911review.org; drjudywood.com]

Chemical Composition

“From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide [rust] in the red material,” Harrit et al. (2009, p. 29) conclude that it “contains the ingredients of thermite.” But as Wood points out, “The Twin Towers were steel structures with aluminium cladding [...] Typical low-carbon steel (e.g. ASTM A36) contains 99% iron,” the remainder being carbon (also found in Harrit et al.’s XEDS spectra). Wood continues: “Iron dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust. So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains” (2011, p. 124).

Nanothermite proponents claim that iron microspheres found in the dust are proof that a thermitic reaction took place, however, iron microspheres can be produced in numerous other ways.

Practical Difficulties

How could both towers be rigged, top-to-bottom, with explosives, without anyone noticing and without anything going wrong? How much nanothermite would be needed for this? According to Harrit et al. (2009, p. 26), “the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even ‘painted’ onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint,” but this seems like clutching at straws. Jones (2007, p. 39) proposes “radio-initiated firing of the charges,” but this is surely incredibly risky, not to mention without precedent (Wood 2011, p. 125). Blanchard (2014) asks why the “plane” impact did not detonate the alleged explosives if the towers were rigged top to bottom.

It is also unclear why the alleged nanothermite “exploding” everywhere did not kill the survivors on Stairwell B.

Questions about Steven E. Jones and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Given the obvious weakness in the nanothermite hypothesis, how and why it has been able to serve as the dominant counter-narrative to the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 for so long?

The Role of Steven E. Jones

Steven E. Jones is a national security insider who once worked at Los Alamos (where nuclear weapons were first invented during the classified Manhattan Project). In 1989, Jones played a central role in shutting down the research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann into low energy nuclear reaction (LENR), which he disparaging labelled cold fusion—a potential source of free energy that could put an end to the world’s energy problems. “During the past nine years,” a 1998 Wired article notes, cold fusion research “yielded a huge body of evidence, while remaining virtually unknown—because most academic journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it.” Plus ça change.

In 2016, a peer-reviewed journal article claimed that cold fusion “could be described as a nuclear reaction without ionizing radiation and with no radioactive fuel or hazardous waste—in other words without all the dangerous side effects that have given the word ‘nuclear’ its frightening and alarming connotation” (Lewan 2016, p. 123). This needs to be borne in mind when thinking about the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The article continues:

Even direct replications of Fleischmann’s and Pons’ rejected results have been produced repeatedly, once the tricky and necessary conditions for the experiment were sorted out. However, because the rejection from the scientific community in 1989 was so categorical, most of these results made by a small group of researchers scattered over the world, focusing on what is now labelled LENR, have not been noted. (Lewan, 2016, p. 124)

On the issue of LENR, science is dominated by consensus (a political category) rather than method, much as The Science™ must not be questioned when it comes to “Covid-19” or “climate change.” We are looking here at politically motivated dogma masquerading as science.

LENR obeys E=MC², but it does so at “relatively low temperatures and without dangerous high-energy radiation – that remains to be explained” (Lewan, 2016, p. 130). Politically, LENR implies that energy will “shift from being controlled by a few to being easily accessible to everyone on Earth,” implying a revolutionary global power shift (Lewan, 2016, p. 133). This, above all, is what the ruling classes of the world seek to prevent, because it implies “opportunities for people all over the world to raise their living standards, gain access to education, realise their dreams and ideas, start businesses, take care of their health and protect their freedom,” in inverse correlation to the power of government and Big Business.

In April 2005, NIST released its draft reports on the WTC disaster. Wood made her first refutation of the official theory that the Twin Towers “collapsed” in April 2005, rejecting kinetic energy-based explanations. Steven E. Jones resurfaced to present his first critique of the WTC destruction on September 22, 2005. The 2005 NIST reports were published on October 26.

Jones, whose role appears to be to guide the scientific community and public attention away from LENR research, appeared at just the right time to create a decoy. Henceforth, sceptics of the official account of 9/11 would be herded towards a new “scientific” explanation of the Twin Towers’ destruction, namely, thermite or, later, nanothermite. 

Wood draws attention to some apparent doctoring of images by Jones. For example, Jones claimed that the bright spots in the image below are evidence of thermite:

However, one does not see this in the original image:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Similarly, Jones (2006, p. 18) captions the image below “Workers evidently peering into the hot ‘core’ under the WTC rubble”

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Yet, without the filter, the original image on the right appears merely to show a light source illuminating whatever the rescue workers are tending to on the ground, possibly as a result of their cutting equipment:

Jones dismisses Wood’s claim that the Twin Towers were “dustified,” yet he himself, in an apparent act of appropriation, claims that the upper 30 floors of the South Towery “turned mostly to powder in mid-air,” a “remarkable, amazing […] phenomenon” (2006, p. 29).

Jones dismisses the tritium found at the WTC site as from “backlighting on exit signs” – which would account for trivial amounts – and “not from nuclear sources,” such as a LENR event.

The Role of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The History of AE911T

Institutionally, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2007, has won the trust of many activists, family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, the Lawyers' Commitee for 9/11 Inquiry, James Corbett, and some academics I know who privately recognize that the official 9/11 narrative is fraudulent.

AE911T sponsored the four-year Alaska Fairbanks study, which scientifically confirmed what any high school student with a basic grasp of vectors should be able to deduce, i.e., that “fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse” (Hulsey et al. 2019, p. 3). The almost horizontal roofline (minus the kink in the middle, typical of controlled demolitions) and the fact that the building came straight down make it self-evident that all core columns must have failed near-simultaneously, which is not something that isolated fires could achieve in a steel-framed building.

AE911T also assisted independent researchers such as the late Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter, whose research on explosions is compatible with the AE911T line, though not exclusively.

On “9/11” anniversaries, AE911T has staged symposia and other events with a range of guest speakers.

Since the AE911T board voted Gage out in September 2021, supposedly for his views on “Covid-19,” the focus has moved more towards the International Center for 9/11 Justice (est. 2008), which nevertheless features most of the same actors.

AE911T and Judy Wood

AE911T’s dominant role in steering critical opinion leads people away from the most critical questions and evidence regarding the disappearance of the Twin Towers — laid out by Wood (2011) in by far the most comprehensive forensic investigation of that phenomenon to date — and instead suspiciously censors or caricatures Wood’s work.

In that respect, it has much in common with Wikipedia, a platform run by the intelligence agencies which has made it impossible since 2010 to create a page on Judy Wood — clearly they want to hide something. Steven E. Jones and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in contrast, do have Wikipedia pages; their ideas are allowed to circulate.

This treatment is consistent with a state-run operation designed to suppress the truth through use of flak and the kind of online influencing operations outlined by Sunstein & Vermeule (2009, p. 224) in which “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories [i.e., attempts to uncover the truth].”

There does not appear to be any intellectual integrity on the part of nanothermite proponents when it comes to engaging with Wood’s work. Unable to answer the evidence-based questions it raises, AE911T simply bans all discussion of it. It has a single page dismissing Wood’s work based on caricature, omission, spurious counter-arguments, implausible claims (e.g. that nearby cars were “singed” and “ignited” by dust plumes not hot enough to burn people), and a pointless rehearsal of the nanothermite narrative as though it were gospel.

Richard Gage claims that Wood “denies” evidence of molten metal, and nanothermite. The language of “denial” is always suspect, viz. “climate change denial” and “Covid denial” — rhetorical devices used to close down scientific debate by tacitly invoking Holocaust denial. Gage himself, ironically, is in denial about having once accused Wood of witchcraft (demonization of opponents, a classic propaganda technique). He also denied (in 2023) ever having heard of Wood’s Qui Tam case.  

Wood does not “deny” the alleged evidence of molten metal and nanothermite. Rather, she engages with it and offers very good reasons to doubt it (2011, pp. 122-27). The same cannot be said for AE911T with respect to the evidence that Wood presents.

A favourite smear used against Wood by AE911T and others is to claim that she thinks “space beams” were what destroyed the Twin Towers. This goes back to Wood’s 2006 article with Morgan Reynolds titled, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW).” The first thing the authors point out is that

The name of this article was chosen as a reminder that energy weapons do exist and have been developed over 100 years. Most of this technology is classified information. It can also be assumed that such technology exists in multiple countries. The purpose of this article was to begin to identify the evidence of what happened on 9/11/01 that must be accounted for. In doing so, the evidence ruled out a Kinetic Energy Device (bombs, missiles, etc.) as the method of destruction as well as a gravity-driven “collapse.”

Thus, Wood and Reynolds explicitly do not claim that “space beams” destroyed the Twin Towers, but rather that energy weapons must be considered as one possibility given problems in attributing the towers’ destruction to kinetic energy. It seems that the subversive potential of this idea was immediately recognized and met with attempts to thwart Wood.

As noted in the 2006 article, Wood’s Ph.D. student, Michael Zebuhr, with whom she had been working on discrediting Jones’ claims regarding molten iron (Johnson 2011, p. 31), was murdered, and Wood received an email stating: “We’ve done it before and we will do it again if need be.” Another of Wood’s students had a fire in their apartment around the same time (Johnson 2011, pp. 31-2). Thus, a sinister side to Wood’s opponents is revealed.

Who are the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

According to its “Who We Are” page, AE911T comprises a president, treasurer, CEO, board member, operations manager, two lead volunteers and two contributing authors. That is a total of 9 people, only five of which appear to be full-time employees. Yet, it markets itself in terms of the 3,600+ architects and engineers who at some point since 2007 have signed its petition to the House of Representatives and the Senate for a “truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01.”

Given that the controlled demolition of the WTC complex claimed by AET911T almost certainly implicates criminal elements within the state, it was never likely that a petition to Congress was going to make a difference—and indeed it has not, all these years later. So, are we looking at a relatively small number of people running a global influencing operation that never leads anywhere, other than away from LENR?

Academia and Judy Wood

It is rare to get anything challenging the official version of the events of 9/11 into a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, I managed to do so in an article criticizing academia’s silence over those events (Hughes, 2020). But, despite convincing the reviewers, I still had to pay the price of admission, i.e. removal of citations of Wood’s work on the basis that they allegedly detracted from the article’s credibility. AE911T was seen as more credible.

More astute readers will note that Wood’s presence can still be quietly felt in several parts of the article, and that nanothermite is deliberately not mentioned, but this episode highlights how difficult it is to get academics to engage with Wood’s work.

No sooner was the article published than a German professor of mathematics critical of the official “9/11” narrative wrote to me, upset that I had mentioned Wood at all (with respect to her censorship and the Qui Tam case she brought against Applied Research Associates and Science Applications International Corporation in 2007 for their allegedly fraudulent role in the production of the NIST reports). Note the difference between Wood’s early, targeted legal action against companies suspected to have played a role in “9/11” and the endless, toothless calls for a “new investigation” into 9/11 by AE911T.

The work of “Mrs. Wood” (consistently removing her Dr. title), I was told by the professor, represents “impossible physics” and is not to be taken seriously. This led to a lengthy email exchange in which I defended Wood and asked the professor to explain some of the evidence Wood presents.

As it gradually became clear to me that the professor was on very shaky ground indeed, I asked them whether they had actually read Where Did The Towers Go? (2011). They admitted they had not.

So, it appears that the perception management has been so successful that even those academics who reject the official 9/11 narrative have been trained to dismiss Wood’s work without even reading it — a cardinal sin in academia.

Black Technology & Perception Management

The “impossible physics” allegation by the mathematician above is similar to nuclear physicist Ian Hutchinson’s characterization of cold fusion as “an aspiration which isn’t consistent with the laws of physics as we know it.” Both reveal a basic lack of understanding when it comes to black technology.

Black technology is military technology that exists but is kept secret from the public. Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, for instance, is a known manufacturing site for such technology, which has previously included the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 “Blackbird” (capable of flying coast to coast in just over an hour), and the F-117 Nighthawk. The existence of those technologies was disclosed retrospectively, and it would be foolish to deny that advanced military technologies existed in 2001, and indeed today, which the public would not believe to be possible. Contemporary propaganda, for instance, encourages the public to believe that nuclear fusion is at least two decades from realization.

The history of classified scientific research on military technologies goes back at least as far as the Manhattan Project during World War II, where well over 100,000 people were sworn to secrecy regarding their work on developing the atom bomb. Compartmentalization meant that this aim would not have been known to most of them in any case.

Harvard historian of science, Peter Galison (2004, p. 231), estimates that the volume of classified scientific research is five to ten times greater than publicly available scientific research, meaning that it is “we in the open world [...] who are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire we barely know.” This necessitates a very large degree of intellectual humility when it comes to thinking about black technology, because the public simply has no idea what is scientifically and technologically possible behind the scenes.

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” To someone who has never encountered such technology before, it may indeed seem like magic, because it does things which are inexplicable on the basis of publicly available science. The public would not be able to recognize such technology, even if it was used in broad daylight, was recorded from dozens of different angles, and was played back billions of times online. There would always have to be some other explanation for the observed effects that conforms to what is “possible” based on the public’s bounded scientific understanding.

I am referring, of course, to the destruction of the Twin Towers, an event witnessed by the entire world and re-watched countless times. But does anyone actually know, in scientific terms, what they are looking at? This is the challenge that Wood’s work poses: to look with open eyes and to see the evidence for what it is, rather than imposing preconceived ideas (determined by the government, the media, the “truth movement,” etc.). Very few people, it seems, are willing or able to do this.

In the case of the Twin Towers, the evidence points strongly in the direction of black technology. Somehow, large steel beams were smoothly bent, cars were “toasted,” and two massive skyscrapers and all their contents (apart from paper) were turned mostly to dust in mid air in a little over ten seconds each, without creating searing heat, blinding light, or ionizing radiation. What “magic” can do all this?

Wood does not make hard claims regarding what exactly destroyed the Twin Towers; after all, black technology is, by definition, unknown to the public. Nor does she speculate on where those weapons were located or how they were activated.

She does, however, uniquely draw attention to some of the more unusual known research that has taken place in the field of directed energy (the “Tesla-Hutchison effect,” [2011, Ch. 17]), noting certain parallels with the evidence from the WTC site. For example, it is possible to bend metal smoothly in the absence of high temperatures:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Wood (2011, 371) observes that LENR “(1) produces excess energy, (2) causes transmutation of elements, (3) forms tritium, (4) generates a magnetic precipitate, (5) occurs at room temperature, and (6) does all of this without producing radioactivity.” These, surely, are the avenues of inquiry where serious researchers into the destruction of the Twin Towers need to focus their efforts.

Limitations of Wood’s Research

Wood’s work is not without its limitations. Two areas seem problematic: (i) the evidence she presents regarding Hurricane Erin and (ii) magnetometer data from Alaska.

Hurricane Erin

Wood suggests that Hurricane Erin, sitting just off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks, could, like a massive Tesla coil, have produced “vast energies and field effects” drawn on during the destruction of the Twin Towers before suddenly making a 90 degree turn and moving away again (2011, Ch. 18).

The hurricane dramatically changed course sometime after 8am on September 11, 2001, coinciding with the WTC attacks, having headed in a straight line for the previous four days:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Erin was also part of a NASA hurricane-tracking experiment between 16 August and 24 September, 2001, indicating government involvement (Wood 2011, p. 398).

Based on data from the National Hurricane Centre, Wood (2011, pp. 397-398) claims that “For the 24 hours surrounding the events of 9/11, Hurricane Erin maintained the same wind speed, the same pressure, and approximately the same distance from New York City” (pp. 397-398, Figure 413). The data are visualized below:

[Source: Irrefutable, Episode 6]

Wood suggests that these conditions were “like a very controlled environment” and asks: “Was Erin somehow steered away from New York City?” (2011, p. 397).

The odds of a major hurricane pausing at its closest point to New York City at exactly the time of the 9/11 attacks before changing direction and moving away again seem remote. On this basis, we must keep an open mind regarding the significance of Hurricane Erin to the attacks. The wind speed and barometric pressure levelling off during the key 24 hours only adds to the number of coincidences.

Still, if Erin did have something to do with the WTC destruction and were “steered” through weather modification, it would be interesting to know why it made a beeline, not for Lower Manhattan, but, rather, Cape Cod:

[Source: my annotation of a cropped and frozen version of the gif above]

Indeed, judging by the satellite imagery Wood presents, Cape Cod was more affected by Erin than Lower Manhattan:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

Wood (2011, p. 411) is careful not to draw any firm conclusions regarding Erin, but her suspicions are roused by “the fact of Erin’s having been treated as a carefully kept secret, much like a state secret.” As evidence of this alleged secrecy, she shows weather maps broadcast on ABC 7, NBC 4, FOX 5, and CBS 9 between 8:31am and 8:36am on September 11, 2001 (see the corresponding video footage here); none show any sign of Hurricane Erin (2011, p. 400). 

However, Wood does not include the following four weather maps:

ABC 7, September 10, 2001. “Will make that continued swing around to the east” [Source: Odysee]

ABC 7, September 11, 2001, 5:47am. The eastwards-moving cold front “will help push it [Erin] NNE and get it away from the coast” [Source: Odysee]

NBC News, September 11, 2001, 8:04am. The weather forecaster makes no comment on the hurricane, which is not shown on the next weather map [Source: Odysee]

CNN, September 11, 2001, 8:39am. “Fortunately, this big hurricane, Erin, is going to move away […] It is now moving north, it was moving northwest yesterday […] not a forecast threat to land […] this frontal system [...] will begin to move it north [...] It is forecast to push away from land” [Source: Odysee]

The above weather maps indicate that there was no TV blackout regarding Hurricane Erin, as one would expect for a state secret. The CNN image is from 8:39am: a few minutes later than the images Wood shows and a few minutes before the North Tower was hit at 8:46am. The NBC News screenshot is from 8:04am. So, it does not appear that the hurricane was removed from weather reports as the attacks drew closer.

A common theme in the weather forecasts that do mention Erin is the eastwards-moving cold front that would push the hurricane away from the coast. Wood (2011, p. 399) herself notes: “There was a cold front moving from the Midwest towards New York City that would have slowed the hurricane and turned it northward, but how sure could meteorologists have been about the timing of the turn?”

By 5:47am on September 11, 2001, it appears that the cold front had already reached the East Coast. ABC 7, for instance, shows the temperature difference compared to 24 hours earlier:

[Source: Odysee]

Meteorologists could, it seems, have been confident that the cold front would meet the hurricane in time — and indeed they were, as their above comments show.

The weather maps shown by Wood are not satellite/radar composites, but rather the kind that use computer-generated icons to indicate the weather in simple terms so that viewers can see what the weather will be like where they live. There would be no point in including a hurricane that would not affect them; in fact, there is a case that including a large hurricane icon off just off the East Coast could have caused unnecessary panic.

Erin’s sharp turn away from the East Coast may seem surprising, however, hurricanes do generally turn up and away from the East Coast:

NOAA Visualization of historic warm core storm tracks from 1950 to 2005 [Source: e-education]

Hurricanes affecting the state of New York are most common in the month of September. Such hurricanes occurred, for instance, in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009. Their impact mostly involved property damage and disruption to power; there were a handful of deaths involving rip currents. It is easy to see why meteorologists were not alarmed about Hurricane Erin. As Wood (2011, p. 403) notes, they issued Erin advisories from September 7 through September 12 warning of rip currents and heavy surf along the East Coast – but nothing more serious than that.

Wood (2011, p. 396) seems surprised that “the public was not widely alerted to [Erin],” given that Erin was similar in size to Hurricane Katrina (2005) and with a greater Accumulated Cyclone Energy. However, Katrina achieved Category 5 status, whereas Erin peaked at Category 3 for 24 hours on September 9-10 and was Category 1 by the morning of September 11, as data cited by Wood shows. More importantly, Katrina made landfall and caused widespread damage. The two hurricanes simply did not pose the same level of threat.

On September 3, 2010, Fox News’ veteran hurricane reporter, Geraldo Rivera, reflected: “If only a hurricane had come on 9/11 […] history would have been rewritten.” Either he did not know about Erin (which seems unlikely, given his job), or he was trying to cover up the presence of Erin (if so, why then?), or — as seems most likely — he simply meant that no flights were grounded as a result of a hurricane on 9/11.  

Below is a weather image from 2021, which illustrates that it is not exceptional for a hurricane to be stationed not far from New York on September 11. Again, the impact is worse on Cape Cod than Lower Manhattan:

[Source: YouTube]

While hurricanes may get within a couple of hundred miles of New York, the eye of a hurricane only passes within 75 miles of New York once a decade on average. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy got close enough to impact the 9/11 memorial site: 

Hurricane Sandy (2012) [Source: NASA]

In sum, although it is an extraordinary coincidence that Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to New York and changed direction while the WTC attacks were taking place, the evidence of a cover-up seems weak, and Erin’s presence and behaviour are not otherwise suspicious. It is also unclear how exactly the field effects from the Hurricane could be involved in the destruction of the WTC, but that is beyond the scope of Wood’s inquiry.

Magnetometer Data

Wood (2011, Ch. 19) claims that there were major changes to the Earth’s magnetic field during the 9/11 attacks, evidenced by data from the Geophysical Institute Magnetometer Array of the University of Alaska :

8pm on September 9, 2001, to 8pm on September 12, 2001 [Source: drjudywood.com]

In the above image, the first two coloured vertical lines correspond to WTC1 and WTC2 being struck, respectively. The next two vertical lines, just to their right, correspond to those buildings being destroyed. The green vertical shows when WTC7 was destroyed. The highest reading occurs ca. 2am on September 12 and the lowest reading is around 4am on September 12. The scale on the y-axis goes from -700 to 300.

Zooming in to between 6am and 8:24 pm on September 11, 2001, the data appears as follows:

[Source: drjudywood.com]

To be sure, judging by this evidence, there was considerably more magnetometer activity on 9/11 than on the preceding two days (2011, p. 414). However, the Geophysical Institute Magnetometer Array of the University of Alaska appears to show a big increase in activity in the hours leading up to midday quite often. For example, here is a reading I randomly captured on October 26, 2019:

The deviations here occur during roughly the same time period as on 9/11 and are even larger, suggesting that the magnetometer data presented by Wood may be independent of the WTC destruction.

It is also unclear why the largest readings on the four-day chart above occur, not as the Twin Towers are being destroyed, but, rather, between 2am and 4am on September 12.

This is not to dismiss the importance of investigations into magnetic effects on 9/11. For example, there seems to have been electromagnetic inference with video camera footage during the dust cloud rollout (see 26:20) and helicopter footage just before each tower was destroyed (see 42:26).

Footage shot from within the dust cloud [Source: 911media.de]

Helicopter footage glitches moments before the South Tower is destroyed [Source: 911media.de]

Conclusion

Where Did The Towers Go? shines a light on evil. There can be no doubt, after reading it, that the destruction of the Twin Towers was an act of war carried out using classified military technology.

Breakthrough scientific advances in free energy that could have done incredible amounts of good for the world,” writes Wood (2011, p. 485), were instead weaponized and deployed on 9/11 “for demonic, ruinous, Earth-destructive purposes.” This is the fundamental truth that the perpetrators want to keep hidden.

“We stand at the dawn of an entirely new age,” Wood (2011, p. 485) concludes. “By all the evidence, man has in his hands a method of disrupting the molecular basis for matter [..,]” On September 11, 2001, that technology was used for mass murder. The remains of 1,106 victims were never found.

Once these facts, and their implications, are properly understood by the wider public, Where Did the Towers Go? could prove to change the course of history.

Acknowledgement

Thank you to Andrew Johnson for proof-reading earlier drafts of this article.