A Review of Dr. Judy Wood’s Book “Where Did The Towers Go?” – Dustification

Edited by Peter

The more I read of Dr. Judy Wood’s book ‘Where did The Towers Go’ the more I think that those who promoted it to me as the proof that 9/11 was an inside job have not actually read it. There is no way that they could possibly get past chapter eight without thinking that they are reading the book of someone who has had their tin foil hat screwed on too tight.

The chapter begins with Dr. Wood finally talking about what she believes really happened on September 11th. At this point, I was feeling exhausted and was relieved to find out what her theories are – as there was nothing of any merit in the previous 130 pages other than baseless implications and constant hinting of things to come – so many hints that it would make the writers of ‘Lost’ blush. Luckily for me, Dr. Wood wastes no time and jumps right in with her interesting theories. Believe me – if you thought it could not get any worse than misinterpreting seismic data to try and prove that the towers fell faster than freefall speed in a vacuum, or a man trapped above the impacts zone in one of the towers taking his shirt off being thought of as proof of an unknown energy weapon being used, think again, because it can!

“The Twin Towers were not crushed or ground up; they turned into dust mid-air. They were not vaporized, either. Vaporization refers to the conversion of a liquid or solid to the vapour state by the addition of latent heat. The buildings were not cooked; they were turned to dust in mid-air. This was a new process and a new process needs a new word to represent it. We will call this dustification, saying that the buildings were dustified.”

Just to clarify, Dr. Wood actually believes that the buildings were turned into dust before our very eyes by some unknown weapon, and that this process is so new that she has had to come up with her own verb to describe it. What’s her evidence, you are probably asking? Well her first piece is a picture of ground zero three days after the attack. She believes that this shows a lack of debris and therefore is proof that her dustifying beam was used. The only problem here is that she never contacted any of the scrap dealers, volunteers, engineers, etc. whose job it was to remove what was named ‘the pile’ to see if they noticed any lack of debris. Nor did she talk to any of the truck drivers making one of their 108,342 journeys to and from ground zero transporting debris. She simply looked at an image where work had already began on clearing the roads to get access to the side and said “well I expected more…” and that was the end of that. I am being serious here – there is nothing more to this claim.

Her second piece of evidence revolves around the core of one of the towers surviving the initial collapse and then falling a few seconds later; only she believes it did not fall and that it was infact dustfied before our very eyes using this undefined beam weapon. The reason she believes this is because as the core collapses it leaves a dust cloud behind it and by the images she used in her book, it’s quite convincing.

The only problem is that it’s not so convincing if you watch the videos of it happening  or pictures showing the collapse from another angle. The core is clearly falling to the ground.

As you can imagine with something so obviously wrong people have pointed it out to Dr. Wood who counters by saying…

“Some have tried to argue that these remnants of the core had dust on them that shook loose just before the columns dropped to the ground. If so, how did the dust get there? How long did it take for the dust to get there? And how did it stay there?

If this much dust had been there before the destruction, it would have taken up significant volume of the buildings. It is very difficult to imagine that the remnants of the core were still covered in a thick layer of loose dust in the instants following the total disintegration of the buildings around them.

Or if the dust had come from the destruction of the building, how could it settle so quickly and yet be fine enough to stay aloft?”

Next, Dr. Wood begins to look at images of the collapse and the one thing that really stands out to me is that in all these images she uses, she never stops to notice that they all show debris below the point of collapse. How could this have happened if the towers were falling faster than free fall speed? Actually, unconnected debris would be at the same point or, if indeed it is falling faster that free fall, above the point of collapse. In this section, she talks about what she believes are holes in the dust created by…your guess is as good as mine because she never says. But in reality all they are is darker bits of material coming into frame in low quality images that have been pixelated. The only part of interest, and the reason why I brought this section up, is that Dr. Wood once again treats us to her own brand of distasteful comedy when she outlines a picture of a seahorse on one of the images of the collapse.

FullSizeRender

This is why I said at the beginning that no one who recommended this book to me has read it. How could they get past this chapter and tell me with a straight face that this is the proof that 9/11 was an inside job. This by the way is the cornerstone of her whole theory. She and her followers really believe that piss-poor evidence and off this planet assertions is all you need to believe in what is essentially a magical disintegration beam weapon that’s used to destroy buildings because…reasons.

Advertisements
About Myles Power (653 Articles)
My name is Myles Power, and I run the educational YouTube channel, powerm1985. I spend what little free time I have sharing my love of SCIENCE! through home experiments, visiting sites of scientific interest, and angrily ranting at pseudoscience proponents. I am also one of the founding members of the podcast 'The League of Nerds' - which I co-host with James from 'The History of Infection'.

1 Comment on A Review of Dr. Judy Wood’s Book “Where Did The Towers Go?” – Dustification

  1. You clearly do not have a fundamental understanding of building demolition or structural engineering. Go get some experience in those fields, then watch that same video you posted again, you will then see why there is a question.
    Yes, there are holes in her theory. This is new science. She wasn’t able to be there collecting all the juicy data, she’s assembling a 1000 piece puzzle with a dozen pieces. Whether it’s a weapon, or natural occurrence, we don’t know yet. Dr. Wood is merely speculating on the evidence at hand. I tend to agree that it is military, only due to the lack of evidence that something like this could occur in nature.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s