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

It has been well over a year since I sat down and tried to wrap my head around another chapter of Dr Judy Wood’s copyright infringing magnum opus ‘Where did The Towers Go’. In the past, I have written about her misinterpretation of the seismic data collected by Columbia University, how her disrobing ray beam makes no sense and that “dustification” is not a thing. The chapters I have covered so far have been interesting, if not a little inappropriate, like when she found it necessary to draw a Wile E. Coyote cut out on one of the twin towers or a sea horse as the towers collapsed and thousands of people lost their lives. However, in all of them some effort was made to make her theory on how the towers collapsed convincing, which cannot be said for chapters 9 ‘Where Did The Buildings Go?’ and chapter 10 ‘Holes’. Virtually everything said in this section of the book can be debunked with a few Google searches and some common sense.

For those of you who are not up to speed, Dr Wood believes that the Twin Towers were not crushed or pulverised as they collapsed, but instead turned to dust mid-air. Just to clarify, she does not believe that they were vaporised or that they were cooked but instead turned to dust mid-air. She has even coined a term to describe this new process, which she calls dustification. Chapter 9 is where she discusses the evidence she has that such a process took place on 9/11, which can be summed up by saying that Wood looked at the rubble and thought to herself “well I expected more than that”. Honestly that’s all the evidence that is put forward in the chapter as she never contacted 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. There is nothing of merit to this chapter and the only reason I bring it up is that she makes some cringe worthy mistakes.

For example in her book, she uses witnesses’ hyperbolic statements when describing the carnage that awaited them after the towers had collapsed as proof that everything had turned into dust. She then states with confidence that nothing survived the collapse as it had all been “dustified”. Whilst it is true that the sheer force of the collapse destroyed the majority of objects beyond recognition, some objects were miraculously found relatively unscathed. Take, for example, the mobile phones that were discovered in the twin towers rubble that, according to recovery workers, rang for several days after having been discovered. The existence of these artefacts is common knowledge and thousands of them are even on display at the 9/11 museum in Manhattan. What is bizarre is that towards the end of the chapter, Wood guts her entire argument when she contradicts herself and begins to talk about a filing cabinet that did survive.

This chapter is also full of basic factual errors that should be an embarrassment for Wood. Take for example when she said…

“Every destroyed building on 9/11 had the prefix of WTC. Surprisingly little collateral damage was suffered by the very nearby buildings that were not part of the WTC complex”

This is news to me because I was unaware that the St. Nicholas Green Orthodox Church, which was destroyed in the attack,s had the prefix WTC. I also did not know that the 39 storey Deutsche bank Building, which was severally damaged resulting in its demolition, also has the prefix. This level of research is sloppy even by Woods standards and the chapter really adds nothing to the book. The following chapter, however, is far more interesting as we she talks about the holes in the world trade centre complex.

Chapter 10 focuses around the hole between Liberty Street and WTC 2, the hole in the middle of WTC 6 and the holes in WTC 5 after the towers had collapsed. Wood believes that these holes have no explanation and that they could only have resulted from a directed energy weapon fired at them.

With regard to the holes in WTC 5 and 6, this is what Wood had to say on the matter…

“Building 5 and 6 had holes in them that were quite mysterious. Because of the verticality of these holes, they could not have been caused by conventional explosives. WTC6, an eight-story building, lost about half go its volume and yet there was remarkably little debris left at the bottom of the building. No one as attempted to explain these mysterious holes.”

The cause of the holes in WTC 5 and 6 are not mysterious and they have a very simple explanation. They were created by the falling debris from the twin towers which is why, contrary to what Wood would later go on to say, we see large chunks of the tower perimeter walls inside all of them. Even in the pictures Wood handpicked herself for this chapter, we clearly see these chunks. Perhaps one of the most famous of these chunks found was inside WTC 6, which because of its shape, became known as the Ground Zero cross. Perhaps one of the most misleading parts of this chapter is where Wood talks about the hole in the centre of WTC 6 that goes down to the ground floor. She implies that this is proof that an energy weapon was used, but fails to mention that the entire south side suffered a partial collapse. Are we meant to infer from this that the beam weapon punctured a hole in the middle of WTC 6 but only shaved off a few floors on its south side?

Later, Wood once again talks about what she perceives to be lack of debris within the holes of WTC 6. However, the fact of the matter is that buildings are mostly air and, if destroyed, at first glance don’t appear to leave as much rubble as you would expect. A rather upsetting example is the Alfred P. Murrah Building which was destroyed by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in 1995 in what is now known as the Oklahoma City bombings. Approximately one-third of the building was obliterated when a truck containing 3175Kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser, nitromethane, and diesel fuel was detonated under the buildings day-care centre. Yet, when we look at the debris left, our initial kneejerk reaction is that we expect to see more.

Wood also ignores the fact that some of the material that made up the twin towers was compacted when they collapsed. Because of the extreme heat and pressure this material went through, what is left is shockingly small. For example, the picture below is what is left of 5 floors of material – for comparison there is a person stood next to it.

The level of research put into these two chapters by Wood is pitiful even by her standards. These chapters are nothing more than conjecture and do not go beyond, as I said before, Wood looking at the pictures and thinking there should be more debris. It still surprises me how many people believe what is written in this book when it’s so pitifully poor.