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.

About Myles Power (595 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'.

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

  1. Shes a moron who wants to sell books. That is it.


  2. A massive sky scrapper collapses next to another one. What could possibly put a hole in the next door building? First thing every one thinks of is a energy beam weapon that exists only in fiction off course.


  3. pavlovscat7 // March 20, 2017 at 11:05 pm // Reply

    you stinkin little puissant. Is this your revenge for real women seeing you as a shit and rejecting you? you pathetic fuck.


  4. Myles, your comparison of the Oklahoma City bombings and the question of “Where is the buildings go on 911” is very surprising. You slam Dr Wood for her mistakes, and you compare a building that was blown up (Oklahoma City bombings), compared to a building that collapsed (WTC). Do you see the issue with your comparison? So, do you believe that WTC was blown up or collapsed?


  5. ” For example, the picture below is what is left of 5 floors of material – for comparison there is a person stood next to it.”

    How did you determine that this conglomeration was from 5 floors?
    Where did the high temperature and heat come from to fuse this mass?
    Is there another example of a building collapse where materials actually combine, rather then the opposite, which is when something collapses it would typically result in more parts, not less?


  6. “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 basically correct! Yes, the Church was covered, and there was some damage to the Deutsche bank Building. But that is it. Right?
    Did you ever stand at the top of the WTC1 or WTC2 buildings? They were huge. To stand at the top and to even think about these buildings coming down, and then coming down without actually damaging the vast majority of the surrounding builds (outside the WTC complex) was simply amazing!
    Also, as the damage to the buildings was asymetrical, it makes it even more astounding that there was not more damage.

    Also, how did the fire figthers in the stairwell survive the collapse? Would you not think that with 107 floors above them, they would have been crushed by that millions of tons of steel, concrete etc. I find this fact that they survived extremely interesting.


  7. pavlovscat7 // April 18, 2017 at 12:07 am // Reply

    This madeup Myles Power caricature fuckhead is an establishment funded shit who knows Dr Wood is correct and has more courage in her little finger than this facetious little made up coward dog could ever dream of having. It probably has some kind of conscience mitigation that tells him the deaths on that day and the subsequent deaths and horror to innocents that stemmed from that setup, had nothing to do with him so he may as well exploit the political aftermath What a grub he is and all the invented respondents that give confirmation to his false witness….most likely, aliases of his disgusting self. A true psychopath and a definitive puissant. Don’t respond to this slime with sensible counter evidence…call him out on his own terms..like the gutless dog he is. Treat this turd and his kind in kind:


  8. I find your comments quite interesting since you are not credentialed in anything that that would lead creadence to anything you have to to say about her analysis. Trying to make money on her book? Hardly. $40 for a 485 page text book that she spent probably over a 1000 hrs. researching, at her own initial expense and eventually losing her job because her theory was the antithis of both the government theory as well as the “9/11 Truthers”. While there probably was explosives well placed in the buildings to give the “appearance” if an “inside job”. Her only reason, I gather, for doing this research and writing this “text book” was to get at the truth.


  9. How often, as scientists and engineers do we have to read papers, in their entirety that we fundamentally disagree with? All of the time. Why is it so difficult to read the book once in it’s entirety? When we raise concerns about the underlying data, do you assume it is embarrassment to the author? No. It’s simply data. By making an argument about data personal you immediately begin to discredit yourself. It’s very apparent you assume her theories to be false before you read them.I can’t imagine this author being an engineer, scientist or even someone trustworthy due to how it was written.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s