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 (662 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'.

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

  1. Do you have a source proving 1.6 million tons debris?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I must say I’m surprised that you as a chemist don’t know the compounds of steel or it’s fusion temperatures. Didn’t do very in school, did you


  3. The tons of dust WAS from the buildings. (not from the air). It was the tower materia that went AS DUST everywhere.
    Btw, debunkers are using language that makes them unprofessional. Unlike, Dr. Judy Woods IS a professional. :) Go, Judy Go!


  4. Everybody, lets buy Dr. Woods book, NOW! :)


  5. Bruce Reid // April 1, 2018 at 6:15 pm // Reply

    This man is part of the conspiracy to discredit Dr. Wood and should be simply ignored.


  6. Jeremy Ashford // April 23, 2018 at 9:50 am // Reply

    “… when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth …” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle voiced as Sherlock Holmes
    If the writer of this review is indeed a scientist they will know that, in this case, the impossible is official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001.


  7. I don’t promote or condone ‘juvenile name calling’, but after reading your review I just can’t help but come to the conclusion you’re an over educated – but not very smart – idiot.


  8. Ray morton // May 15, 2018 at 11:45 am // Reply

    I have done demolition for 60 years concrete steel and brick
    Yes there were a number of buildings levelled to the ground
    And compression is a factor
    But transformation into dust although many many cubic tonnes of
    Still do not account for the sear cubic volume of material that went
    Into those structures that would not be turned into dust.
    The metric tons of steel alone doesn’t add up
    The compressive strength of the falling material will change the
    Shape of steel but it will not make it disappear.
    Quantity in structure during construction is on record
    Also the aledged material removed
    NO WHERE NEAR quantities that went in the the two towers
    Buy them selves

    Doesn’t addd up
    So as the song goes
    Who’s paying you
    Following the money associated with 911 is amazing
    Forget the lottery winner out of this whom are equally accountable
    Your have the criminal bush family
    The CIA
    The industrial military consortiums
    The stock exchange cleared all trades for the day
    Look at the winners there
    A q uestionable who’s who
    So how do some of the individuals and companies know what’s going
    To transpire that rewards them so well when a disgraceful event like
    This occurs
    There are many people world wide who do not believe the reporting on this

    Too many porkie pies

    The truth is out there,
    Follow the money


  9. There are many typos in this article so you couldn’t be bothered to check your own article before posting it. And yet you complain that her book is poorfully written? You are entitled to your opinion as are others but if Osama Bin Laden did do it then why have we not seen confession videos or statements from him. The al-queida, Isis terrorists usually like to post confession videos after a murder or terrorist attack. Something is not right with the official story of 911.


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 )


Connecting to %s