9/11 at 25: In the Final Analysis, Dr. Judy Wood Shows That the Evidence Tells Us the Truth

By Mark Anderson

In the 25 years since 9/11, I’ve been to “ground zero” in New York City several times. Between 2006 and 2013, I attended a number of documentary debuts and lectures, in NYC and around the country. And I met some witnesses, not only regarding the twin towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) but also the Pentagon.

Many people in the 9/11 truth movement saw the documentary series “Loose Change”—a broad overview that made some startling observations about the towers and the two other 9/11 locations, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

The tightly focused production “The Penta-Con” by Craig Ranke was a stand-out. Based on several key eyewitnesses, The Penta-Con, rather convincingly, claimed that the large airliner that, the government alleged, virtually dissolved into that seven-story military building, actually flew over it and soared away unscathed, never to be seen again.

An important contact of mine, attorney Carl Person, was among those who spoke in 2007 at New York’s Lincoln Center. He circulated official petitions calling for a new city-level investigation, based on the widespread consensus that, whatever exactly happened to the 110-story WTC twin towers, the government’s equally tall tale of 19 hijackers doing the dirty deed, under the auspices of the elusive Osama bin Laden, collapsed at the slightest touch.

However, Person’s petition drive allegedly was co-opted by one Les Jamieson, a suave character who some suspected of being an intel mole. He was quite active in 2006.

As the years ticked by, the 9/11 truth movement began to falter—although noted architect Richard Gage sustained his efforts longer than most researchers with his view that a controlled demolition utilizing nano-thermite caused the “collapse” of the towers. Much like the “JFK assassination community,” the 9/11 truth community has defaulted into a perennial recitation that the government’s story is false, without ascertaining the truth of what really happened, or something very close to it, in a sufficiently conclusive manner.

ENTER DR. JUDY WOOD

In 2007 I traveled to Madison, Wisconsin to attend a 9/11 program that featured, among others, former University of Minnesota Philosophy Prof. James Fetzer, as well as Dr. Judy Wood. I learned that she earned her Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and was a longtime professor of mechanical engineering.

Today, when you visit her main website, www.doctorjudywood.com you first see these words:

The Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid air.”

According to that website, her background includes research expertise in “experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics” which consists of “the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them.”

“In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips, a large volume of witness testimony, analyses of dust samples, seismic data, and the analysis of other environmental evidence pertaining to the destruction of the [WTC] complex,” her online bio also says.

It was during that Madison presentation that I was first exposed to her seemingly “over the top” presentation that the twin towers did not “collapse,” but rather were largely turned to dust, or “dustified,” via the harnessing of existing free energy—essentially a directed-energy weaponization that took the towers apart, apparently at the molecular level.

At first, it was tough to process her assessment that such an “exotic” means of utterly destroying the towers could even exist let alone be employed. Like most people, I hadn’t ever been exposed to such a topic before.

But then I ordered her 2011 book, revealing entitled “Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy on 9/11.” I took my time and read, and re-read it, over a 4-5 year period. Even as interest in 9/11 had already started to wane as of the 10-year anniversary in 2011, I kept tabs on Dr. Wood’s work and the work of other researchers.

I reported on Mr. Gage’s work starting in the early days, based on both phone interviews and live 9/11-Truth events in New York. From there, I covered his presentations at Freedom Law School’s 2009 Irvine, California conference; at the 2020 Red Pill Expo in Indianapolis and elsewhere.

And, after my initial Wisconsin encounter with Dr. Wood, I interviewed her on my Texas-based Republic Broadcasting Network radio show at least twice.

Taking everything carefully into account, I began to understand that, indeed, something very extraordinary happened in Lower Manhattan on 9/11, the description of which quickly imploded the US government’s insulting and ridiculous explanations.

I found that Dr. Wood’s approach—much like that of Sherlock Holmes—to examine the evidence as completely and objectively as possible, and to let the evidence speak for itself, was undeniably sound. And it rightly followed a progression starting with first determining, as precisely as possible, what actually happened (when and where were obvious) followed by how and why—all of which ultimately leads to the all-important who.

First general conclusion: Whatever happened would have required something much different than mere kinetic weapons of whatever kind—and certainly way beyond commercial airliner-generated fires and the resulting “pancaking” of the WTC’s floors, as the federal government claimed.

SO, WHAT DID HAPPEN?

I spoke with Dr. Wood for this article, in order to get her best possible assessment for this 25th year since 9/11—which, at the time of this writing, was completely overshadowed by the “America 250” celebrations.

To approach the core of “the what” regarding the 9/11 “attacks” in New York City, Dr. Wood first noted that certain researchers, within just a few years of 9/11, sarcastically referred to her insights as the “space beam theory.” She maintains that some of those researchers deliberately mocked and engaged in misdirection in the face of her insights, possibly for deeper reasons than one might assume.

“How do you cover up irrefutable evidence? By calling it a theory,” Dr. Wood remarked to this writer, while quoting a saying sometimes attributed to Mark Twain: “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes.”

Onto which she added: “Things got to the point where people believed my book, Where Did the Towers Go?, is about space beams.”

She then stressed that her book simply examines the evidence, and that the evidence speaks to us all and reveals, in a clear sense, that the twin towers largely disappeared, hence the name of her book.

Let’s be totally clear here: The towers did not “collapse.” They were annihilated.

“The time I first saw one of the towers hit, it looked like somebody unraveling a sweater,” she added. “The whole world didn’t know what they were seeing. . . . That’s why you start out with ‘the what.’ You have to know how to define the problem before you start trying to solve it.”

Notably, Dr. Wood has always stressed that modern day education largely avoids teaching real problem-solving skills and instead, with the big media’s help, constructs and reinforces monolithic narratives that nudge most people into believing what they are told happened, rather figuring out what really happened, about nearly any event of significance—but especially 9/11—a pivotal event used as an excuse to create a Department of Homeland Security, pass the tyrannical Patriot Act, and deepen the American military footprint to a stunning degree, among other anti-liberty measures.

She offered an analogy, saying that the World War II bombing of Hiroshima demonstrated that we had a type of nuclear power production, whereas the evidence in the aftermath of 9/11 demonstrated “we have free energy.”

SPECIFICS CITED

Concerning the beginning of the twin towers’ utter destruction, she noted: “Tower 2, at the very top, was a tipping as a rigid body at first, but then it appeared to stop tipping because it disintegrated. This is explained by the conservation of angular momentum,” Dr. Wood explained.

On March 26, 2000, the Seattle Kingdome was demolished via controlled demolition, a process wherein large structures are simply broken into smaller pieces—meaning that all the constituent pieces still exist. The resulting Richter scale reading was 2.3, and it had both what are known as S and P waves.

Notably, “S” waves, sometimes called “secondary waves,” are seismic body waves that travel slower than P waves and shake the ground in a shearing side-to-side or up-and-down motion. They are slower, but bigger, than P waves and therefore, they reach seismic recording stations after P waves do.

P waves, or primary waves, are essentially vibrating compressional waves. They alternate between squeezing (compression) and stretching, acting much like a vibrating spring or sound wave, according to the US Geological Survey.

However, the twin towers, and even building 7, lacked both S and P waves. All they emitted were surface waves, which travel along the earth’s crust rather than through its interior.

The lack of S or P waves means the signal did not travel through the earth—“meaning the buildings did not impact the ground because their weight went away,” Dr. Wood carefully explained.

Taking that into account, consider that the massive twin towers’ surface waves registered the equivalent Richter scale reading of 2.3 for tower 1 (north tower) and 2.1 for tower 2 (south tower). As Dr. Wood explained, that’s because the buildings were “lifted off the ground,” which is why there were no S or P waves from either tower, or from building 7 for that matter.

“If you drop a bowling ball and it hits the ground, that’s a P wave,” Dr. Wood noted, while clarifying, conversely, that removing heavy materials from the ground also emits a detectable wave. “Think of a surface wave as if you are getting off your mattress and having it rebound, or as if King Kong had picked one of the towers up and flung it into space.”

Moreover, regarding the towers, the “signal surface wave disturbance” lasted only lasted 8 seconds for tower 1, and 10 seconds for tower 2— “less time than it takes a bowling ball to drop, from that height, from the roof to the ground in a vacuum.”

In a vacuum, it’d take the bowling ball about 9.22 seconds to do that. But if you add natural air resistance in a non-vacuum, it’d take measurably longer to hit the ground, meaning that the surface-wave disturbance indicated that the towers were destroyed even faster than a free-falling bowling ball; thus, the towers’ profound destruction was not at free-fall speed; rather, it was “faster than free-fall speed,” Dr. Wood also observed.

MORE ON BUILDING 7

The 47-story building 7, to which claims of a standard controlled demolition have been frequently attributed, was not hit by a plane of any kind and yet was destroyed. But Dr. Wood maintains that it, too, was the victim of weaponized free energy.

For several hours, Dr. Wood recalled, building 7 exhibited fumes “from the ground to the roof” but on “one face and once face only.” It dissolved internally, but much more slowly than the twin towers did. It was on “simmer, not boil” you might say.

Then, once building 7’s interior was dissolved to apparent dust, the exterior was little more than an outer shell that, in and of itself, just fell to the ground—an 0.6 equivalent on the Richter scale, meaning the building only emitted a surface wave, and that wave was only “about that of a jack hammer,” Dr. Wood said.

AT THE BOTTOM

Perhaps the most astounding thing about the twin towers’ destruction was, while they each had stood mightily at 110 stories, they were all but gone as the dust clouds cleared and only the remnants of 3 to 4 stories remained, except for some outer columns of the lobbies that stood a little higher.

Plus, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, no sinks were ever found in the towers’ wreckage. No desks, no chairs, no computers—nothing, except one crinkled file cabinet about the size of a basketball.

“Page 363, figure 378-A of my book shows the file cabinet,” Dr. Wood noted.

“And there were no toilets found anywhere—not a single one,” she remarked with amazement, regarding buildings that had to have had toilets, sinks, desks, chairs etc. numbering in the thousands. Recall, each floor was nearly an acre in size.

Furthermore, according to history.com, in an overview detailing the towers’ construction, there were 15 miles of elevator shafts, counting both towers.

Yet, not a single recognizable elevator car was found in 9/11’s immediate aftermath. Not one. Think about that long and hard. Take all the time you need.

And the parking garages a couple levels below ground level, under the two towers, were only barely affected.

BUILDING 6 AND THE ‘BATHTUB’

Another structure in the 16-acre WTC complex, Building 6, was an eight-story building, yet its outer-perimeter remains were taller than those of the twin towers post-destruction.

A portion of Building 6 remained standing, so workers opted to pull it down with cables instead of using explosives—precisely to avoid rupturing “the bathtub.”

The bathtub was the large concrete underground retaining wall enclosing the 16-acre WTC complex, built to hold back the waters of the Hudson River.

If mere kinetic weapons (bombs that go boom) had been used, the towers, each weighing an estimated 500,000 tons, would have shedded numerous, enormous, outrageously heavy pieces that undoubtedly would have ruptured that retaining wall, thereby allowing the Hudson River to flood the WTC complex and beyond. That didn’t happen. Again, give that lots of thought.

IN SUMMARY

According to Dr. Wood’s research, the primary causative factor of the WTC’s demise was directed free energy and how it affected the buildings—evidently at the atomic level. Simply put, naturally-attracting atoms suddenly repelled each other.

“Somebody had to direct that material to do that,” Dr. Wood remarked.

When asked about those critics who contend she avoided the “who” of 9/11, she replied that she “got the closest of anybody” to putting a particular company on the stand in a court of law—a company named as a key defendant in a 2007 federal whistleblower lawsuit that Dr. Wood filed in the federal Southern District of New York. But federal judge George Daniels scoffed and said he wouldn’t even consider another case resembling “who shot JFK.”

Then a New York appeals court rejected the suit, after which the US Supreme Court declined to hear it as of 2010.

That company is Applied Research Associates, a defense contractor (make sure to check that link) which, in its own words, “develops and manufactures non-kinetic and directed energy weapons.”

Dr. Wood still maintains to this day that ARA’s contractual relationship with the US government at the time meant it was allegedly in a position to know what kind of technology destroyed the WTC. The goal of her lawsuit, of which her book is an outgrowth, was to find out what ARA knew.

“Under ARA’s contract with the US government, they’d know who’s developing or has developed any kind of weapon of mass destruction and where. They would recognize whose technology that was,” Dr. Wood stated. “My book defines the fingerprint of the technology; it defines what it does.”