“If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.” (Dr. Judy Wood)

I have a thing about books – I think they are clutter. I have a book shelf, and I used to keep some books in boxes too – until I realized that once in a box, a book’s usefulness is done. Even putting them on bookshelves has the same effect. So when I am finished with a book I either give it away, or throw it away. There’s a local book store up the road, and nice gentleman who is always happy to accept new offerings. I suspect he might throw many away, relieving me of guilt.

However, a few books are too important to toss, and Dr. Judy Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, is one of those. At 540 pages it is a little daunting, and more so because it is not a narrative. It is a glossy textbook, 540 pages of exhibits, photos, scientific formulas and data. However, Dr. Wood has the gift of the truly intelligent – to speak of complex matters in understandable terms.

But she is not Carl Sagan. She is not trying to make science accessible to children. This is adult fare, for people who have functioning brains. She is trying to help us understand what happened in New York City on 9/11. She examines the evidence, but does not tell us who did it, why they did it, and to a large degree cannot tell us how they did it. She writes only about what happened. It’s not at all what we were told that we saw.

Dr. Wood has given slide-show lectures in the U.S. and Europe, and I invite you if you have a couple of hours to view one or two. They are at YouTube, and if you look hard enough, you’ll find one of higher quality in terms of graphics and clarity of sound. This one is two and a half hours – it really takes that long to discuss everything that happened at Ground Zero on 9/11/2001. If you want to be up to speed, you need to invest your time and brain into this matter. It is not simple whodunnit.

Or, you can buy the book. It costs like $60 used on Amazon, or $40 directly from her. The story of getting it published is a trip by itself. At one time the price on Amazon approached $400, indicating that someone was behind the scenes buying up copies, and not for resale. But it appears she has had additional print runs since that time to bring the price down.

I won’t do a blow-by-blow on the book, but will hit some highlights in the coming days. I’ll start with a topic that has sidetracked many skeptics, the idea that the buildings fell in a “pancake collapse.” This particular chapter is called “The Billiard Ball Example.”
The two buildings falling that day created seismic events that lasted ten and eight seconds. Using a billiard ball, Dr. Wood demonstrates that at free-fall speed, it would take from 8.79 to 9.22 seconds for one dropped from the top of WTC1 to reach the pavement below. In other words, we are told by NIST* that the buildings “pancaked” at “free fall” speed.

Dr. Wood:
Dr. Wood: “My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a “collapse.”

But if the buildings collapsed of their own weight, that could not happen. Each falling floor encounters resistance from the one below, or in her hypothetical example, every billiard ball must hit another to set it in motion. If indeed we witnessed a “pancake” collapse, at a minimum it would have taken 100 seconds for the event to complete. Even if ten floors were pancaking at once instead of one at a time, it would still have taken thirty seconds.

So we did not witness a pancake collapse. That is not physically possible. We saw something else. For the buildings to go “poof” before our eyes at what appears to be free-fall speed, some other process was at work. After all, the top floor, 110 stories above, would have had to hit the ground without encountering resistance from the 109 floors below. That is not possible.

The evidence is speaking. Are we listening?
*National Institute of Standards and Technology, an organization that Dr. Wood sued for science fraud.

3 thoughts on “Evidence

  1. The BEM conference video presentation by Dr Wood is one of the better efforts in terms of audio and video quality. But it still could be improved upon. The lecture hall format looks to work great for live audience members.

    However, I wish she would do a top quality AV production values version where the video audience can see clearly the same things the live audience does. For instance, She directs attention to specific areas of a photo with her laser, but the laser often can’t be seen on the video.

    it would certainly aid comprehension for better understanding of the evidence by the home viewer.


    1. No doubt they are aware of these problems. Andrew Johnson is technically very adept, I woudl not be surprised if he has something better.

      I like that she is not polished or all Toastmastered up. It aids my suspicion that she might be genuine.


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