The oft-repeated mantra, dripping with a quasi-religeous messianic fervor, replete with superlatives & exclamation marks, & referring to author Judy Wood as a martyr with a heart as big as all outdoors who has nobly sacrificed all (even lost her job) for Truth is: “You gotta read this book!!”
All you have to do to cast doubt on this overblown hype is read the rebuttal/demolishing of Wood’s very short section on thermite by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (hereinafter ‘A&E’). Basically, Wood DENIES BUT DOES NOT REBUT OR REFUTE A&E’s well-documented/sourced information on thermate/thermite/thermitic material(hereinafter ‘thermite’). A&E present a solid chunk of documented information supporting the finding of evidence of thermite in the rubble of the buildings & also present their careful discussion of thermite – including its properties & uses, what traces/evidence of it were found in the rubble, the high temperatures it reaches & which can remain for long periods of time, the fact that it can be used to cut through steel columns & can also be used as an explosive, & the fact that bomb-sniffing dogs do not detect it.
This is important because the presence of thermite, and the high temperatures it causes, are INCOMPATIBLE with Wood’s DEW [Directed Energy Weapons] theory, according to which there would/should be no such high temperatures in the rubble. So you would think that she would be eager & champing at the bit to refute this thermite-in-the-rubble information. But oddly enough, Judy Wood’s VERY short discussion of thermite in her book does not even mention/address most of these points – and on some of them that she does address, she is mistaken/incorrect. Her discussion of thermite is very short – so short that she has to pad. (See discussion of this point below.)
I repeat: Wood simply does not respond at all to several of the topics/main points covered by A&E. She just ignores them. Now, in a debate, if one party ignores/fails to respond to important elements of her opponent’s argument – well – she loses the debate. Right?
Helllooo, Wood devotees – is brain engaged, or are we merely emoting?
So: Judy Wood simply side-steps many of A&e’s points/evidence, or DENIES them without offering any evidence in support of that denial; & she pads her book’s short section on thermite with non-relevant & off-point ramblings. At this point, I already have all I need to know about Wood’s sincerity, honesty, & reliability/ trustworthiness – & lack thereof. We see her in her own book being deliberately deceptive & evasive, & simply failing or refusing to discuss several important findings/points raised by A&E.
So why not just ‘read the book’ as the Woodites urge, always with plentiful exclamation marks?
Answer: because in today’s world of information overload & increasing specialization of knowledge, most non-scientist/non-specialist readers, quite simply DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH SCIENCE IN THEIR HEADS TO BE ABLE INTELLIGENTLY TO EVALUATE A BOOK ON A HIGHLY TECHNICAL SUBJECT SUCH AS THIS ONE. The general reader, even if intelligent & college-educated, who is not an expert/conversant in the scientific fields relevant to the book’s subject, is not really qualified to judge the accuracy of the information; thus when reading technical books, they essentially TRUST the author to be sincerely seeking & presenting the truth. So it makes sense to check it out, to exercise ‘due diligence’ by, for instance, reading reviews of the author’s book/s, preferably reviews by others who have expertise in the subject-matter of the book in question.
In the present instance, certainly, just ‘reading the book’ obviously was not enough, with so many ‘true believers’ writing encomiums for a book & an author who is demonstrably dishonest on the pages of that book, with errors both of omission and commission.
Additionally, when it comes to books on subjects both highly technical & highly controversial, & also dealing with such subjects as possible secret government false flag ops that are definitely not ‘in the public interest’, I suggest another ‘caveat lector’: We are talking here about a subject that could be (in fact, almost certainly is) fraught with disinformation agents, theories, & publications. When the book in question is a huge tome purporting to be the ONLY ONE telling the truth on a controversial & highly technical subject, a book suspected by many 9/11 Truth activists of being a piece of disinformation, it is all the more important to check out how trustworthy/ honest the author is before trustingly exposing oneself to & relying upon said author’s (alleged) information & guidance.
MY POINT – JUST ‘READING THE BOOK’ IS NOT ENOUGH. ONE MUST ALSO CONSIDER/EVALUATE THE CHARACTER, TRUSTWORTHINESS, & MOTIVES OF THE AUTHOR. Authors can be ignorant, loose cannons, spin-meisters. This might seem obvious, but in fact readers – people in general – in part, I suspect, out of laziness – tend to be surprisingly gullible & trusting of ‘experts’.
It has been a good thing that a friend (a Wood ‘true believer’ actually) caused me to examine Wood’s book more closely. From the get-go I had ‘bad feelings’ about Wood. She seemed to fit pretty well the characteristic profile of the spoiler/dis-info operative/tool – a Johnny-come-lately to the field, with eccentric ‘new information/analysis’ that attacks other, usually prevailing, dissident information sources, & divides & conquers the dissident movement, turning it into an undignified ‘he said/she said’ squabble which most people find distasteful & will throw up their hands & walk away from, muttering, ‘Who knows; it’s beyond me to figure it out’ … and the neutralization/marginalization of the dissident movement/information is thus achieved.
Wood also comes across to me as evasive & flippant in her interviews, & as relying too heavily – ad nauseum might be the better phrase – on a single & oft repeated word – ‘dustification.’ And much of her audio interview time seemed actually spent talking AROUND the issue rather than delving into the hard scientific proof, if any, of her theory – as opposed to speculation & indirect, suppositious evidence. For instance, in the famous Jenkins interview, she repeatedly declines to discuss scientific matters he presents or asks her about; she jumps around & interrupts frequently; & she asks a lot of questions (the point or purpose of which remains vague) about things like what happens when you put this, that, or the other in a microwave oven.
In contrast, speakers/writers for A&E stay focused on scientific evidence, which they are eager & prepared to present. And they don’t ‘explain’ by asking a lot of vague, open-ended questions. Instead they provide hard data in support of their theory. THIS BEHAVIOR IS INDICATIVE OF HAVING A WELL-SUPPORTED THEORY & BEING EAGER TO USE THE AVAILABLE TIME TO PRESENT SAID SUPPORTING INFORMATION/DATA.
My point is that A&E pass my ‘truth, integrity, & honesty’ test & Wood fails it. They present their information in an organized fashion, stay on point, & back up their points with documented factual data. Wood never seems to get to the point, rather merely makes assertions, rhetorically asks/repeats vague ‘leading questions’ which she does not answer, interrupts & jumps around a lot, uses the word ‘dustification’ repeatedly & in lieu of deeper discussion, uses a ‘cute’, whimsical invented, idiosyncratic vocabulary, & in general tends to control the interview & create an atmosphere of confusion, tension, & uncertainty. And she never seems to get to the point of presenting hard data in support of her theory.
IS Wood a dis-info operative, unleashed upon the 9/11 Truth movement to divide & conquer it as per the long established formula? There are few who have the necessary inside information to answer that question with certainty.
However, judging simply by results, Wood IS indeed a spoiler, IN EFFECT IF NOT ALSO IN INTENT, because indeed she has divided the 9/11 Truth movement into warring factions & has shifted its focus away from public education & pressing for a new investigation of what really happened to bring down the towers, to endless vituperative squabbling & personal attacks, most of the latter actually emanating from the Wood camp.
The Woodite will (and invariably does) say, producing their trump card … but she has written a book, a whole great big book on the subject. And just look at all those beautiful pictures.
Well, there are books and there are books. As mentioned, I tend NOT to read purportedly scientific books by authors who have given me reason to distrust their character, sincerity, accuracy, truthfulness, & motivation in writing their book.
However, a friend sent me Wood’s book, which I said I would read, not realizing how huge & chaotic it is. At first I was impressed, by its sheer size & by all those photographs. Gee, I thought, maybe I HAVE been wrong about Wood. And I attributed the lack of organization to its being self-published & an amateur production. But then I thought again & realized that as a Ph.D. scientist, Wood HAS to know better than that about the necessity & importance of organizing her presentation of material & making it more accessible & ‘reader-friendly.’ Looking the book over, it seemed to me that the material was pretty much hodge-podged (suggesting that the book was hastily put together). I searched in vain for some organization & guides to help me enter, explore, & get an overview of the main points & evidence underlying/contained within this huge outpouring of words.
I looked for introductory & closing summaries at the front & back of chapters, and of the book as a whole, such as are SOP in scientific publications, & for material relating the content to previous & up-coming information – and I didn’t find them. I would argue that such guiding aids/elements are necessary, in a book of this size & purported scope, and also that logically, the sincere author, aware of the difficulty of her subject matter & the novelty of her theory, would be EAGER to provide such aids to the comprehension of her arcane theory.
Not only is the book lacking in organization to help the reader grasp & understand her information as it relates to & supports her theory; additionally, it relies on an eccentric & idiosyncratic vocabulary. Some Woodites seem to see this as a plus, a sign of her originality. I tend to see it as further removing the book from the sphere of normal & established scientific discourse, & hence as more obfuscation posing as originality & information so new that it needs new words to describe/discuss it. Frankly, no new vocabulary is needed. Science already has words for everything that happened on, & that we observe from the footage of, 9/11.
Wood possibly wants to create the impression that her thinking is so new & original that it needs an entire new scientific lexicon to do it justice – which is simply not the case. All the new words come across to me as just a bit too cutesy; & also Wood’s ego seems to be showing. It reminds me of an attention-seeking adolescent straining to dazzle with her genius & originality.
Re the huge amount of info in Wood’s book – well, is it reliable info, or is it a mix of good info & dis-info – and padding? The volume of info in & of itself proves nothing. As previously mentioned, the non-specialist actually is not in a position to evaluate much of this information. And if brevity is the soul of wit, it is also the soul of good writing. In fact, a whole bleepload of purported information can itself be a smokescreen – and can cause people to conclude, Wow, anyone with so much to say, & it all looks so technical, etc., MUST be right – and really smart. The lack of organization also tends to leave the reader floundering in a sea of words the accuracy, honesty, & truth of which the lay reader will as previously mentioned often ultimately have to accept on faith.
In closing, I suggest that Woodites read the A&E discussion of her treatment of the thermite issue in the link provided below, & then read Wood’s treatment of the thermite question/debate in her book.
Here is a short summary of the A&E rebuttal of Wood’s position/section on thermite. The A&E material is not that long, IS well organized & documented, & I strongly recommend reading & comparing/contrasting it with Wood’s woefully spotty, lame, & incomplete response to their thermite informaton.
[NOTE: In my comment below this review, find the link to the complete A&E rebuttal, which did not copy here.]
The A&E rebuttal discusses with supporting references –
1.”Previously molten iron microspheres found in the dust”
Basically here A&E present documented data (from independent sources) conclusively indicating the presence of thermitic residue/effects, & resulting very high (& long-lasting) temperatures well beyond what could have been produced from office fires.
A&E state that “The DEW hypothesis does not address this [data] and cannot account for it – because it [Wood’s DEW theory] is inconsistent with the extreme heat required to produce it.”
2.”A video, photos, and dozens of witnesses [which]document molten metal”
A&E state that “The DEW hypothesis does not explain this phenomenon [molten metal]. In fact Wood denies that these temperatures were ever reached, without even addressing this evidence, which is documented by official and unofficial sources.”
3.”Active unignited nanothermite found in the dust”
A&E state: “An international research team found nano-engineered thermite, or “nanothermite,” in each of the four samples of dust examined as part of a peer-reviewed study. One key advantage of such substances for the purposes of a surreptitious controlled demolition would be that it would not be detected by conventional chemical tests nor by trained bomb-sniffing dogs;” A&E also state that “The red/gray nanothermite chips constitute direct evidence that supports the explosive/incendiary hypothesis. The DEW hypothesis does not explain how or why this engineered energetic material was found throughout the dust. DEW proponents merely wave away the evidence.” …
4.”Persistent Extreme Heat”
Extremely high temperatures at Ground Zero are documented by various sources, for example in thermal images by MIT & NASA, USGS aerial photo 9-16-01, by photographs, and by numerous witness accounts. The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. Wood denies that these temperatures were reached, without addressing the ample evidence for them.”
Now, turning to Wood’s discussion of thermite….
In the short section of her book discussing thermite, she asks, what is thermitic material, making no reference to A&E’s very good explanation of what it is. (This leaves us with the impression that A&E didn’t bother to explain what it is.)
Instead of engaging with the actual subject, thermite/thermate found in the rubble etc., she has a long paragraph trying to debunk the phrase ‘peer-reviewed’ which was used by A&E in their thermite discussion. She mentions a wholly unrelated article run in the Boston Globe that was alleged to be peer-reviewed but was found to be a hoax. This study has nothing to do with A&E 9/11 info except that both used the phrase and concept of ‘peer review’ … so her reason for taking space to include it seems to be: ‘Hey, Joe Blow here did a totally fraudulent study & claimed some of the info in it was peer reviewed. YOU claim some of your info is peer reviewed. Therefore your study too ‘could be’ fraudulent.’
Need I point out that that is weak, as a rebuttal of information/evidence. It is also a kind of padding to disguise the fact that Wood actually has very little to say about thermite as it relates to the twin towers. She denies the A&E allegations – which are well documented – but does NOT REBUT OR REFUTE THEM. As mentioned above, this is losing behavior in a debate. Her treatment of this extremely important subject is blatantly dishonest. And the fact that she resorts to this extraneous discussion of ‘peer review’ shows how WEAK, insubstantial and in fact TOTALLY LACKING her case against the thermite data acually is.
She also includes some additional info about thermite that is not relevant to the matter under discussion. (More padding – makes me wonder how much of the rest of her ‘big book’ is padding).
In another paragraph of her very short thermite section, she asks, “Where is the proof that thermite has ever been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? The mechanisms of cutting and pulverization are mutually exclusive, and thermite cuts and melts but is not explosive.” Here again she is either unfamiliar with the A&E information or deliberately pretending to be – A&E do not say that the thermite was used to ‘pulverize’ buildings. The thermite was used to cut thru the steel support columns, according to the A&E research. However A&E do quote other sources which say that thermite can be used as an explosive.
As the A&E article mentions, Wood’s material never attempts to explain how orbiting energetic weapons could ever have made the multiple clean cuts that were found in the steel support columns.
She mentions the use of bomb sniffing dogs in the rubble of the towers, as a proof of her no-bombs theory & a dis-proof of the A&E information; but does not mention that bomb-sniffing dogs do not detect thermite.
Even her Occam’s Razor discussion is twisted. She mentions but subtly distorts it. The main use of Occam’s Razor is to argue against the positing of unknown causes/unnecessarily complex causes, esp. when known causes and/or fewer/simpler causes could account for the observed phenomena. Occam’s Razor works against her, not for her.
Quoting the A&E rebuttal of Wood’s theory:
“Why posit sophisticated secret technology to explain these observations, when some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives placed throughout the buildings can explain them much more simply, without making wild assumptions? This is a clear violation of Occam’s Razor, which says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts [and one that posits the fewest vague causal ‘unknowns’] should be given the greatest credibility.”
And as for ‘all of that dust’ – A&E agree that a whole lot of cement was reduced to dust (‘dustified’, if you will). There would be a lot of dust for sure – cement dust. Never has controlled demo been used to bring down two such tall buildings standing close to one another. The amount of ‘dustification’ would be unprecedented. This large amount of dust can be accounted for by the A&E theory & does not necessarily argue that novel/exotic methods were/must have been employed to destroy the buildings, or that steel beams were ‘dustified’.
Concerning the alleged absence of sufficient material at the base of the buildings (sufficient to be compatible with the controlled demo theory) – A&E point out that most buildings contain a lot of ’empty space,’ & also mention that it is known that material was flung quite far away from the buildings & that the buildings DID NOT fall in their own footprints.
This is, of course, not intended to be an exhaustive comparison or critique. My point is that just comparing/contrasting A&E and Wood on the subject of thermite alone is sufficient to establish that Wood is not honest, that she lies by omission & commission, & that as an information source/provider of theories/explanations she is not reliable or trust-worthy. A&E in contrast document & support their theory professionally & exhaustively. They come across as evidencing the integrity & truthfulness – science is about getting at the truth, is it not? – that is glaringly lacking both in Wood’s book & in her conduct in interviews.