As a 9/11 truth activist of more than 7 years I had to rub my eyes to make sure what I was seeing here. Judy Wood has been known for years as a joke within the 9/11 truth movement. Before buying this book or considering it and the reviews here representative of the genuine 9/11 skeptics movement, do a quick online search for Judy Wood Interviewed by Greg Jenkins. Then come back here and you'll see the overwhelmingly positive reviews in a new light.
Calling so many people who have actually read the book "dishonest reviewers" is rather harsh and highly questionable. Have you read the book? If not, who, in the organized "truth" movement, assigned you to initiate a discussion to bash the author?
RT: Tis conclusive as you identify yourself as a "9/11 truth activist" plus a post of this type wherein it is another name of those of the disinformation and obfuscating cadre that march to the drummer of the Pied Piper into the abyss of falsehood lead by professional prevaricators shunning forensic evidence and knowledge and heaven help us never gaining any wisdom into the WTC phenomena. You present no facts, no insight, no knowledge but attack a messenger that has the ONLY complete forensic investigation in existence today and went to court with her empirical facts and was not sanctioned. I have read the book and finally the TRUTH is proffered to those that will read it and apply critical thinking. Your post requires reading the book to have any substance. Sorry, no Cigar RT.
Anyone who gets suckered by this bit of mob reviewing into buying this book is going to be very upset. Judy Wood is a patent fraud as anyone who has been following her antics for years as I have knows.
The subject is the book and the empirical evidence contained within. Not really an insurmountable issue; therefore, as you obviously have a personal issue with Dr. Wood and NOT the empirical evidence within the book, your response in legal world is considered "non-responsive." "Condemnation without examination is the height of ignorance." Albert Einstein.
Oh, im quite familiar with Dr. Wood's antics having witnessed them for years online. One of her first claims of "dustified" (her word) steel was based on a low resolution version of a video showing the "spire", a vertical colum that was the last large piece of one of the towers to come down, allegedly turning to dust befor our eyes. Closer examination of a higher resolution version of the video showed clearly that the column in question was falling and leaving a trail of smoke in its wake. Another of Wood's claims was based on the photos of cars around the wtc that had evidently been subjected to some kind of high temperature corrosion. While Wood claimed that this could only be explained by some type of space based energy beam, the more likely explanation is that the cars were bombarded by tiny droplets of molten iron which were ubiquitous in the cloud produced by the explosive demolition of the towers. The reason for this is that in order to minimize the amount of explosives needed to break apart the structure covertly, the perpetrators apparently used some very low tech thermite, which produces molten iron, to thin the more robust structural elements. you all who claim to have read the book can feel free to correct me on the points she makes, and my take on them, because i agree that we should be discussing why Judy is wrong, not just crazy, or more likely dishonest.
RT - You are on to something here. According to YOU - you can have a classroom wherein only one of two people have read the book (lesson) but the non-reader presumes that the teacher who has also read the book (lesson) will engage into non-substantive frivolity with the non-reader's "interpretation" devoid of facts and substance. Sorry, but RT your severe benighted cognitive dissonance is not solvable in this forum or in any other forum.
HI RT Not surprised one of your favorite authors is Enver Masud http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QMztKj3lL._SS500_.jpg About 3 years ago asked mr Masud during a Q and A session of day long lecture he gave on 9/11 "What is source of energy that kept metal molten for 70 days" ??? Masud " don't want to answer that because I am an Architect whose father was once ambassador to US from Saudi Arabia (remember 19 bad boys with box-cutters) Pushed by firstname.lastname@example.org saying " ahistorical process as metal remaining molten for 70 days must have provoked some thoughts on his part as to how this miracle molten metal occurred -- Masud stammered out "some of these steel beams were pretty deep underground". then after a long pause on Masud's part I said SO? Masud condescending to me "COMPRESSION" I laughter broke out in audience. Masud abruptly ended Q and A session.
NICE TRY RT. Not only no cigar for you . . . No more paycheck from disinformation central.
Mr Masud did his best to protect oil interests but alas free energy tech is out of the black bag of Powers that wanta Be.
I'd be curious to know your source for that little anecdote, got one? In any case, it's no mystery why the molten iron persisted in the rubble piles for so long. In fact, the persistence is one of many clues as to what was used in the demolitions. Thermite, a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder, has been around for over a hundred years. When ignited it produces aluminum oxide and molten iron. Any residual thermite would have continued to react in the rubble pile (since it needs no oxygen, having its own in the iron oxide.) Even when all the thermite had finished reacting the fact that you had large amounts of extremely hot molten iron covered by tons of rubble (i.e. not exposed to the cooling air) meant it would stay molten for a long time. But sure, I suppose it might have been some kind of secret energy weapon in space. It's just that it's infinitely more likely that it was thermite. But hey, by all means if a prospective buyer of the book is willing to spend $40 on it to find out I was right, more power to them. As others have said, there are a lot of nice pictures in the book which means it isn't totally worthless. Probably be a collectors' item some day even!
RT: Where is your evidence of the "molten metal?" It does not exist!!! Try Gage's molten metal link - so easily dispensed with. You have made all types of presumptions and you can't find not one and I mean not one picture or conclusive evidence of molten metal on the ground. Hot things glow but not a things that glow are hot - incandescent bulbs vs fluorescent bulb (pg 293). You see, if you had actually read the book you would understand with real evidence but you wander around in the world of PysOps info (presuming that is not your job) with total nonsense. And I have better things to do than point by point deal with you -- but someone who has read the book will laugh his tush off at your ispe dixit pontifications.
Before I decide to read any book, I try to find out some info about it to see if I think it is worth my time to read it. And I do factor in my impression of the author - try to decide if I think he/she is a sincere,trustworthy, honest person. This is especially important with so much disinfo around, & especially when it comes to technical subject matter - the non-scientist often cannot evaluate the author's points & must have trust that the author is not ignorant, a loose cannon, and/ or a spin-meister.
Basically, Judy Wood has failed my 'sniff test.'
It has been a good thing, that a friend caused me to examine the situation more closely. From the get-go I really didn't like Wood's vibes & thought she was a spoiler. However I never did bother to examine her work more closely; my friend has caused me to do that; but I found that as far as I can determine my instincts were right.
Judging simply by results, Wood is indeed a spoiler, in effect if not also in intent, because she has divided the 9/11 Truth movement into warring factions & has shifted its focus away from pressing for a new investigation of what really happened to bring down the towers.
Below is a run-down on my readings and reactions.
Before I take time to read a book that is over 450 pp. long, I read a little about the book, & its author, & its basic thesis/info. That just makes sense to me & it is SOP for me. (so many books, so little time, etc.) I also do rely on my own evaluations of an author in interviews of/with them. When I see them acting evasive & jumping around & making vague statements & repeating catch phrases ('dustification') instead of making better use of opportunites to go into more detail re the actual content of their theory -- these are red flags to me. (And that describes conduct I have seen from Wood in interviews.)
Also I read reviews of their work. This also is logical. It is why reviews are written. So many books, so little time - one has to make choices, can't read everything, & reviews help one to do that, especially reviews by people who have more expertise than I do in the subject matter of the book.
Also - I tend NOT to read scientific books by authors who have been shown to lie and distort. Going into a technical subject where I am not an expert, it is all the more important to check out how trustworthy an author is before exposing yourself to their (alleged) information, & guidance.
Re the huge amount of info in Wood's book - well, is it reliable info, or is it just a mix of good info and dis-info? The volume of info in and of itself proves nothing. In fact, it can be a smokescreen - and can cause people to think, wow, anyone with so much to say, & it all looks so technical, etc., MUST be right. Furthermore, the book is poorly organized. With such a big book, and a technical subject, it would be appropriate to summarize in an introduction the theory & its main supports, & to give an intro/over-view & a recap of the info in each chapter.
Here is an example of Wood's analysis vs an A&E for 9/11 Truth analysis. Partly on the basis of her treatment of this subject, I concluded that she appears not to be honest, and to lack integrity.
I will compare/contrast Judy Wood's treatment of the thermite question with the A&E discussion of the same subject.
Here is a brief A&E statement, verbatim -
"Previously molten iron microspheres found in the dust
Substantial quantities of previously molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group (RJ Lee). RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10-100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a "signature component" of the WTC Dust and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were "created during the event," that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The previously molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.
The chemical signature of the examined spheres matched the chemical signature of spheroids produced by common thermite and by red/gray nanothermite composite chips found in the WTC dust, indicating that thermitic reactions took place as part of the towers' demise. The DEW [directed energy weapons] hypothesis does not address this and cannot account for it - because it is inconsistent with the extreme heat required to produce it.
A video, photos, and dozens of witnesses document molten metal
Molten metal is observed pouring from WTC 2 several minutes before its final destruction. Its bright white/yellow color demonstrates that it is not aluminum, but steel or iron, and that its temperature far exceeds that which can be produced by jet fuel or office fires. FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team report, May 2002, Appendix "C" documents molten iron invading the grain boundaries of the WTC structural steel. A revealing NY Times article called this "the deepest mystery" of the investigation.
Thermitic materials (thermite, thermate or nanothermite) produce molten iron at 4,500° F temperatures. They can easily cut through steel and create the ubiquitous iron spheroids. (See YouTube.com, "9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate".) The DEW hypothesis does not explain this phenomenon. In fact Wood denies that these temperatures were ever reached, without even addressing this evidence, which is documented by official and unofficial sources.
Active unignited nanothermite found in the dust
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. Nanothermite, also known as superthermite, was developed in US national laboratories in the late 1990s as an "energetic composite material," meaning it could serve as a pyrotechnic substance to ignite other energetic materials, as a rocket fuel, or as an explosive unto itself with advantages over conventional high explosives.
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. Another advantage is that these substances can be chemically tuned to adjust their shockwave characteristics, which presumably includes the amount and nature of the sound generated when they go off.
The red/gray nanothermite chips constitute direct evidence that supports the explosive/incendiary hypothesis. The DEW - directed energy weapons - hypothesis does not explain how or why this engineered energetic material was found throughout the dust. DEW proponents merely wave away the evidence ... [note from me - this seems to be a 'signature' of Judy Wood's work - just airily 'walk on by' crucially important information that casts doubt upon her theories. In her very brief discussion/dismissal of thermite as having been involved, rather than confronting/addresssing important info/findings which conflict with her theory, instead she makes a big deal of A&E's mention of 'peer review' - she talks about some other totally unrelated 'peer reviewed' paper having been found to be bogus. I mean - so what? This is a prime example of her dishonesty and lack of sincerity. ] A& E quotation continues ... rather than discussing she just waves away evidence which was carefully documented in a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, without addressing any of the specific points made in the paper. Particles of aluminum and iron oxide 1,000 times smaller in diameter than a human hair, intimately intermixed and set in a bed of organic material capable of generating gas pressure when heated, were photographed, analyzed by x-rays, and he did in a calorimeter to the point where they reacted to produce iron-rich microspheres precisely resembling those found in the World Trade Center dust by researchers independent of this team. These findings conclusively account for the observed high-temperature phenomena described in the next section.
Persistent Extreme Heat
Extremely high temperatures at Ground Zero are documented by various sources, for example in thermal images by MTI and 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."
No longer quoting the A&E article now - this is me writing -
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 the A&E explanation of what it is. (This leaves us with the impression that A&E didn't bother to explain what it is.)
Instead of discussing 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 brief thermite discussion (above). This is not a specific comment about thermite, just a general shot in the dark type/ other rabbit trail type comment she wanders off on - it is actually not at all relevant to the subject being discussed ... 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 and 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.
That is pathetically lame, as a rebuttal of information. It is also a kind of padding to disguise the fact that she has very little to actually 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.
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).
I ask you - is this a scientific argument/logical rebuttal, or is this grasping at straws and creating confusion in the minds of not-very-careful non-scientist general readers, under the guise of doing serious science?
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 never 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. (Note: I think it is also possible that other more conventionally employed controlled demo explosive charges were used (alone or in combo with thermite) to bring down or collapse the buildings, once the steel support columns were severed using thermite.)
When could this have been done, she asks - Well, I have read that the buildings were mysteriously shut down totally for a couple of days shortly prior to 9/11, for some kind of 'maintenence', something that had not been done before or was at the very least highly unusual. Marvin Bush was in charge of maintenence I believe. How convenient. Also,as she has to know/realize, as it is only common sense, that work could have been done on weekends, evenings, etc. Materials could have been brought in surreptitiously at night, etc. Surely things were brought in all the time, unloaded at docks (above or below ground) routinely - office supples, cleaning supplies, food.
The columns could have been cut thru prior to 9/11 and the buildings left standing on severed/mostly severed/weakened columns.
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. [Note: the entire A&E rebuttal of Wood's theory is not that long and is well worth reading, link is included above. ]
She mentions bomb sniffing dogs as a proof of her no-bombs theory and 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 it but distorts. 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. She posits a vague unknown exotic technology, just as religions posit an invisible creative deity. So yes it would have been a big order to bring the buildings down by controlled demo (though of course buildings are brought down by controlled demo all the time, they've got it down to a science), & the controlled demo theory does not require us to have 'faith' in a posited vague unknown weapon or type of weapon that could also somehow with precision actually mimic many of the effects of a controlled demo using thermite and other explosives. So she even mis-applies/subtly distorts Occam's razor .
Quotation from 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 far as 'all of that dust' - A&E agree that a whole lot of cement was pulverized ('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 massive buildings standing side by side. 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'.
As far as the absence of sufficient material at the base of the buildings - A&E mention that it is known that material was flung quite far away from the buildings and that the buildings DID NOT fall in their own footprints.
Just wanted to say that, since no-one else has bothered to acknowledge it (youv'e probably put the argument to bed to be honest!), yours was one fantastic post - keep it up!
I hadn't realised that Dr. Wood had been so deceitful in her consideration of the well-documented presence of "red-grey" nano-thermite found in abundance in the WTC dust, the iron micro-spheres almost uniquely characteristic to thermitic reactions (within the boundaries of our current scientific knowledge) and the molten steel - there are video testimonies from fire-crew describing the latter, which Dr. Wood cannot possibly have failed to stumble upon at some time. It may also be worth noting that the WTC 2 Janitor on duty - William Rodriguez - described rescuing people with chunks of flesh missing and the skin of their arms stripped and hanging from their fingernails well before the building collapsed, and that of Barry Jennings who described stepping over dead bodies etc. Although I appreciate, as an engineer myself, sticking with the incontrovertible hard facts, there is an overwhelming mass of highly credible eyewitness testimony to invalidate Dr. Wood's claims as well.
I was particularly surprised and disappointed with Dr. Wood's underhand tactics regarding her dismissal of A&E on the basis of the peer-review argument - thanks for highlighting this.
Read the book and then make up your own mind. Borrow one from your local library. To allow disinformation about the work that has been highly acclaimned by reviewers on Amazon.com go unchallenged is giving up your own freedom to decide for yourself what is fact and what is fiction. Read Dr. Wood's report, then decide. Don't take others word for it.
I have no doubt that anyone who reads the book will come to the correct conclusion about it. They can save themselves time (and money if they do end up buying it) however by just doing a bit of research online into Wood and her "theories".
Dr. Wood's evidence is really getting under your skin isn't it River Man. Why else would you spend so much time trying to dissuade people from investigating her work if she didn't have something important to say. Nobody here is more 'sad' than you, you're as transparent as they come.