Dr Judy Wood – ‘where did the towers go?’

This is a technical analysis of the 911 event, from a well qualified scientist. She has written a book, taken the government to court and now here is a video presentation of her version of 911. It gets lively five minutes in.

The building converted to dust and paper. How?
The building didn’t collapse. ‘It went away’.
A lot more detail here than any other presentation on 911 see before.
There were seven buildings destroyed on 911, not three.
It wasn’t hot. Paper in the building survived.

She calls it dustification. It peels like a banana.
Damn. The film choked at 30 minutes with an hour still to go. Riveting stuff.
(lifted from
If film stops occasionally, just drag or click the time button and it restarts.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

15 Responses to “Dr Judy Wood – ‘where did the towers go?’”

  1. Anonymous says:

    32.30 … steel turning to dust. never seen that before.

    This definitely adds something. I don’t know whether it rules out thermite and the ball.

    They might have used a combination of weapons.

    Why hasn’t the weapon been used again? If it was used too many times the secret would get out, questions would be asked (when was it invented?), and people would know what brought down the WTC towers.

    Also, people might demand the weapon be banned, the technology destroyed, etc.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The hurricane / static field effect link is also new.

  3. Tapestry says:

    Differentiate the set up, the planes, the ball, the deception as to cause from the physical effects of the directed energy weapon.

    They have been used in the Middle East. There are things on Youtube.

  4. Phoust says:

    This video really is informative. Thanks for pointing us in this direction.

    I remember watching a RT interview with Ahmadinejad a few months ago where he states that nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. I felt then that he was correct and telling the truth. All this ‘nuclear threat’ is nothing but a propaganda ploy to justify destroying Iran’s infrastructure and economy. That is, their ability to trade with China of course.

    Anyway one doesn’t need to build or attempt to build a nuke to be threat, one just needs to say that they’ve built one.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Hi Tap, This is all really good information. When we can find out what made Building 7 fall down we will be on the way to getting compensation from The City Of London, who own America. Because they have a duty of care and were negligent.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I thought the video was very good and I went to her website and read through several pages. I was really interesteed.

    However I just saw this video which asked some straight forward questions and tied her in knots and made her look rather stupid.


  7. FuckJudyWood says:

    fucking bullshit.
    Judy wood is a fucking moron.you are a fucking moron for pushing this bullshit.The steel doesnt ‘dustify’ – its simply dropping out of sight.Just like every no plane advocate,this dumb fucking cunt doesn’t understand image resolution.This dumb cunt doesn’t understand why plastic and rubber burns before steel.

  8. megshead says:

    Judy Wood has the knuckle – draggers after her, the haters against her – en masse. Very important for the Powers-that-Be that this info is hid. The dustification of the Towers is really obvious – hidden in plain sight. So it’s important for people to dislike and discredit Judy Wood herself, without looking into the info or thinking about it. That’s the only tactic / chance of covering it. And it’s an ongoing policy for the mainstream 9/11 truth groups! Oh yeah, and disinfo hirelings are paid to mess with people in this research – that is public knowledge and reported in the mainstream press. Also, Judy’s student, who at the time was doing demonstrations that discredited the work of fraud Steven Jones had a bad accident on spring break a few years ago. A robber ,In the process of stealing the young man’s mother’s purse, put a gun to Judy’s students head and shot him at point blank range. These people do KILL to make their point. And to try to slow down the realization of the truth. The colder the trail the better off they are.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Hi Tap, RJW does have a point, the point obviously being to stop the meeting of minds.
    How does RJW think building 7 fell down, being several hundred yards away. Come on knuckle dragging moron, answer that.

  10. Tapestry says:

    Slow down, anon. You hit the R key not the F.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Hi Tap, Thanks for that, so used to ordering RSJ’s, was a slip of the finger. In the mind of FJW where does he think Paper comes in the list of imflamable materials. ie, Should paper burn first or last. Because the streets were full of paper and trees, yet cars were gutted. Come on knuckle dragging moron, answer that.

  12. Tapestry says:

    FJW looks like what you intended to type, but how is Judy Wood a he? Is that another typo?

  13. wasp says:

    FuckJudyWood said..Nothing of interest! He obviously doesn’t understand anything about Nikola Tesla’s Physics.

    As she said just “look at the evidence”, you can’t sweep the lack of 1,500,000 Tons of rubble from a 120 Storey Tower Block under the carpet. This should have been 15,storeys high. In view of the fact that the so called 3rd Tower was brought down by conventional means, as collision aborted, what was the height of the rubble, in this case. It would be interesting to compare the results. I was reminded when looking at this video, of Operation Montauk, The Philadehia Experiment
    This involved multi parellel universes, & zero time, time outside our 3D experience, this is time that connects us to the universe, A zero time reference generator had actually been built by Tesla in the 1920’s, ITT were involved with this, & TIME WARPING experiments carried out in 1979.


  14. Damon F says:

    The main point against Wood’s theory seems to be that the energy required for the directed energy weapon would be too great. However, the flaw of this argument is that the alternative is that there was no directed energy weapon. In that case, zero energy would be required from a directed energy weapon. If that’s the case, how can you make the claim that there wouldn’t be enough energy from a directed energy weapon if you say it came down with none at all?

    This is similar to my complaint of the thermite/explosive rebuttal that it wouldn’t be possible to get enough explosives into the building. If that were the case, how can you say the building collapsed without explosives if you can’t get enough explosives in the building to bring it down?

    • Anonymous says:

      Do you realize how stupid your statement is? Well, just to let you know, it made the finals on the JREF for dumbest posts on the internet. That’s how dumb it was. Thousands of people are laughing at it. It couldn’t make less sense if you tried.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.