Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
By Jim Fetzer and Don Fox
On 11 November 2006, I (Jim Fetzer) first interviewed Judy Wood on a program with Republic Broadcasting Network. I was in Tucson, AZ, at the time, and would discuss her ideas about the use of directed energy weapons (or “DEW”s) during lectures I would present in the following days.
I had founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth almost exactly a year earlier and had invited Steve Jones, Ph.D., a physicist from BYU, to be my co-chair as the recommendation of David Ray Griffin.
But I had become increasingly skeptical of the theory that Steve was advancing, according to which nanothermite was responsible for pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel at the Twin Towers. I believed that Scholars had to cast its net more widely and interviewing Judy was an appropriate step to take in that direction.
The effects were fast and furious. Almost immediately, Steve and his allies, especially Kevin Ryan, began to plan to take over the Scholars web site at http://st911.org, which had become world-famous, even though I had been responsible for selecting every entry that had been made on our site from its conception. They would fake a phony poll of the members, which they falsely claimed had come from the “Membership Administrator”, and freeze me from access to the site.
I had entrusted a member, Alex Floum, to secure the domain name, which he refused to relinquish to me when Steve and others, including from 1/3 to 1/2 of the members, left Scholars for a new group they would name “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”. It was a bleak time for the 9/11 community, where I believed we had to emphasize TRUTH in the search for 9/11 Truth and nanothermite did not advance it, where subsequent research with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, has demonstrated that I was right.
While the 9/11 Truth community was being feted with such false depictions as, “Nanothermite: What in the world is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11?” which was being lauded as “the smoking gun” of 9/11 and described as, “a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories. This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes”,
It would turn out that a principle of materials science–which is actually a law of nature–holds that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless its detonation velocity is greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest know detonation velocity for nanothertmite is 895 m/s, which means you can’t get there from there. The claims for nanothermite were therefore greatly exaggerated.
In the meanwhile, I was interviewing Judy Wood on my radio programs and reviewing her web site again and again, topping out with 15 interviews. I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and would feature her as the principal speaker at the Madison Conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″, which was held 3-5 August 2007, during which I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak. Morgan Reynolds, a close associate, and Jerry Leaphart, the attorney for her pro se lawsuit, were also invited and spoke. When I would later organized The Vancouver Hearings, which were held 15-17 June 2012, I again invited her to speak, in spite of several odd encounters with some of her supporters that transpired in the meanwhile, but I received no response. I invited Morgan Reynolds, who accepted at first and then withdrew, and then asked John Hutchison, who initially agreed, but then would not respond when I asked for him to verify a bio-sketch I had drafted. Clare Kuehn would accept the challenge of presenting Judy’s position during the event, but it was a mystery why Judy herself was unwilling to speak up.
I suppose I should have seen it coming. On 26 January 2010, I had published “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation” on my personal blog, which had been immediately attacked by Andrew Johnson, who may be Judy’s closest ally, on the purported grounds that the photos had come from Judy’s site. That was very odd, because, with one exception, they had not come from “Judy’s site” and even the photos on Judy’s site were not taken by Judy and she has no proprietary claim to them. Moreover, what I published there was a chapter from THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), namely: the color-photo section, and had been prepared by Jack White, who had long maintained his own photo studies 0f 9/11 as well as of JFK. (Jack died recently, but eventually responded to Andrew’s fanciful allegation by sending me an email, which I posted on the blog.) Ironically, it was the chapter that appeared immediately before the chapter by Judy Wood, “A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory”, where, on the basis of temporal considerations and elementary physics, she showed that a progressive, floor by floor, collapse would have required 96.7 seconds, not the 10 seconds alleged. I liked her work, but the tempest on my blog would be an early indication I was not dealing with a normal research group.
As I have often observed, Dr. Judy D. Wood may be the most highly qualified student of the destruction of the Twin Towers in the 9/11 research community. Dr. Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992). She is a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is also a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. During my interviews with Judy, we frequently visited her web site and surveyed the many photos and studies she has gathered together, which I continue to regard as the most important compilation of evidence about the effects that an adequate theory of the destruction of the WTC has to explain. I have made that point repeatedly during interviews and elsewhere.
Consider, for example, what I wrote about her in the old (and now decimated) version of my Wikipedia entry:
Explaining the explanandum
Fetzer has spoken positively of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, who left Scholars due in part to disagreement with the organization, objecting to the unwillingness of the society to consider ‘no big boeing’ theories (conspiracy theories arguing that no large aircraft hit the World Trade Center and that video evidence of the planes hitting the towers have serious inconsistencies showing them to be “doctored”). Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a “satellite-mounted military weapon” may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that “the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based.” 
For Fetzer, “Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her “proof of concept” than has Steven [Jones]“. Steven Jones and others claim to have refuted the mini-nuke hypothesis Jones has responded to Reynolds and Wood directly, but they have not viewed his remarks as refutations. After featuring fifteen or more students of video fakery as guests on his radio program, Fetzer decided that claims of video fakery and claims that no planes hit the tower are logically distinct issue. He has become convinced that video fakery took place on 9/11 and has published several articles about it, including “Mounting Evidence of Video Fakery on 9/11″  and “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″. Wood and Reynolds both contributed chapters to his first book for Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007).
Judy has since published her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which is previewed in this trailer and which I regard as invaluable as a resource for the study of the effects that an adequate theory must explain:
While that is all very much to THE GOOD, unfortunately, there has been a down-side to Judy’s work, which has extended to some mottos or slogans that have been prominently featured in her work, such the following:
Unfortunately, for all her good work in displaying the explanandum, what she says here does not do her work justice. For example, the claim that, “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, falls short on several grounds. Since truth and falsity are properties of sentences (or propositions), while empirical evidence consists of photographs, remnants of steel and other physical things, including dust samples and the outcome of observations, measurements, and experiments, “empirical evidence” is not the right kind of thing to be either true or false. Moreover, the idea that “theory mimic” empirical evidence compounds the semantic obstacles to making a claim that makes sense, since “mimicry” is a kind of simulation, replication, or emulation that would, were it successful, produce more of the same: more photographs, more remnants of steel and other physical things. What she should be saying is, “Empirical evidence is the data that an adequate theory must explain”.
Perhaps my background as a philosopher of science makes me more attune to the oddities of her formulations, but others are equally peculiar. To claim that, “If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. . . . The evidence always tells the truth”, once again, is to make an assertion that may sound appealing but does not make literal sense. Unless the evidence happens to be auditory and consist of sounds, vibrations, or other phenomena capable of being heard, which photographs, remnants of steel and most other physical things are not, the idea of “listening to the evidence” simply does not apply. I would liken this to a category mistake, such as supposing that geometrical figures, like triangles and squares, are physical things, like metal triangles and square tables, which are physical things in space/time, while the geometrical figures are abstractions, which have ideal properties and are not in space/time. Her confusion is roughly on that order. But to my surprise, she has gone even further by denying that she even has “a theory”!
What makes this so peculiar is that there is a subtitle on her book that baldly states, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11″, which, I submit, would lead any rational mind to infer that her theory is that directed free-energy technology was used on 9/11, in particular, to destroy the Twin Towers, which cannot possibly have collapsed, even though the government maintains that indefensible proposition. In a collapse, gravity–operating in only one direction, namely: down–pulls a building toward the ground, which Judy had already shown, in her chapter in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), was inconsistent with the time for both collapses, which THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) said had taken place in about 10 seconds apiece. Not only that, but both towers were blown apart in every direction from the top down and were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And, when the dust had settled, moreover, they were actually destroyed below ground level, when there should have been a stack of pancakes (made up of the floors that had presumably “collapsed”) equal to about 12% of the original height of the building, which was the outcome of WTC-7, a 47-story building that actually did collapse at 5:20 PM/ET and left a stack of pancakes of around 5-stories high.
The very idea that the government could attempt to peddle such obvious rubbish to the American people–and that many members of the public should be taken in!–has to be one of the most astonishing public relations coups in history. Anyone who compares the features that distinguish the collapse of WTC-7 with the features that distinguish the destruction of the Twin Towers, which are completely different, would recognize the scam, as “This is an orange” and “9/11: The Towers of Dust”, so elegantly reveal. In summary form, they include:
As Ace Baker observed some time ago, the term “pulverization” could be viewed as objectionable, since it tends to imply that the process was mechanical, such as by means of grinding, which preempts that it may have been a chemical, a nuclear or an electromagnetic process instead. Judy has been ingenious by introducing words that fit better without taking for granted how it was done. In this case, for example, she has used “dustification” as a term that well describes what we actually see happening on 9/11. It has to be an acknowledgment to the power of verbal repetition by the mass media that the dustification of the Twin Towers, which bears none of the signs of a collapse, could nevertheless be sold to the public as having been a collapse, when it manifestly was not.
Judy and I maintained a cordial relationship from our first inteview on 11 November 2006 to our last on 28 February 2008, when she appeared with John Hutchison. Because the claims that have been made about John’s work and the fact that it is in the domain of electromagnetism, which is among the most complex in physics, I asked (what I thought at the time was) an inocuous question about his background and education, which he had sluffed off by saying he had “flunked crayons and coloring books”. That struck me as very odd, since an inquiry about his scientific background was obviously appropriate. But Judy apparently took offense and has refused to respond to any of my communications, including my invitation to her to speak during The Vancouver Hearings, 15-17 June 2012. An archive of Judy’s interivews, which includes both our first and our last, has been created by Andrew Johnson, which reminds me that I also featured many of Judy’s closest allies and supporters on my shows, including Morgan Reynolds and Jerry Leaphart, which can be accessed here. They were among the other speakers I invited to participate in the Madison conference, 3-5 August 2007, as I mentioned above, and Morgan would also contribute two chapters to THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007).
The claim that Judy “does not have theory” has struck me as so odd that I have pursued it in several contexts. During an interview she did with Bob Tuskin, I called in to ask how she could deny that she has a theory, when the subtitle of her book declares, “Evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11″. To my astonishment, Judy became semi-hysterical and refused to answer. While it may have transpired during a break and not made it onto the air (where what was broadcast can be taken in here), she told Bob that having me call in was “like a victim having to confront her rapist”. She probably did not realize I was still connected and overheard this conversation, but I found it so extraordinary and unwarranted that it has made an indelible impression upon me. Some of her supporters, such as Thomas Potter, have been equally emphatic that she does not have a theory. In an email to Don Fox on 23 July 2012, for example, he wrote, “The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page textbook about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it.” The problem is that, if she has no theory, then she has no explanation. She even claimed that I had “threatened” her to not talk about this technology, which is completely false and has no foundation.
There is no doubt that Judy has done more than anyone else to clarify the explanandum (as the evidence that has to be explained by an adequate theory). In technical philosophical language, she needs the explanans (as the premises that can explain the explanandum) in the form of the initial conditions (of the Twin Towers before their destruction) and the causes that transformed them from BEFORE to AFTER. Those causes can take the form of causal mechanisms (such as conventional explosives, thermite or thermate or nanothermite, mini or micro nukes (fission or fusion), or DEWs as directed energy devices), but invoking those mechanisms as THE CAUSES that brought about the transformation of the Twin Towers to a mass of rubble and millions of cubic yards of very fine dust is to advance A THEORY. The term “theory”, as I am using it here, is not simply a guess or a conjecture but a set of laws and corresponding definitions that related those laws to physical things and events in space/time. There is no way around it: If she has no theory, she has no laws; and if she has no laws, she has no explanation.
This business about “having no theory” bothered me enough that I asked myself why in the world she would make such a claim. Part of it appears to be excessive commitment to the ordinary language distinction between “theories” and “facts”, as though theories were necessarily either false or at least not known to be true. This, of course, is inconsistent with the use of the term in “Newton’s theory of universal gravitation”, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection”, and “Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity”, which are–with certain qualifications–generally regarded as theories that are true. But there may be a deeper reason why she and her followers–who are adamant on this point–want to deny that she has “a theory”, which includes (a) that the strongest claim she actually makes about how the Twin Towers were destroyed is not that DEWs were responsible but (b) “What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” As Don Fox has observed, “My mini-nuke hypothesis fits in nicely with that definition: mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally and their capabilities go well beyond those of conventional explosives.” So does she rule out mini or micro nukes?
There are at least two important reasons to doubt that she does. The first is that, while she and her followers insist she has, but her “refutations”, which are set forth on pages 121-122 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, are relatively limited to a small number of claims of limited significance:
- Do they exist? But the problem is, were they used, and would they show these types of signatures?
- Nuclear weapons explode, but the towers did not explode. They were pulverized and peeled to the ground, almost like a banana peeling.
- Moreover, the site wasn’t “hot”, that is, radioactive.
- The bathtub survived, as has been seen, making it highly unlikely that nukes of any kind were used.
- Additionally, the Richter reading did not show the use of a nuclear weapon. If a nuke large enough to destroy the WTC had been used, it would have registered a seismic signal greater than if the building had fallen to the ground. What the seimograph showed was that the majority of the WTC did not hit the ground.
- Finally, the site showed massive amounts of unburned paper, an impossibility if nuclear weapons had been detonated. The “unburned paper” evidence will be discussed subsequently in conjunction with other factors.
Judy’s question about the existence of mini or micro nukes suggests a lack of research, since the Department of Defense has been publicly endorsing them at least since 1993. Some of her points count against the idea of 150kt nukes planted at the base of each of the three buildings, which has been advanced by Demitri Khalezov, whom I interviewed on “The Real Deal” on 21 January 2011 on “9/11: Nukes at the WTC?” on
(I personally have had no doubts about the existence of directed energy weapons, where, in doing research on the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone, I had discovered the existence of the Directed Energy Professional Society, which was then in 2004 holding its eighth annual meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.) But I find it odd to question the existence of mini or micro nukes, whose existence, if anything, is even better known than DEWs, and which her research has not debunked.
I also find it odd she would describe the buildings as having been “pulverized” for the reason that Ace Baker raised. Given her innovative use of language, I would have thought that she would have said “They were dustified”, not that they were “pulverized and peeled to the ground”. Perhaps even more strikingly, Judy’s “conclusions” about the WTC and how it was done are advanced in a series of forty-three (43) propositions about “evidence that must be explained”, which are presented on pages 480-483, which qualify more as explanandum than as explanans. Indeed, I have interviewed Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high-school physics, math and chemistry instructor, about her 43 propositions during 15 interviews, which could be viewed as responses to the 15 I did with her. I thought I would do my best to acknowledge what she has and has not done by posting a review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? on amazon.com. The consequences were not going to be anything like I had expected.
Rather to my astonishment, the 8th post in what has now become more than 1,000 comments on my review would attack me as though I were an enemy of 9/11 Truth, authored by someone using the name “Emmanuel Goldstein”, which many of us have concluded–possibly mistakenly, but probably correctly–is Judy Wood, just as the party who identifies himself as “S. Tiller” appears likely to be her close associate, Andrew Johnson:
All things considered, I thought this was a rather harsh response to a 5-star review that is entitled, “Masterful argument by elimination”. It exemplifies the fallacy known as the straw man by exaggerating an opponents position to make it easier to attack. There was no reason to regard me as a “debunker” to begin with. It was one of the first indications that, no matter how carefully I presented my views, how highly I praised her work or how strongly I supported her, it would not be enough for Judy and her followers, where the entire thread would confirm my suspicion that this is not a scientific research group.
Other attacks upon me have been, if anything, even more disgusting and unjustifiable. Several of them have the character or flavor of death threats, which was not exactly what I had expected when I published a 5-star review. Indeed, this thread itself provides further confirmation that what I had said in my review was right and that she had not shown that mini or micro nukes could have been used, as I shall explain below. But her followers were not seriously concerned with the science of 9/11. Two were so blatant they should have been deleted by amazon.com as both offensive and revealing. The first was:
Posted on May 25, 2012 7:39:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 25, 2012 7:42:00 AM PDT
Emmanuel Goldstein says:
“The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.” – Philosopher James Fetzer (12/6/1940 to ?)
Should the evidence that is presented by Dr. Judy Wood become a contributing factor in the development of cognitive dissonance to the point where your guilt, anger, or embarrassment creates an unmanageable schism, there are other options besides suicide.
Veterans Crisis Line 1-800-273-8255
I thought the use of the date (12/6/1940 to ?) was especially considerate. But the suggestion that I should be contemplating suicide was relatively minor compared to the post that would show up around 2 months later, after I had explained why Judy Wood and her groupies appear to have the characteristics distinctive of a cult. Here is what I wrote as a dissection of the behavior being displayed on this thread and the earlier exchange that took place when I reprinted Jack White’s chapter:
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 11:57:55 AM PDT
Last edited by you on Jul 21, 2012 12:06:36 PM PDT
James H. Fetzer says:
Since I point out the obvious “dustification” of the Twin Towers, which were converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust–and from the top down–where they were destroyed below ground level (see, “New 9/11 Photos Released”, for example, but in every other place where I discuss this issue (such as “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, why are my bona fides being questioned again?
Here we have another display of the characteristics of a cult. As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. Examples that come to mind include the Branch Davidians (David Koresh) and, even more appropriately, Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard), with its pretensions toward science. Does any of this sound familiar?
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as Jonestown (Jim Jones) exemplifies. And extremely harsh treatment of anyone who challenges its core beliefs. All of these characteristics have been exhibited on this thread.
Chuck has made a brilliant observation: “The dust samples have only iron or glass spheres. The dust contains no steel dust which would be of highly irregular shapes, not near perfectly round spheres as is actually found in all of the dust samples. This means all of those spheres in the dust of iron and glass had to me liquified or vaporized in order for surface tension to allow for those spheres to be formed, all from very, very, very high temperatures. There is no steel dust other that the micro and nano sized iron and glass spheres. No other metal particles were found in the dust.”
This strikes at the heart of the matter, which is that the defense of their core beliefs is isolated from and treated as though it were immune to criticism or discussion. For true-believing cult members, the question has been settled–and those who differ are threats to attack, viciously, repeatedly, and without mercy. I am afraid we have seen this attitude on display here and else where, such as the attacks upon me for publishing “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation”, which is on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. It is the antithesis of a scientific attitude.
The key point that I have been making, which jbr, S. Tiller, and Emmanuel Goldstein–who are so lacking in confidence in themselves and their own theory that they dare not use their real names–is that the superiority of one theory (DEWs) over alternatives (of mini or micro nukes, fission or fusion, atomic or hydrogen) depends upon their respective clarity of language, comparative explanatory power, degrees of empirical support, and economy/simplicity/elegance, where Chucks observation suggests that, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, the case for the use of DEWs appears to encounter serious problems. Its superiority has yet to be shown.
The suggestion that Judy and her groupies possess the properties of a pseudo-scientific cult was not terribly well received by “Emmanuel Goldstein” and elicited her second especially offensive post, when she ratcheted up the pressure by suggesting that my wife, Jan, might actually shoot me, as though it were an acceptable way to satirize her own failure to understand the meaning of the word “theory”, when it is actually extraordinarily revealing for the insight it affords into a perverted mind:
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2012 8:42:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 33 minutes ago
Emmanuel Goldstein says:
So they find Uncle Fester’s body with a bullet hole in his head. When they dig out the slug it matches his wife’s gun and she has gun powder residue on her body. When charges are filed against her in a court of law will the prosecutor present evidence to convict her of murder or will they present a theory?
Not long thereafter, S. Tiller would post an attack upon me that not only falsely suggested that I was defending the theory that thermite / thermate / nanothermite had been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers but that my dedication to presevring that myth was why I had “thrown them out” of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, when I had done no such thing. Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and others had split from Scholars because I was featuring and supporting Judy Wood!
Judy Wood and her groupies clearly satisfy the requirements that define a cult: (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism. They display their loyalty to the group by excessive zeal in attacking anyone they perceive to threaten it, no matter whether that perception is well-founded or not. The deification of Judy Wood and her status as the mystical figure at the center of this cult is thus especially well reflected by one of the later posts of S. Tiller:
Where did the Science Go?
On yet another forum, Emmanuel Goldstein has continued the onslaught, maintaining that Judy Wood is being assaulted by Jim Fetzer and by Richard Gage, meant to present her sympathetically as a victim. No everyone has been taken in, however:
Originally Posted by l4zarus
I’d like to point to your signature which reads:
It’s not accurate. Leaving aside Wood’s history with Fetzer which has been documented, I found this review at Amazon by Fetzer praising Judy Wood’s book:
Masterful argument by elmination, May 20, 2012
By James H. Fetzer
. . . .
–James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Hardly the words of someone “attacking” Wood.
My question: why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is attacking Wood when that’s obviously not true?
Caught with proof demonstrating that what she had been posting was false, she replied, “Why are you trying to convince us Fetzer is not attacking Dr. Judy Wood when it’s obviously true that he is?”, apparently the best she could do–apart from resorting to cartoon art in which I, Jim Fetzer, am presented as a clown, which is not the first time she has used this motif:
Indeed, Judy and her followers constructed a YouTube in which they presented me explaining the views of someone else, Phil Jayhan, who had appeared on one of my shows. They attributed Jayhan’s views to me and then attacked me as a clown, where Judy was attacking me even though she had to know that what I was saying was a report about the views of Jayhan and not mine. I have tried to find it on YouTube, but it was so outrageous that even Judy and her buddies may have been embarrassed by what they had done. It was about as unethical a form of behavior as I could imagine within this context.
Other students of 9/11 have been less patient than I. Don Fox, for example, who has participated in this lengthy thread has concluded that Judy Wood has stalled the 9/11 Truth Movement for long enough now. While Judy encourages the readers of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, to accept the notion that some variety of a Tesla/Hutchison-based technology directed energy weapon was responsible for the destruction of the WTC. But does Judy believe this herself? The material posted on her website at http://drjudywood.com might actually lead one to conclude that she does not. Don believes that her primary mission is to undermine and deny that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the WTC complex on 9/11, that she is a gatekeeper and that she most likely works for one of the many intelligence agencies. I find that ironic, since Judy has implied that about me!
Don came to believe that Judy was pure disinfo when he came across photos she calls, “The Snowball” and “The Bubbler”. She shows photos of buildings that are (in Don’s view) being nuked and comes up with these cute little catch phrases. The inference we are supposed to draw is that only her conjectured Tesla/Hutchison based DEW weapon could do this sort of damage to the buildings. But, he observes, Judy Wood NEVER states that a Tesla/Hutchison technology based weapon was used at the WTC. All that she EVER commits to is: “What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” Notice, especially, that Don’s mini-nuke hypothesis also fits in nicely with that definition: mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally and their capabilities go well beyond those of conventional explosives. And Don has raised some rather telling questions:
(a) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will produce a fission process that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced nuclear devices? What Tesla or Hutchison effect will cause elevated tritium levels that otherwise would only be found from exploding advanced thermonuclear devices?
(b) What Tesla or Hutchison effect will eject debris from the middle of WTC-1 up at a 45 degree angle and out into the Winter Garden 600 feet away? What Tesla or Hutchison effect could produce the China Syndrome at Ground Zero? Nukes fit ALL of these phenomena to a “t”.
(c) If Goldstein, Potter, Johnson, Reynolds and Wood were after the truth, they would conduct themselves in a completely different manner. Instead I see baseless attacks on other researchers, veiled intimidation/death threats and a coordination of efforts that smacks of an intelligence operation.
Don believes there is a pattern here that reflects the standard script they follow is more about toeing the party line than to contributing to scientific discussion. Whoever goes off of the script gets attacked. Even if you support Judy Wood as much as 95%, that is not good enough. I wish I could say that Don is wrong, but my fear is that he is actually right. After having interviewed her 15 times, published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, given her three hours to speak during the Madison Conference, inviting her to participate in The Vancouver Hearings and more, the unrelenting and incredibly nasty attacks to which I have been subjected–including the bizarre responses from her and her followers to my 5-star review on amazon.com–I have been forced to conclude that Judy Wood and her followers have lost their way and are displaying the characteristics of a cult. As I use the word “cult”, it refers to a group (formal or informal) typified by (a) core dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) disposition to attack those who question the faith, and (e) devotion to the group even when confronted with well-founded criticism.
Among their characteristics are their members’ excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to the identity and the leadership of the group; the exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward or directed outward depending on the source of the threat, as the case of Jonestown and Jim Jones chillingly exemplifies. And notice the extremely harsh treatment dealt out to anyone who challenges its core beliefs. All of these characteristics have been exhibited on this thread and in other venues, as I have documented here. Don believes that the death threats I received in Seattle and that were sent to the Deman Theatre in an attempt to halt The Vancouver Hearings may have come from her. It is a sad comment on the state of 9/11 research and the factions that have developed that he may be right about that, too. I certainly have no better explanation –and I am sorry to say that it would fit the pattern of harassment and intimidation that I have come to expect from Judy and her gang. I wish it were not so, but “if you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you”!
Don Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and The Anonymous Physicist on the Twin Towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why it may well have involved very low-yield thermonuclear devices.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=219490
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Aug 20 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.