{ಠ.⚆✿

Debunking dr. Judy Wood Index Index to posts that refute Judy Wood's book and thesis on how Directed Energy Weapons were supposedly utilized on 9/11 to dustify the World Trade Center Twin Towers: Introduction teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… The three core arguments teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Supporting arguments teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… The tactics teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… ------------------------- Core argument 1: The towers turned to dust teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1A: Understanding the WTC complex teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1B: Material quantity and expected debris teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1C: What the actual evidence shows teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1D: Refuting Wood's arguments about the debris teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… --- Core argument 2: The Bathtub should have been destroyed teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Core argument 3: The seismic signals were too small teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Core Arguments recap teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… -------------------------- Argument 4: Earth's magnetic field on 9/11 teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 5: Hurrican Erin teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 6: Toasted Cars teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 7: Dustification & Lathering teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 8: "Jumpers" teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 9: Holes teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 10: Cartoon Physics teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 11: Missing Wing teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 12: Freefall Billiard Ball teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/211… Argument 13: Tissue Beams and Tortilla Chips teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/211… Argument 14: Weird Fires teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/211…

(2/3) f) Next the DEW-ers argue the plane would never be able to breach the “thick steel perimeter wall” of the tower. g) First, what no truther seems to know or understand, is how thick the perimeter steel actually was. I’ve had discussions with people assuring me it was “tens of centimeters thick steel”! h) In reality, façade steel was barely an inch front-to-back for the most part at the levels struck by the planes. At the floors of the impact zone in WTC 1 for example, 2/3 of the box columns in the façade panels were ¼ inch thick steel on all sides [3], meaning head-on in the center of the column, total steel thickness was just ½ an inch! The first attached visual shows what that looks like top-down to scale. i) Of course you need to add fire proofing, insulation material and aluminum cladding, but it’s a far cry from “tens of centimeters of steel”. And on the flip side, about 30% of façade area is windows. j) You are free to believe a fully loaded 767 would simply ‘bounce off’ of the façade wall out of ignorance or personal incredulity, but just know that you’re wrong, and that THAT in fact would be cartoon physics. k) This is further substantiated by the numerous detailed physics simulations done by NIST and other parties that show that when throwing a 767 at those speeds against the towers, real-world physics dictates it breaches that perimeter, exactly as we saw. l) Ask yourself this: With how fast computers and physics simulators are today, why have we NEVER, EVER, seen a physics simulation where the plane bounces of the building?? It should be SOOO easy to reconstruct a few floors of perimeter wall and let it collide with an object the speed, size and mass of the planes, right? So where is it? It's 2026! m) The reason is of course bloody obvious: DEWers/Truthers don’t have physics on their side. No physics simulation will ever show what they assert. Hence we need to deal with fake Looney Tunes visuals instead of real data.

Been a bit occupied with other stuff but don't worry, we'll continue the controlled demolition of Judy Wood shortly ;) teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210…

Debunking dr. Judy Wood Index to posts that refute Judy Wood's book and thesis on how Directed Energy Weapons were supposedly utilized on 9/11 to dustify the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Part 1: Introduction teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 2: The three core arguments teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 3: Supporting arguments teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 4: The tactics teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… ------------------------- Part 5: Core argument 1, The towers turned to dust teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 6: Core argument 1A, Understanding the WTC complex teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 7: Core argument 1B, Material quantity and expected debris teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 8: Core argument 1C, What the actual evidence shows teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Part 9: Core argument 1D, Refuting Wood's arguments about the debris teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/209… --- Part 10: Core argument 2, The Bathtub should have been destroyed teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Part 11, Core argument 3, The seismic signals were too small teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Core Arguments recap teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… -------------------------- Part 12: Earth's magnetic field on 9/11 teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Part 13: Hurrican Erin teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Part 14: Toasted Cars teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Part 15: Dustification & Lathering teapaw.org/B3ardMonkey/status/210… More to come...

(4/4) q) Wood makes a big point of pointing out objects that are burning next to objects that are not, such as a burning car with unburned paper on the ground next to it. It appears that in Judy Wood world, either everything is on fire or nothing is. It’s also not clear how this an argument in any way, as regardless of WHAT set the car on fire, there is paper on the ground that is not on fire? Is paper different after DEW? r) Similarly, cars that are half burned are also deemed impossible and forced into the binary [pristine/completely burned] false dichotomy. Car 2723 from part 2 showed how such patterns can arise. Fires being put out is another option. s) For other examples of papers (or other combustible items) inside already burned out cars, no provenance is provided for when the papers entered said cars for example. Given how we’ve already seen Judy’s standard of provenance is basically absent, through here false reporting on the FDR drive cars, her word, which is all she offers most of the time, is worth very little. t) A final example I’ll mention here is Wood pointing to holes in a gearbox or drive shaft cover of the 2723 car, stating that it “… appears to be full of holes, as if the steel has been partially eaten through”[6]. A quick look at the higher resolution and better quality original photo reveals these are just geometrically outlined holes for cabling or center console mounting. u) Searching for ‘burned cars’ or similar terms on the internet quickly turns up numerous examples of all the observations Wood calls anomalous in this chapter. Her ignorance and/or personal incredulity however are not an argument. ----- In short, all of the phenomena Wood presents in this chapter are entirely consistent with the events of that day. Common sense, some logic, and a basic understanding of fire physics paint a much more sensible and mundane scenario than Judy wants you to believe. It again appears a conclusion is in search of evidence, instead of the other way around. ----- Sources: [1] ‘Where did the Towers go?’ (2010), chapter 11 ‘Toasted Cars’ [2] Metabunk [FDR car location debunk] (metabunk.org/threads/debunke…) [3] ‘Where did the Towers go?’ [“vehicles weren’t moved”] (2010), page 217 [4] ‘Where did the Towers go?’ [FDR wax spot police car] (2010), page 214 [5] Flash rust sources: -Flash rust explainer (youtube.com/watch?v=1LHq4FlV…) -Flash rust example of a pan rusting in minutes: (facebook.com/watch/?v=307831…) -Kitchen blade rusting in hours (youtube.com/watch?v=IeraWm1n…) [6] ‘Where did the Towers go?’ [interior holes] (2010), page 215/216

Debunking dr. Judy Wood 15 – (Arg. 7) Dustification and Lathering In this post I tackle two of the book's chapters [1]. They mainly detail more alleged examples of materials ‘dustifying’, with the WTC 1/North Tower spire, the remnant of the core that kept standing during the collapse being the most notable one. This chapter showcases some of the most absurd instances of reading completely made-up nonsense into dust and debris, which is saying something after hurricane Erin and the Magnetic Field argument. a) Core of the ‘Dustification’ argument are a number of examples of mainly falling debris, which Judy asserts are ‘dustifying’ before our very eyes. b) A large number of weird observations are made about the pictures shown, including debris disappearing, weird smoke behavior, strange shapes, and donuts. Supposedly. Her words. c) To show you this, what better way than to start with looking at the raw evidence and see if YOU can spot what Judy says she sees, shall we: d) Attached to this part you will find two original/unmarked photos Wood also uses in her book. The visuals then state verbatim what Judy Wood asserts is seen in them. I dare anyone to look at them and tell me with a straight face they could find every item. Don't worry though, Judy will share her answers with us! e) Pareidolia, seeing meaningful shapes or patterns in ambiguous visual input, coupled with a must-need to get to the pre-conceived DEW conclusion, explains the majority of the chapters. (1/7)

(3/3) m) Wood next argues Erin was almost completely absent from news coverage, which in her words is strange given the risk. Interestingly, in her book she then cites reports from FOX, CNN and CBS that mention Erin quite thoroughly, refuting her own point. Given the NHC forecasts discussed earlier, it is clear that news stations were just reporting the facts. n) The fact the hurricane wasn’t shown in every image or map in weather reports is also unsurprising. Wood shows a number of weather report maps for various parameters such as temperature, and often for the entire US, for which we would not expect a single storm to be included. Weather report maps are meant as abstract translations for the type of information they’re meant to convey, like temperature or rainfall, not as photo realistic models of earth. The sky is also not filled with cartoon clouds and little suns, or giant temperature numbers. o) Lastly, Wood gives no reason why the hurricane would be kept from the public in the first place, an action that seems to defy any common sense, whether she is right about Erin or not. ----- In short, Wood’s Hurricane Erin argument can be summed up as ‘misleading at best’ when it comes to the facts of the hurricane itself, and evidence-free and often pseudo-scientific speculation on what it means in the grand narrative of her book. Completely unconvincing. ----- Sources: [1] ‘Where did the Towers go?’ (2010), chapter 18 [2] Judy Wood [on Erin turning around], GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (youtu.be/vadSaWyiozg?si=D2y5…) [3] NHC September 9 Erin forecast (nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2001/di…) [4] Total Disclosure Podcast [Wood on Erin’s track] (2026) (youtube.com/live/UAasZYRdqsM…) [5] NHC September 8 Erin forecast (nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2001/di…) If you're interested in historical hurricane data such as I used, check the link below for the NOAA archives: nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/index.…

(3/3) l) The final nail in the coffin of this argument is actually looking at the data from the other closer observatories. Attached here the data for the four closest ones. m) None of these observatories show anything strange happening on 9/11, and nothing correlates to the timestamps of the plane impacts and tower collapses. n) Zooming out to data of the entire month for these stations also reveals that the day itself is completely normal, and nothing ‘anomalous’ happened. o) Wood’s argument becomes completely nonsensical in light of all this: How can the events of 9/11 alter the magnetic field in Alaska while at the same time not even registering anywhere else? p) Wood of course offers zero explanation for anything. Not her choice of stations, the omission of data, the context of what normal values are, or any attempt to propose a mechanism for cause and effect, or a physical model. ----- Wood, who prides herself as focusing strictly on all the evidence, betrays her own standards to craft a deceptive narrative, by carefully cherry-picking data that supports it, and relying on her audience not to look any further. For those that DO want to look further, I provide links to the data below. Because doing your own research and fact-checking Judy's claims is ironically the fastest way to understand her arguments are false. ----- Sources: [1] Judy Wood [Earth’s magnetic field], GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (youtu.be/vadSaWyiozg?si=C6gP…) [2] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010), page 413 Magnetic Field Dataviewer (browser): imag-data.bgs.ac.uk/GIN_V1/G… Magnetic Field data download link. This set contains a lot of data, among which the september and 9/11 for all stations referenced and more. Pick 2001 from the list: datapub.gfz-potsdam.de/downl…

Debunking Judy Wood 13 – (Arg. 5) Hurricane Erin If changing the Earth’s magnetic field was not enough, how about steering hurricanes and using them as energy sources? That is exactly what Wood argues next. a) Hurricane Erin took place between September 1 and 17, moving roughly north-west, then turning north-east around September 11. b) Wood mainly focuses on the path and timing of the hurricane, which she asserts appears remarkable or anomalous [1]. c) On the turn, Wood states in her presentation: “They thought on day one it was going to turn around […] but then it didn’t. Well maybe on day two. It didn’t. Maybe on day three. It didn’t. Maybe on day four. Thank goodness it did.”[2] She makes it appear as if meteorologists were clueless on when the turn would take place and disaster was averted at the last moment. That is false: d) The turn north-east is known as ‘recurvature’. Tropical cyclones commonly turn north and then north-eastward as they move around the western edge of the subtropical ridge. It has a name precisely because it is THAT common. e) NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) had modelled and forecasted the eventual recurving as early as the morning of Sept. 9 [2] and a general turn north on Sept. 8. The actual path Erin took closely follows this predicted path, see attached. f) The fact that the turn north-east is so common it has a specific name, make statements like Wood made in her 2026-09-19 Disclosure Podcast appearance[3], in which she states she has never seen another hurricane “take that path” all the more revealing, because even in the 2001 season other hurricanes did exactly that! (1/3)

Debunking dr. Judy Wood 6 - (Core Arg.1a) Understanding the WTC complex To better understand the debris argument and evidence it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the complex itself. I’ll focus on details that matter most to the argument at hand. a) The main WTC complex was constructed between 1966 and 1981, with WTC 7 following in 1987. It consisted of the two Twin Towers, the WTC 3 Marriott hotel and the smaller WTC 4-6, with WTC 7 to its north [1]. b) The Plaza was actually raised 22 feet above the Concourse or mall level, which was ground level at West Street. The mall was not underground as is sometimes thought. Moving from west to east the site had a small slope upward. c) The western part containing WTC 1-3 and 6 was constructed on top of the deeper ‘Bathtub’, inside slurry walls. These kept out ground water and allowed for the construction of 6 underground levels for tennants, parking, storage, and the PATH station, among other things. The basement went down 70 feet/21 meter to bedrock. d) To better understand these basement levels, I compiled a set of floor plans based on the original architectural drawings, and published them on Reddit [2], including a second set which highlights differences in elevation within each level [3]. e) For a 3D visualisation of the complex above ground, I highly recommend the model published on Sketchfab by user BoldlyBuilding [4]. f) In terms of surface area, the Bathtub was roughly 10 times the size of a tower footprint. It is especially necessary to understand the 6 basement levels, as these are much less well-known to most people, yet play a vital role in solving the question of where the towers went. It is also for this exact reason that Wood is most deceptive when discussing them, as we will see. [1] WTC complex wiki (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_…) [2] WTC basement floor plans (regular) (reddit.com/r/911archive/comm…) [3] WTC basement floor plans (elevation) (reddit.com/r/911archive/comm…) [4] WTC 3D model (sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-…) .

The idea that a few cms worth of structural steel, interspersed with windows, would somehow stop a fully loaded 767 at cruise speed... THAT is the Looney Tunes physics 9/11 truthers accuse reality of being. This will be part of some future installment.

Debunking Judy Wood 11 – (Core Arg. 3) The seismic signals are too small In her final main argument, Wood argues the seismic signals that were recorded on 9/11 [1][2] at nearby seismographic stations are too small to account for the buildings’ masses. Thus, they must’ve been dustified in large part before falling to the ground. a) The same main problem undermines also this argument from the very beginning: Nowhere does Wood provide any detailed calculation on what the seismic signal should have been. She simply asserts it is too small. b) The only comparison she makes is to the Kingdome controlled demolition from 2000 [3]. Wood notes that that implosion produced a relatively much bigger signal for the mass of the Kingdome, and then baselessly extrapolates that single figure to the mass of the Twin Towers to state that their signals should have been larger. c) This comparison at face value is pointless as virtually every aspect differs from the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11. From the bedrock, building type and size, use of explosives, to the manner of collapse. The shallow comparison is utterly pointless. d) Wood in general treats the buildings as one mass hitting the ground, which is not how the towers collapsed. Any discussion on how the towers were seen to collapse, with differentiation between the perimeter walls, cores, and floors, is completely absent, rendering this point moot. e) Concerning the signals themselves Wood argues P and S waves are missing in the 9/11 data. The absence of clear earthquake-like P and S wave arrivals is not at all anomalous for a shallow surface source dominated by Rayleigh waves. The collapse doesn’t (have to) look like an earthquake because it wasn’t. (1/2)

This part concludes the objective look at the observable evidence surrouding the WTC debris after 9/11. I know it's quite some information to get through, but it is necessary to really drive home how monumentally wrong and dishonest dr. Judy Wood is in her treatment of the subject. Coming up next....

n) Wood’s treatment of the Concourse mall is embarrassingly shallow and deceptive. o) She shows a mind-blowing three (3!) photographs from the mall after 9/11, all from the relatively unharmed east part of the mall, farthest away from the towers. My tweet on the mall contained MORE evidence than Judy’s entire 500+ page book! p) If she wanted to discuss which parts of the Concourse level collapsed, photos of intact stores like Innovation Luggage and Strawberry are absolutely pointless by themselves. q) The collapse front near Hallmark is the only somewhat collapsed area she dares show us, but Wood simply downplays the severity of the collapse and moves on. r) Astonishingly, for the Warner Brothers store, she opts to show items that were recovered and put in storage, instead of the store itself, or the items as they were found! And yes, these photos exist. Plenty! s) One of the three real mall photos is taken near the Strawberry store according to Wood, but is in fact taken at Hallmark. Though not that important, it shows the lack of knowledge and depth of the “research” done. t) When plotted on a map against the known collapses on Concourse level, it becomes clear how deceptive Wood’s cherry-picked evidence really is. u) A photo of the East Hudson loading dock under WTC 4 and 5 is shown intact, which is not surprising as we already the mall above it intact as well, as it’s roughly under the Warner Brothers store. Not only a pointless photograph, but Wood also leaves out, again, the collapse that DID happen in the ramps connecting to the dock itself.

In this final post detailing what exactly Judy Wood has to say about the collapses and debris at Ground Zero after 9/11, she really shows us her colours. If you thought the Concourse mall discussion was bad, buckle up. In a 500+ book supposedly all about the "evidence", Wood manages to reproduce 1 picture from the deeper Bathtub basement levels. Yes, you read that right. One. The remainder of the argument is ignoring the actual evidence, while downplaying even what is seen in that one picture.

i) Notably, in her entire book Wood never provides any actual argument for why the debris seen is not enough. Even a simple theoretical calculation or discussion as I did in part 7 is missing. Even IF we take Wood’s word for everything she says, we have no way to judge whether it is enough or not… j) Instead, she shows photos and adds loaded descriptions like “the building is gone”, playing on emotion and personal incredulity instead of objective assessments. k) The massive pile for WTC 7, at 12-14% of the building’s original height, is not discussed at all in these chapters. And they directly contradict several claims she makes elsewhere. The idea the building “lathered up” until the empty husk collapsed is soundly refuted by photos of the pile. l) Piles for WTC 3 and 4 likewise are high enough to account for the building’s materials, especially considering collapses going down the basements as well. Wood simply asserts “they went away”. m) A much quoted percentage of building height its debris pile needs to be is 10%, which would translate to piles 2.2 and 0.9 floors high respectively. They were. How Wood still carries on arguing the buildings “just disappeared” is astonishing.

Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'. a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume. b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent. c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots. d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument. e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest. f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for. g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading. h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here. [1] N.J. Burkett footage (youtube.com/watch?v=bHCmQa9m…) [2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyi…)