Sunday, May 8, 2011

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

Earlier this year, Dr. Judy Wood put out her new book titled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 

Fortunately, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have recently made their position very clear on this matter regarding Directed Energy Weapon theories. A new article written by Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage and Gregg Roberts shows many of the absurdities of Judy Wood's claims. The article is reproduced here, with some extra links I have added:

AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?

Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts 

(Editor's Note: We continue to make enhancements to this article as time permits, including supplying additional hyperlinks. The article should be finalized in a few days at the most, but we wanted to get something published sooner rather than later for the benefit of all those who have questions about Judy Wood's new book.)

Some have suggested that much of the structural steel of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was turned to dust, or “dustified” – a term used by Judy Wood, the primary proponent of this hypothesis – with some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). Some of the observations cited by Wood include the voluminous dust created during the Twin Towers’ destruction, the “craters” in WTC 5 and 6, “toasted” cars, and small holes in glass windows.

While Wood and AE911truth agree that the official story of an “inevitable” collapse by gravity alone is impossible because it conflicts with laws of physics, we completely differ on the mechanism of the destruction. Crucially, once there is proof and consensus that the official story violates elementary laws of physics, our major scientific task has been accomplished. The remaining task is the political challenge of mobilizing support for a legitimate investigation.

Of course the science of the collapse of the Towers and Building 7 can be advanced beyond the mere conclusion that the official story must be false. But it is imperative that anyone serious advancing understanding of the mechanisms of collapse hew closely to scientific methodology. This is crucial to earn the 9/11 movement the public respect it deserves, rather than to cast it into the role of perpetrating "junk science."

The scientific method requires us to look at all the available evidence and then assess various explanations for their ability to account for the evidence. At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding.

A Hypothesis in Search of Facts

One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens.

Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spuriously interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.

Read more at http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html