Comments on a recent interview with Judy Wood . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

From: Alex LLoyd
Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 10:17:48 AM
Subject: RE: Judy Wood (was: Looking Larger)

Judy's insights may well "rock" in terms of creativity, but in terms of science, not so much.

I listened to one of her interviews recently. It is painful to see her be so willfully deluded and completely determined to reject obvious explanations for the WTC phenomena on 9/11. On top of this, she fabricates evidence, such as the idea that steel WTC columns turned completely to dust as they fell. All of the evidence Wood describes can be explained by known phenomena that revolve around the central fact of nuclear demolition.

1) EMP produced by nuclear explosions can explain the odd burning patterns on cars and other odd WTC occurances.

2) nuclear explosions can explain the vaporization of building contents, the dust coming off the falling columns, and the incredibly fine dust produced during the destruction of the towers -- the dust that blew all over and that lingered at ground zero.

3) Wood was asked about hanging skin on WTC victims-- a sign of nuclear heat exposure-- and dodged the question.

Also-- conventional forces can also explain much of what happened at the WTC -- something Wood seem to go to pains to deny. Many cars simply burned by normal fire. Many damaged cars were moved to make room for other vehicles, and were probably moved in rough, crude ways, leaving them upside-down at times. WTC7 simply burned just on its damaged face. Orange steel pulled from smoking rubble is almost certainly very hot and not some unknown phenomenon. The bath-tub was damaged by falling debris but not completely damaged. There was concern that moving heavy cranes over the bath-tub might weaken the damaged walls. And so on.

Wood really gets suspect when she gets into the Hutchison effect, which appears to be a complete fraud and seems to have very little to do with what happened at the WTC on 9/11.

Then the hurricane story. At first blush it all sounds striking, but I would bet a lot of money that Erin was completely predicted by the weather people that it would turn direction before hitting the east coast due to the pressure system coming off the US. And her ability to tie the hurricane energy to the WTC -- to explain a mechanism to transfer the hurricane energy to the WTC-- was totally non-existent. Essentially she says, a lot of energy was used to destroy the WTC and there was a lot of energy in this nearby hurricane, so someone must have harnessed this energy to destroy the WTC. And she says there were no lasers! How silly for people to say she refers to lasers-- even though everyone knows the main DEW that has been developed and capable of any kind of targeted destruction is laser energy.

The only new thing I heard was the magnetometer distortions in Alaska starting about 10am on 9/11. This is almost certainly a complete coincidence, as there is no data to suggest how much variation occurs in these readings on any given day.