9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Where Did The Towers Go? Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D, Part I

Where Did The Towers Go? - Evidence Of Directed Free-Energy Technology On 9/11 – Book Review by Eric Larsen Ph.D.
by Eric Larsen Ph.D.

What a complete, unmitigated disaster 9/11 and the ten awful years following it have been—ten years of murder, crime, lawlessness, deceit, stupidity, and blindness that are only now meliorated, at long last, by the publication of Dr. Judy Wood’s unique, revelatory, and unequivocally welcome book, Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.

Where Did the Towers Go? is a work that offers a starting point from which those who genuinely want to do it can begin, first, to rein in and then, perhaps, even end the wanton criminality and destructiveness of a set of American policies that took as their justification and starting point the horrific events of September 11, 2001.

As everyone knows, 9/11 has been “the justification and starting point” for all manner of destruction, loss, crime, and horror. Without 9/11, there would have been no “Patriot Act,” no abuse of FISA and stripping away of privacy rights, no Military Commissions Act of 2006 with its setting aside of Habeas Corpus, no implementation of Northcom and deployment of our own military forces on domestic American soil (for use against who, you might ask?), and no trashing of Bill of Rights and Constitutional guarantees, no programmatic and precedent-setting weakening and eliminating of right and guarantees so that the very concepts of “citizenship” and “freedom” have been emptied out to the point where setting up concentration camps inside the U.S. is now legal and not a one of us would have any recourse whatsoever if it were decided that we should be thrown into a cell in one of them and forgotten forever.[1]

Without 9/11, there would never have been any fake and opportunistic “Global War on Terror,” would never have been Guantanamo as we know it now, never have been official programs of torture or fake demonizing of Islam in order to justify wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, or to justify overt plans for the murder of U.S. citizens living in places like, say, Yemen.

There’s more, much more. The complete list of atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities triggered by or justified by 9/11 could fill whole chapters, even books. By using 9/11 as propaganda—by using it as trigger, excuse, justification, or catalyst—the U.S. has betrayed itself, its principles, and its people, and has made itself the world’s most dangerous enemy of all mankind and also of Earth herself.

How can it conceivably be, given these facts, that we, a nation of people who presumably have minds of our own—how can it be that we have done nothing to stop this hideous parade of monstrosities and horrors? In the Foreword to Dr. Wood’s book, I wrote:

It is now almost a decade since 9/11 took place, and in all that time no unassailable, permanent, or, in pragmatic terms, politically influential progress has been made in determining exactly and irrefutably what took place on that day—or what did not take place.

We—that is, we the potential resistance or opposition to U.S. criminal policy—have been spinning our wheels for a complete decade. There are a lot of reasons for this wheel-spinning, including various programs of very skillful and extraordinarily devious cover-up after cover-up after cover-up of the central question of what did happen on 9/11. For, as long as that central question remains unanswered, or for as long as that question can be caused to remain obfuscated, blurred, muddled-up, in doubt—as long as that situation continues, the wheels will continue to spin and people won’t quite know what to do. Dr. Wood is very well aware of this fact. Her own way of putting it is that before accusing someone of a crime, you’ve got to know what crime they committed. In her Author’s Preface, she writes:

You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it.

That kind of clear, cool, commonsense logic is rare among the many who for ten years have talked a very great deal about 9/11, although it’s obvious that in Dr. Wood such good sense resides in abundance. Here’s the opening of her Author’s Preface:

For the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01—nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of belief [Dr. Wood’s emphasis]. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.

Yes. To say that George did not do X hardly means that Al did do X. Even worse is to imagine that someone’s belief that George did or didn’t do X has any necessary relationship to the truth or the fact of the matter at all. Dr. Wood will have none of this substitution of “belief” for “thinking.” She is a scientist, and a very highly educated one, with “a B.S. in Civil Engineering, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science” (again from my Foreword). Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.

This means also that in undertaking a “forensic study of the evidence” left behind after the 9/11 disaster, if that study is to be scientifically valid, the researcher must analyze and study not some of the available evidence, not most of the available evidence, but all of the available evidence.

To my knowledge, no one other than Dr. Wood has done this. She alone has persisted unflaggingly in her study of all available concrete, empirical evidence, has assiduously avoided any and all argument about 9/11 that may be based on politics, desire, belief, emotion, or pre-set theory but instead has stuck indefatigably, solely—and, I must say, courageously—with the gathering of and the forensic analysis of all the evidence left behind after the 9/11 events.

No wonder it has taken Dr. Wood a considerable time to complete her enormous task of, first, finding and gathering every last shred of available evidence, then of organizing her findings, and after that preparing the entirety in book form—in a volume of 500 pages that contains not just the exhaustive primary text itself but many, many hundreds of photographs, maps, drawings, graphs, charts, illustrations, explanatory passages, not to mention powerfully relevant—and revelatory—historical scientific background material (chapter 17, “the Tesla-Hutchison effect”) and even a “Glossary and Supplemental Information” section that includes, among much else, the terms Dr. Wood has invented or adapted in order to describe in as connotation-free a way as possible the unusual and unfamiliar phenomena she has observed—words like “Cheetos,” “Donuts,” “Lather,” “Fuzzballs,” “Sillystring,” “Toasted Cars,” “Weird Fires”—but that also includes highly technical plates and charts such as “Melting and Boiling Temperatures for Selected Elements” and “Tritium Values,” these being relevant to Dr. Wood’s discussion of the molecular dissociation of materials that, as she proves, took place during the apparently chaotic but in actuality diabolically precise destruction that took place on 9/11.

What emerges, for the reader, from all of this? What emerges is a lucid, clear, riveting, thorough, spell-binding, page-turning, eye-opening description and analysis of that terrible day—Dr. Wood has referred to it as the “new Hiroshima”—when the fearsomely destructive power of directed-energy in weaponized form was demonstrated to the world, and when, at the same time and however bitterly and ironically, the liberating promise of free energy as a means by which both Earth and all humanity might be saved from certain destruction was also demonstrated for everyone in the world to see.


And just what, then, will readers find upon buying, opening, and reading Where Did the Towers Go? They will find an immensely informative, engaging, detailed, thorough, and humane portrayal of the events of 9/11. They will find the telling of a calamitous, hideous, and horrifying story that, thanks to the clear eye and conscientious mind (and enormous heart) of the teller, is made a testament of homage to all those who suffered and died while at the same time remaining a scientific and forensic descriptive analysis of what actually happened that day: That day when directed-energy weaponry was brought to bear on the World Trade Center buildings, destroying them completely while at the same time leaving almost no rubble, producing no high temperatures of the kind conventionally associated with explosives on the one hand or molten materials on the other, and leaving behind a surreal aftermath of tumbled and overturned firetrucks, scorched cars, missing engine blocks, hundreds of thousands of sheets of unburned office paper floating down to rest, still unburned, amidst flames that have little or no heat of the kind that is produced by oxidization, and an absence of the seismic shock that would be expected from “collapse” at free-fall speed of buildings weighing many hundreds of thousands of tons, including the North Tower, South Tower, World Trade Center Seven, and other WTC buildings that underwent destruction.

In the story of 9/11 as told by Dr. Wood, everything is observed, analyzed, and evaluated for exactly what it is, and therefore almost nothing is the way we have been told it was. Readers will find for themselves Dr. Wood’s proof that the extremely minimal amount of rubble (the hurried shipping of mass amounts of steel to China is a falsehood and red herring) left behind after the disappearance of the towers indicates that the vast tonnage of these enormous buildings never did reach the ground but instead, through a process of molecular dissociation (Glossary: “Molecules separate or even repel each other”), the buildings’ mass was turned to dust in a shorter time than would have been required for that same mass, in solid form, to have reached earth.

The seismic evidence, fastidiously laid out for the reader in prose, charts, graphs, and maps, shows the same reality: Even were WTC1 and WTC2 actually to have “collapsed” at free-fall speed (a speed that physics proves unattainable but that’s used by Dr. Wood for argument’s sake), they would have required a minimum of ten seconds for that process to be completed, whereas no seismic signal from weight hitting the ground exists for more than eight seconds, while in the case of the 47-story WTC7, which disappeared with equivalent speed, there is even less seismic disturbance recorded, bordering on none.

Dr. Wood is a highly gifted observer of multitudinous varieties of evidence—manifestations of evidence that she looks at for what they are, not for what others may have suggested, said, hinted, or believed they are. Here are the opening five sentences of Dr. Wood’s Introduction:

On 9/11, I realized that what was being seen and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. I remember watching the TV in the faculty conference room. The TV kept playing the same film over and over, showing what appeared to be a building unraveling like a sweater. I had never seen a building unravel like a sweater, and I tried to imagine what was going on that might make it look that way. Certainly the time it took the building to go away did not make sense.

This is the same independent, thoughtful observer who has studied literally thousands upon thousands of images from 9/11, noticing things that others might miss entirely. On the broad expanse of ground zero, for example, “believed” to have had a lake of molten steel underneath it, Dr. Wood notices rubber hoses lying around, and puddles of water, the hoses not melting, the water not boiling or even steaming. Workers are seen walking around on this same expanse—and they are not being cooked like fricassees.

Again and again, Dr. Wood looks at images and finds in them revelatory and notable details. In “Weird Fires” (Chapter 13), most of us see flaming vehicles, but Dr. Wood notices, just above the “fire,” a tree with green leaves that are un-burnt, unaffected, un-scorched, and unseared, another indication that this “fire” or these “flames” were without high heat. In “Toasted Cars” (Chapter 11), most of us see only the dreadfully scorched interior of an automobile, but Dr. Wood notices the un-“burnt” window-trim. Or most of us see only the “toasted interior of car 2723,” not noticing the curious fact of the many small circular holes that have been created in the metal floor of the car, almost like holes caused by birdshot, but similar in shape to the curiously circular holes in the broken window-glass of buildings across the street from WTC1 And WTC2.

Time and time and time again Dr. Wood sees things for us that are right in front of our eyes but unnoticed. Among the most moving examples of this gifted vision may be Dr. Wood’s seeing more than the rest of us do in the images of “jumpers” from WTC1 and WTC2 before those buildings “went away.” This is in the book’s third chapter, called “The ‘Jumpers’” and sub-titled “It Was Like Raining People.” It opens this way:

Among the most horrific images from 9/11 is that of “The Falling Man,” who came to represent the many people who fell to their death that day. These people are often referred to as “jumpers,” but did they all, in fact, jump? And if they did, why did they do it? Once again, the question requires a closer look and examination.

Dr. Wood continues:

Looking at these images can be difficult. It was too difficult for me until I realized that these people are communicating to us. They want us to hear them and they want their stories told. Once I realized this, I could not look away, for I had made them a promise to look at what they were trying to tell us. In this chapter I attempt to fulfill my promise to them.

And fulfill that promise indeed she does. This chapter of Where Did the Towers Go? should be reprinted in every journal, magazine, and newspaper across the country and throughout the world, so immense is its sensitivity, so humane its sympathy, and so extraordinary its descriptive power. Many of the “jumpers,” Dr. Wood observes, seem to be trying to take off their clothes, sometimes even as they are already in free-fall toward the street below. It may be, she suggests, that they are in a reflexive reaction against a pain comparable to that experienced by inadvertently placing one’s hand on a hot burner. One’s response in that case is instinctive and wholly involuntary, like people’s responses when they are hit by “active denial” micro-wave weaponry, which may quite possibly have been akin to the “directed energy” force those in the towers were being subjected to when they became what we now call “jumpers.”

Dr. Wood, however, never does and never will make any conclusion regarding the “jumpers” or anything else that’s in excess of what the empirical evidence simultaneously causes and allows her to make. A prominent motif in the book is the statement that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic,” said by Dr. Wood to have been “A powerful statement by someone who has taught me well.”

Certainly so. Dr. Wood makes no assertion beyond what the available evidence can cause or allow her to make—and yet her observations about the jumpers are among the most intensely fascinating and moving sections of a book that, throughout, will surprise readers by its poignancy and emotional power, all the while impeccably honoring the strictness and necessity of its scientific, forensic, empirical method.


It’s not easy to close a discussion of a book as rich, broad, significant, timely, and revelatory as Where Did the Towers Go? The range of research reflected in the book is immense, the power of its conclusions equally so. Dr. Wood does nothing less than show us that a source of power—power reaped from energy already existing in the world around us, what is called “free energy”—does indeed exist, has a long scientific history, and can be used either for monumentally destructive purposes, as it was on 9/11, or for peaceful, non-polluting, life-enhancing and earth-preserving purposes of the kind envisioned by one of its earliest interpreters, Nikola Tesla (1856-1943).

Probably nothing has resulted in more calumny, derision, misrepresentation, and programmatic smearing of Dr. Wood than this central element of her research. Even the ever-dubious Wikipedia gets in on the act, declaring that “in pseudoscience” the term “free energy,” as in the phrase “free energy suppression,” refers to “a conspiracy theory that advanced energy technologies are being sup....”

Every intelligent, attentive, and open-minded reader of Dr. Wood’s paradigm-changing book, however, will quickly discover that Wikipedia and those akin to it are the tendentious and devious pretenders, while Dr. Wood brings to this part of her subject the open eyes and mind, the objectivity and steadiness of view, not to mention the courage, that mark her here as being, once again, the true, observing scientist.

Views: 91


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on April 30, 2011 at 9:46am

Eric Larsen displays massive ignorance of science in this review , and make it clear that a little knowledge really is a dangerous thing as they say.  He is so ready to support Judy Wood, but clearly understands nothing.  What hyperbolic junk this review is.


And for Judy herself, on Tuesday she appears on coast to coast, I say, Judy Wood, you are wrong about DEW and Hutch effect, so you will be setting yourself up for a fall.  The bad news is , 10 million listeners are going to listen to this junk science.  She did the gathering evidence very well, but then her ego got tied up in this DEW nonsense and she will now do anything just to save that ego; reminds me kind of like the junk science in Popular Mechanics.  


"molecular dissociation".  I do not really like that term.  There are several methods by which molecules separate.  Let's take the WTC, the concrete for example was turned into fine dust, average 60 microns.  But according to Frank Greening, this required 6700 joules/kg of "fracture energy" .  This is a more specific term for this type of molecular dissociation.  The metal core columns were probably largely vaporized and then cooled by rapidly expanding air parcels and turned into fine metal globules.  This would require "latent heat of vaporization".  And so on.


I do not like the term "free energy" .  The universe was created with a certain amount of energy and energy can't be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another; thus in a sense there is no "free lunch" for energy.  


"Hutch effect" this is magician bunk.  It is NOT recognized in any standard texts on electromagnetism and never will, thus Judy is in totally fantasy land with thinking this had anything to do with 911 and her idea about the energy coming from a hurricane is equally way out speculation, with no linking laws of physics.  


And her chapter 17 "Tesla-Hutchison effect" ; this is grandstanding to this extreme: linking a fraud like Hutch to a true pioneer of electrical engineering Tesla, who is responsible for our AC electrical power distribution systems.  

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service