Dr. Judy Wood Destroys the 9/11 Plane Fraud


Morgan Reynolds

Our most brilliant 9/11 researcher, Dr. Judy Wood, works harder than anyone searching for 9/11 evidence and here is her latest gift, which obliterates the lies about plane crashes on 9/11.

Help yourself to comments below.  Let’s see how the prevaricators try to get out of this one!

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Dr. Judy Wood Destroys the 9/11 Plane Fraud

  1. Urban Moving says:

    thats all false nano thermitic material was found in the dust the explosives used were high grade super military technology expensive shit his lies about that are thoroughly discredited by a shit ton of evidence….conventional explosives were used in conjunction with something else…hidden coming from the basement timed with the end of the demolition

  2. pomeroo says:

    No steel turned to dust. Your grainy video does not show the magic you cling to.

  3. pomeroo says:

    No steel turned to dust. ALL the structural steel, roughly 250,000 tons, lay on the ground for months as it was gradually removed to Fresh Kills and other holding centers.

    No video shows steel being magically transformed to dust. There is no steel being “dustified” in your grainy clip, as we can all see.

    No dust studies detected steel in the samples. The dust was overwhelming concrete, gypsum, and glass.

    When you invent an insane fiction about steel turning to dust, the indisputable FACT that the structural steel all fell to the ground makes you either a lunatic or a liar peddling a really crazy falsehood.

  4. pomeroo says:

    The deranged liars who cling to Judy Wood’s fantastic gibberish humiliate themselves in the service of an evil cause. No amount of demented falsehoods can erase the reality of the 1.5 MILLION TONS of rubble and debris that took NINE MOTHS to remove. Showing a spire disappear behind a cloud of concrete and gypsum dust will never trick sane people into thinking that the spire itself was “dustified” by a magic beam weapon. After all, the spire can be viewed in a museum dedicated to preserving artifacts from that terrible day.

    The dust studies showed NO steel in the samples.

  5. Darrell says:

    It’s amazing that so few people talk about the simple obvious fact that thin aluminum planes don’t penetrate thick concrete and steel like a hot knife thru butter, they bounce off in lots of pieces.

    • pomeroo says:

      What is amazing is that people still try to pretend that a 130-ton plane moving roughly 500 mph won’t slice right through quarter-inch steel and glass windows.

      You are too lazy to read the MIT paper on the crash physics, but critical thinking will lead
      you in the right direction. The plane cannot crash against the façade; it is IMPOSSIBLE. It enters the building and gets chewed to bits by the floor trusses and the forest of columns.

      • Urban Moving says:

        to penetrate steel unsloped in terms of armor you need a high velocity harder than steel tip projectile….WW2 tank battles attest to this the WTC steel was thicker with concrete on the outside…. the claim of kinetic energy penetrating thick steel is also retarded…the El Al Crash and the B-25 crash into Empire Satte disprove that…it would have impaled itself and been demolished on the outside echleon factor and engine pounding in crushing local areas or bouncing around also NO WAKE VORTEX

    • William K Corbett says:

      And they DON’T leave airplane shaped holes, unless Wile Coyote is flying them.

  6. Robert E. Salt says:

    There were 57 steel columns between the corners of the World Trade Center with only 14 inches between them; that’s how narrow the windows were. An aluminum plane flies through the steel building as though it was a cloud leaving a hole too small for the plane to enter. We know it really happened because the fake news and well-placed actors told us so. lol

    • Steel columns were 14 inches square on one meter centers. So round up to 40″ to approximate 39.37″ meter width and subtract 7″ for both columns then windows were approximately 26″ wide.

        • Urban Moving says:

          “MIT” lol thats a jewy mossad bunch of liars if I ever heard off you know nothing of facts retarded jew shill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXrnGiIMGLs NASA wake cortex stydy, the Vortex would have been seen in the massive dust and smoke cloud in the air….its not if a plane really was in the air idiot LOW IQ shill it would have lasted at 580mph and 480mph for good minute and been seen in some fashion NONE is…..you are not competent enough to deal with all the excellent information provided

      • Robert E. Salt says:

        I stand corrected. However, the windows were tall and narrow, and there were NO planes. The U.S. dollar is backed with nothing but lies. It’s a house of cards ready to tumble. When it does your savings account and pension will be worthless. Even petroleum is a lie because energy is freer than the air we breathe. The good news is, everything can be rebuilt overnight.

  7. roadofcobras says:

    J. Wood:”…. so that’s what happens when you use assumptions….”

    So why assume, without verifying, that any part of any one of the 9/11 “plane into building” video sequences is genuine?

    Any genuine forensic scientist would NEVER do that, and yet Ms Wood, once again,along with 99.9% of the rest “9/11 Truth” community continually, and wrongly, make that procedurally wrong assumption!

    Why? Well either they are incredibly incompetent /ignorant individuals with no knowledge of basic, fundamental scientific investigative procedures and with no actual knowledge/experience with the forensic analysis of video or photographic “evidence”, or, they consistently and deliberately avoid employing basic fundamental scientific investigative forensic procedures because they are being paid to so do.

    For example , even a cursory, [i.e. not “frame by frame” ] video analysis of the flight path that Fl. 175 allegedly took reveals that in one CBS sequence it can be observed for the last 7 seconds to “dive-bomb” down before flattening out and hitting WTC2, whereas in another video, for the same last 7 seconds, its flight path is almost entirely horizontal, no “dive-bomb” path to be seen. Which , logically leads to the conclusion that either 1, or both of these sequences are entirely fraudulent, and NOT that the sequences are real and depict a holographic plane image. For even holograms, [assuming that this was even possible], cannot be in two places at the same time.

    • When are you going to refute Richard D. Hall’s 3D analysis proving all the videos with sufficient footage (approx. 26) of the WTC2 hit have the same flight path? No one to my knowledge has accomplished that. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=177&part=1&gen=3

    • There were five key events on 9/11 when the Earth’s magnetic field fluctuated. They were when each plane shaped cookie cutout hole appeared and when the molecular disassociation began for WTC building one, two, and later in the day, building number seven. This evidence is covered in Chapter 19, pages 413 to 430 in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

    • William K Corbett says:


      • pomeroo says:

        Let’s make sure we understand: your imaginary super-villains launched an attack on the north tower of the WTC using futuristic technology and blamed the airplane-shaped entry hole on a real plane. The air traffic controllers that monitored AA11 from Logan to the crash site in lower Manhattan are, of course, part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Next, having made sure that every pair of eyes in Manhattan and across the rivers in Brooklyn Heights and Northern New Jersey would be riveted on the burning north tower, they claimed that a second plane hit the south tower, with the phantom plane leaving another plane-shaped entry hole. Although no one actually would see UA 175, also monitored from Logan to the WTC complex, countless people would claim to be witnesses to the crash. In defiance of the laws of probability, absolutely NO ONE would write a letter-to-the-editor insisting that there was no plane.

        In other words, the imaginary super-villains made sure to assemble the biggest group of onlookers possible in order to claim a plane crash that NOBODY would see.

        Although sane people laugh at your zany cult, we must admit that the fantasy you cling to is one helluva plan!


  8. pomeroo’s remark is very telling…The oil industry (leaded gas), tobacco industry (lung cancer), and more recently the NFL (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), have all spent millions and millions of dollars marginalizing scientific findings and the scientists that find them by way of “public relations” which is another word for propaganda. Lead in the food chain, carcinogens in the air, and brain damaged football players are all good for you, right? LOL

    There is a lot of deception, distraction, and diversion going on, both intentional and otherwise, leading people to climb on to popular “theories” or “band wagons”. Truth is not established by popularity, although agenda-driven political campaigns are. So we need to establish a better way to sort through the information we find by improving our problem-solving skills.

    Remember how a cover-up works. Get people to theorize and speculate about an imagined problem, then get them to argue their opinions with others. Everyone will be arguing about opinions of speculations of theories of opinions of guesswork and they’ll just go round and round and round and get nowhere. Meanwhile, they’ve been diverted away from looking at the real problem. Pretty slick, isn’t it? It is amazingly easy to keep a cover up in place! The only way out of that vicious cycle is to deal with the facts and only the facts (empirical evidence) e.g. thermite doesn’t do what “it” was that was done. A cover-up prey’s on the gullibility of the audience. In the near future, our survival may depend on our ability to identify what is real.

    Those who control the energy control the people. But those who control their perception control everything.

    • pomeroo says:

      There are many problems with the mad fantasies concocted by the hopelessly brain-damaged Judy Wood. It is always best to start with her signature claim that most of the structural steel of the twin towers was magically transformed to dust by an imaginary beam for which no energy source is conceivable. We can argue about sheer nonsense, but at some point a sane person will point to the brute fact (William James’s term) that no steel turned to dust. ALL the structural steel lay on the ground and was removed to Fresh kills and other holding centers over a period of nine months.

      • The Revelation of Method is essentially when you show your victim what you have done and can do to them and they are so traumatized already that they will do nothing to stop you or even consciously acknowledge it.

        Is there a Revelation of Method of the 9/11/2001 attacks? Indeed there is and very few of you will even seriously consider it and then only a brief time if you do. The perpetrators behind the morons who flew the planes into the buildings have revealed what they did to the World Trade Center towers. It’s illustrated in detail in a little known book titled Where Did The Towers Go? by Judy Wood, PhD. Look at that book and ignore the noise of derision you might hear about the author and the book’s contents.


      • Urban Moving says:

        Pomeroo you clearly are retard

  9. David West says:

    Come on mOrgan, you KNOW there were no planes. You know all about Gerard Holmgren’s absolute proof that these planes did not take off that day. Why not just state that fact when you know it is true. see https://sites.google.com/site/humanevolution2008/clearing-out-1/no-planes-on-911

    • Of course I KNOW there were no 9/11 plane crashes (duh!), and Gerard certainly deserves credit for discovering AA 11 and AA 77 never officially flew on 9/11 but UA 175 and UA 93 officially did fly though, among other proofs that the official narrative is wholly bogus, ‘pilots for 9/11 truth’ found in its analysis of ACARS data that both aircraft were well west of the sites (Pentagon and Shanksville) where they allegedly crashed. With all my work available on this blog exposing the 9/11 plane lie I don’t quite understand your hostility to my posting this latest discovery about the crash of flight 587 two months after 9/11 which proves, once again but decisively, the fragility of big commercial airliners, an Airbus A300 as I recall, with 260 aboard. Apparently my brevity was ‘at fault.’

  10. pomeroo says:

    The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds lauds the ravings of the hopelessly brain-damaged Judy Wood. Birds of a feather, etc.

    • The usual from pomeroo: Ad hominem from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      “Personal attack” redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

      Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
      Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used when the person receiving the criticism is a woman.

      However, its original meaning was an argument “calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason”.[5]

      Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[6][7][8] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

      • pomeroo says:

        Be sure to explain the details of the “plan” devised by your imaginary super-villains.

        First, they announced that a jet airliner had crashed into the north tower. Then, after making sure that EVERY eye in Manhattan and across the East and Hudson rivers would be riveted on the burning tower, they announced that another plane had hit the south tower–a plane that they understood NO ONE would see.

        Amazingly, although tens of thousands of people were watching the spectacle unfold at the WTC complex, NOBODY wrote a letter-to-the-editor or phoned a talk radio show to complain that there was no plane.

        Now, THAT is one helluva plan!

        You are one crazy crackpot.

        • Why does Ronald Wieck assist in the cover-up of those who turned the WTC into dust in mid-air never hitting the ground? A fallacy is an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. Decredentializing a highly qualified expert like Dr. Wood by appealing to spite, ridicule, or willful ignorance does nothing to support a valid argument. Also, an opinion and an Internet connection does not qualify someone as an expert in forensic engineering and science, nor nuclear physics, nor structural engineering, nor materials engineering science, nor engineering mechanics (applied physics). The empirical research Dr. Wood performed is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience, not by performing experiments. Steven Jones [Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies or J.O.N.E.S.] and Greg Jenkins used to ridicule Dr. Wood by claiming that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL What experiments would Dr. Wood perform? What are the experiments for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence! A forensic scientific investigation involves the collection and analysis of ALL of the evidence. Even though A&E911truth appeals to authority and popularity, a controlled group is not synonymous with evidence.

          Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave at the University of California, Berkeley [available here at timestamp 1:53:47

          https://archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2 ],

          telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

          At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

          In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

          “The question is where is all the rubble? Did it all turn to dust?” ― Peter Jennings (July 29, 1938 – August 7, 2005) Canadian-American journalist and news anchor

        • Incidentally, Allen Forrest recently wrote to me, saying in part:

          Great article about Dr. Wood and no planes.

          I did a graphic narrative called According To Mae: 9/11 – Planes? Collapse? which included Wood’s work and I mentioned the no planes as well.


          Morgan, you may also find these related graphic narratives of interest–

          According To Mae: Since 9/11

          According To Mae: The Kathryn Casey Story



        • pomeroo says:

          The insane claim that the 1.5 MILLION TONS of rubble and debris that took 1,000 workers toiling 24/7 on the hills NINE MONTHS to remove is based on the brain-damaged Judy Wood’s inability to comprehend, well, anything.

          You can NEVER hope to con the thousands of New Yorkers who walked by the rubble hills every day into thinking that they were hallucinating.

          What Judy (and the airhead Peter Jennings) didn’t grasp is that skyscrapers are mostly air by volume. Typically, a high rise building is 88-90% air. Because of their unique tubular designs, the twin towers were almost 95% air by volume. When a 1,300-ft. tall building is compressed in a collapse, the resulting rubble pile will be 65-70 ft. high–EXACTLY the height of the rubble hills that replaced the towers.

          When you stand up in the room you currently occupy and wave your arms, you become aware of the presence of AIR. If the room measures ten feet from floor to ceiling, it measures merely a few inches when compressed. What is missing is the AIR.

    • Adnane says:

      @pomeroo there you go. You can always try do denigrate people but facts are facts! Science and evidence won’t wait for you, unfortunately. As french people say: “Fortunately the ridicule doesn’t kill”

      • pomeroo says:

        Yes, what William James called “brute facts” constitute the boulder in the road for liars, charlatans, and crackpots.

        When a someone pretends that the building collapses at the WTC complex left behind no rubble and debris, we KNOW with certainty that he is either insane or lying. When someone pretends that a plane seen by tens of thousands of onlookers didn’t exist, we KNOW with certainty that he is either insane or lying (or both).

        Facts matter.

        • “There was no thermite, thermate, or sooperdoopernanothermite anywhere in the WTC complex on 9/11. The lies of the twoof movement have been exposed.” -Ronald Wieck 4/28/11


          Thank you Mr. Wieck for agreeing with Dr. Judy Wood and exposing this cover-up of what really happened on 9/11. There is no evidence supporting Richard Gage and his AE911Trutherd promotion of a kinetic energy destruction of the WTC complex by the use of any form of thermite. Thermite is a welding material, not an explosive. A thermitic reaction produces a great deal of heat and light. In the few seconds that it took the towers to fall, people viewing the event would have been blinded by the light!

          This subject is covered in Chapter 7, section D, pages 122 to 125 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood

          Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena like these:

          1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust. (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns. Red blood cells have an approximate thickness of 2-3 microns and a diameter of around 7.0 microns.)

          2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate. Vaporize implies high heat. “Dustification” occurred at or near ambient temperatures.

          3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, dissolved, went down, and turned to steel dust.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s