Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Frequently Asked Questions

(Answered as time permits.)

  1. Is your "space beam" hypothesis testable?
  2. First of all, we have never used the term "space beam." It is a term first coined by physicist Steven E. Jones. It has been speculated that the purpose of using this name was to mock the hypothesis that unconventional methods were used to destroy the WTC. At this point, it has not been determined exactly what type of weapon was used, but the visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust. 

  3. Why was "Star Wars Beam Weapon" used as the title for that paper?
  4. This term was used because it was a familiar term used over the last 20+ years to describe space-based weaponry under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Since little is known about the technology specifically, though numerous articles and Defense websites describe its existence, plus the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been channeled to research in this area, it is reasonable to expect that tremendous advances have been made in technology over the past 50 years since microwaves and lasers were first developed.

  5. Why do you think we need it for 9/11?
  6. It’s not a matter of need. It’s a matter of evaluating the available visual, ground shaking, and structural data. Though it is common knowledge that the laws of physics were violated, the credibility of the physical and observable data to develop theories that withstand all observations is critical to lend integrity to any conclusions. If analysis of this type is not undertaken, fraudulent research could be easily debunked, thus discrediting honest researchers and allowing the perpetrators to continue undeterred.

  7. What can't we explain without it?
  8. There are many pieces of physical data that are unexplainable by conventional theories. The low levels of ground shaking of the towers when compared with comparable structures/levels of shaking and the fact that the buildings did not collapse outside of their own footprint means they should have acted like a pile driver on their foundation the force of which would have destroyed the structure and caused flooding of the WTC complex and lower Manhattan subway system.

  9. Don't the reports of explosions undermine it?
  10. No. It would appear that to give the appearance of a building collapse, some debris had to remain. The fact that some steel debris was left on the ground (though not in massive piles many stories high) would lend credence to the idea that conventional explosives may have been used at ground level. As opponents of government complicity indicate, one cannot be sure that all testimony is valid. The observations of physical evidence via videos and pictures are far more reliable for determination of those theories that are and are not supportable.

  11. Can't thermite/thermate do the whole job?
  12. Thermite/thermate is an incendiary which may be able to cut steel, but could not account for the explosive destruction of the cement and other building materials in the building. Though supporters of this theory contend that it could potentially do the whole job, no modeling of these methods of demolition have ever been produced. The observations of tremendous precision in the destruction of the towers as they floated to the ground would appear to be far too precise for an incendiary. Further, the observed “toasted” cars great distances from the WTC complex are difficult to explain with thermite/thermate. Also, unburned paper, missing windows and door handles of vehicles in proximity to the complex cannot be explained.

  13. If thermite/thermate could do the whole job, wouldn't it be the simpler and preferable theory?
  14. Simpler is one thing, explaining all the physical evidence is quite another. Though use of these incendiaries should be tested, evidence postulated to support the theory does not stand up to visual evidence. That evidence being tremendous burning infernos in the subbasements of the WTC towers. Picture evidence on the days immediately following indicate no such heat. Person observed climbing into the subbasements as well as observed liquid water would tend to refute “urban legends” that pools of molten metal existed there. No evidence of search personnel being burned or overcome by heat have been found. Further, when the buildings came down, persons running from the scene were not burned by superheated debris falling to the ground. The air was filled with dust and loose papers. The dust was dense enough to block out the sun, but it was not on fire.

  15. Aren't these weapons classified?
  16. These weapons are classified and are not public knowledge. As noted previously, piecemeal evidence of their existence exists in news briefings of defense personnel (including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), defense websites, and other defense contractor websites. It is common knowledge that the Bush Administration has made weaponization and total dominance of space a priority. Countless billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been budgeted for space weapons development as part of the SDI program noted previously.

  17. How do we know they even exist?
  18. As noted previously, this has been accumulated via numerous sources to paint the picture that they do exist. Further, past developers from government labs have indicated that they were involved in their development as far back as the 1960s.

  19. Isn't this science fiction?
  20. Though science fiction has fantasized about DEWs since back in the 50s, microwaves and optics (lasers) have been available since that time. That their further development could not have exceeded what is currently available in industry and at academic research institutions is not likely since typical military technology advances are 15-20 years ahead of that which is known on the street.

  21. Why do the "toasted" cars matter?
  22. The “toasted” cars matter because they are observable evidence. If a theory cannot explain all evidence, then it must be incomplete at best, incorrect at worst. That other theories do not explain this phenomenon lend credence to the DEW theory which could easily explain this through reflection and refraction of directed energy at the WTC site.

  23. Why does the bathtub matter?
  24. The bathtub matters because its lack of damage is evidence. Remember, 500,000 tons of debris fell roughly in the footprint of the towers according to the OGCT. Since debris did not pile up outside the footprint of the towers, either the debris hammered down on the bathtub or it disappeared in a cloud of dust (observed). That there was no damage to this fragile layer of reinforced concrete when there is such total devastation to the concrete within the structures themselves is horribly inconsistent. The fact that failure of this structure would have led to the flooding of the subway system in lower Manhattan is another reason that its lack of damage is significant.

  25. Why does pulversization matter?
  26. Pulverization matters because it requires an outside energy source that allows the building to be destroyed without destroying the bathtub. Further, it is consistent with the lack of ground shaking that would be expected based on the mass of the buildings and the footprint within which the debris should have collapsed. Further, it explains the tremendous dust clouds and layers of dust found over many square miles of Manhattan. Last, it explains the lack of damage to neighboring structures (WTC 4, 5, and 6) due to falling debris which is not found in the vertical damage there. Non-WTC structures showed little damage except for one vertical cut in one building and some dust, minor debris, and broken windows elsewhere. 

  27. Why care about the speed of destruction?
  28. The speed of destruction is important because even other conventional methods (or proposed methods in the case of thermite/thermate) would have considerable difficulty in producing the destruct times that that were noted (nearly at freefall speed in a vacuum). By eliminating other methods of demolition, the focus can turn to the totality of the evidence that cannot and has never been explained by conventional means, not to mention the OGCT.

  29. Can you construct a destruction simulation?
  30. A destruction simulation can be created, though not knowing the specific properties of what caused the destruction, it will not be perfect. What was used has never been acknowledged to exist in source information within the public domain. DEW weapons are thought to still have top secret desginations for the most part, however some are now acknowledged to be either in existence or in production. It is evident in all of the visual pictorial evidence. That this evidence has not been taken into account to this point (vertical holes in WTC 5 and 6 and WTC between collapse of the Twin Towers, the toasted cars, the lack of damage to the bathtub, and low levels of ground shaking related to the building mass and footprint) is all the more important in that the evidence can be explained by technology the Pentagon has indicated it is pursuing, but has not publicly acknowledged that it has deployed.

  31. If not, why should we take you seriously?
  32. As noted previously, look at the visual evidence. Look at all of the various anomalies pointed about by Wood's research. Note that all anomalies can be explained by her theories. The fact that other theories have already been debunked by NIST (thermite/thermate) and the fact that it is a physical impossibility that the buildings turned to dust on their own through fire-induced collapse, some source of energy was utilized. The vertical holes in WTC 5 & WTC 6 are very incriminating. No debris is found in the holes and they are perfectly vertical like the Etch-A-Sketch lines drawn on the famous children's toy. Something removed this material in 24 foot swaths. Something broke down the steel, concrete, and other building materials in the Twin Towers symmetrically and at freefall speed in a vacuum. None of the other theories available can do this.

  33. Where would all that energy come from?
  34. The energy may not be as tremendous as needed to vaporize or melt the masses of the two towers. It may be similar to a microwave oven in that certain electromagnetic or sonic waves are used to excite the specific materials in the buildings to allow them to turn to dust without heating or vaporizing. Remember what we saw, not what theoretical known science would be. The sources of this energy may be from solar collectors in space or transmitted from ground based sources using transmission in the atmosphere using aircraft or satellite technology.

  35. Is your hypothesis like "aliens did it"?
  36. No, it is based on known technology, known research on SDI, the amount of investment in such research, the progression of known technology and optics, and above all the visible evidence. The visual evidence is key and eliminates other forms of technology.

  37. If your theory is so flaky, why is it being attacked to viciously all over the place?
  38. That is a great question. If you think about it, a theory explains all the visual evidence is called "flaky", yet is attacked visciously, though is not debunked. It is simply classified as crazy and looney. As most Truthers should understand by now, the more something is attacked, the more likely it is that this researcher is on to something.

  39. What hypothesis, precisely, are you willing to commit yourself to at this stage of research?
  40. The hypothesis that the WTC buildings were all destroyed in a way that has never been seen before (save WTC 7 which was demolished by conventional means), consistent with the use of Directed Energy Weapons.


  41. Exactly how much energy would be required to pulverize the WTC towers?
  42. This is not known. Different methods could produce different results. What is known is that the Twin Towers were turned to dust. Cars and trucks were toasted in spots and left perfectly intact in others. Vertical holes were opened in other WTC buildings and the Bankers Trust building. Only the buildings of the WTC were destroyed that day and the physical anomalies of missing building volume of the Twin Towers cannot be explained by any other theory.

  43. Why do some people (i.e. Steven Jones, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers) get so nervous when asked about directed energy weapons?

  44. Is it possible that some of the mass of the towers was converted to energy (E=mc^2), and if so, does this help satisfy the energy requirement problem?

  45. A bright glow is observed on several videos, occurring about the time the disintegration of WTC1 is finished and the mushroom cloud is well formed. Do you think this is something real, or just a video artifact of some sort?
  46. WTC1 is finished and the mushroom cloud is well formed. Do you think this is something real, or just a video artifact of some sort?
    This is difficult to say. Again, not knowing specifically what it was that destroyed the towers (again, there is no debate that they buildings were widely converted to dust, not rubble) it is difficult to know if that was a video artifact or an actual piece of evidence.

  47. You've coined the term "dustification" to describe what happened to the towers. Can you define this?
  48. Dustification means that the buildings were not melted, evaporated, or turned to course rubble. It is a known fact that the contents of the Twin Towers were converted to very fine dust that covered much of lower Manhattan several inches deep. It can be seen as the buildings came down that the mass above the demolition wave is no longer there, is not falling past the demolition wave and is not in its original position. Where did it go? All that is left is a giant cloud of dust that moves with great force throughout downtown Manhattan and drifts away with the wind. No hot embers were noted anywhere in Manhattan as seen by the loose sheets of paper everywhere that are not burning right next to the toasted cars that are.

  49. Could the 47 massive steel columns (in each tower) have fallen in the sub level basements? Could this be the reason it's not visible in the photographs? If not, why not?
  50. What would have caused them to collapse at the bottom? Did we see the bottom of the building pulling in at the same time the top of the building is coming down? Could all of the floor truss connections all have failed at the exact same time? This is highly unlikely due to visual evidence. There are massive open holes in the sub-basements that cannot be explained. If the core columns were in there, wouldn't there mass have filled much of the holes that existed post collapse? Again, look at the visual evidence and see for yourself.

  51. Why was WTC 6 pulled with cables?
  52. That is a good question. However, the proper parties to ask are those who did it. The proper parties to have done the asking were NIST investigators and other governmental investigators. To my knowledge, the governmental investigators did not do so.





CriticsCorner




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.






The 9/11 Files Topsites