Make your own free website on

Scholarly Questions and Inquiry, or Badgering, Misrepresentation and Harassment?

First, let us note that while Prof. Judy Wood was sitting in the audience, listening to a colleague's presentation, Greg Jenkins' and his camera crew were sneaking in to an adjacent room (which they had no authorization to be in) and were setting up professional cameras and lighting in the "special way" they were directed to set this up.

You may want to ask yourself, who was working from a prepared script and who was caught off-guard. (It may be the same party.)

Why does Greg Jenkins feel it is necessary to "tell you" how to interpret what you are about to see at the start of his video? And why does Greg Jenkins feel it necessary to "tell you" how to interpret what you just saw in the video? Is he underestimating your ability to think for yourself? We've heard about the "dumbing down of America." But, is it true?

Here is a valuable exercise.
First, read the transcript. Then, watch the video.
Then, ask yourself why you might come up with a completely different conclusion from each of the two experiences.

WASHINGTON, DC, JANUARY 10TH at approximately 11:00 PM.

Figure 1. The 'snowball' picture referred to in the discussion.

GJ: I'm speaking today with Dr Judy Wood. She received her BS in Civil Engineering in 1981, MS in Engineering Mechanics in '83, and Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science in 1992 from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytech Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. From 1999 to 2006 Dr Wood has been an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering department at Clemson University, South Carolina. Among other skills she is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. And, ah I wish to extend my thanks to Dr Judy Wood for um ah taking time out of her schedule to for this interview, and um on behalf of our ragtag band called DC 911 Truth I welcome you.

JW:: Thank you.

GJ: Well, thank you. Um, I guess the first question, ah ah question is, is you have, um, come up with some ideas regarding space-based weapons and um the demolition the demolition of the World Trade Center Towers, and and I was wondering um if you could give like an overview of the proposed types of weapons that could be used for such a thing.

JW: We haven't gotten into listing them yet. Just Energy Weapons.

GJ: What form?

JW: I don't think we even need to define them. What we did was assemble all the pictures, evidence that we trusted, and just going through the evidence just looking at it. At that point what motivated this paper was, we've been told this story, that story... - let's wipe the slate clean and start over. Let's see what evidence we do believe instead of relying on this rumor mill. We're told about hot metal but nobody's ever seen a picture of these rumors of hot metal. Let's see if we can find any pictures of it. Let's see what we can see. And so I started looking through pictures and pictures and pictures. What were they telling us - what's the evidence? And what categories of information? And you start putting these categories of information together and it starts building in one direction and eliminates various other possibilities.

Figure 2. Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air. This dust looks deeper than one inch. Most of the curb looks filled in.

Figure 3. Scooping up the building.

GJ: No matter what the beam which is used in this situation - I guess the term you use is 'dustification' - I guess another way you could look at it is....

JW: I thought I'd invent a new word.

GJ: Mine as well,right?

JW: Poof!

GJ: ... or the vaporization of the metal in the towers, one or the other. Have you had, do you have any energy calculations at all to get a scale for what is involved for doing that?

JW: Yes, but we don't need to get distracted by those values. If you look at the pictures, to look at the scrap pile that it was all done with, is there any question that the building was pulverised?

Whatever numbers someone calculates doesn't change the facts. To focus on such calculations is simply a distraction from the REAL DATA. What is he hoping the calculations will show -- that the building is still there? Or that the building is gone? Why not just look and see if the building is still there?

GJ: Well I do have some questions, but you know um, ah ... I've come up with an energy scale ah for the problem. If if you use, like, say, a photon beam , a laser beam of some kind, um you run into some problems, namely, the the amount of energy required to evaporate the steel in the towers is...

JW: Wait, you're specifying evaporation?

GJ: Sure.

JW: What about dustification? Isn't that what we're talking about?

GJ: You want to talk about dustification?

Doesn't Greg Jenkins remember the topic he brought up?

JW: Well, pulverising the building is turning the building contents into Nanodust, we'll call it.

GJ: Okay. Right now, I don't know, ah, maybe ah anything... has this been done in the laboratory?

Has anything been done that would turn steel into dust?

JW: Uh-huh.

GJ: What?

JW: Various types of energy beams.

GJ: What kinds of energy beams?

Figure 4. microwave oven
First discovered 1945 by Percy Spencer
First Radarange 1947 by Raytheon.

JW: You put something in your microwave oven and leave something extra long and see what happens to it

GJ: That's food. That's not metal.

JW: Or something else.

GJ: If you put metal in a microwave it will reflect off of it.

JW: Hey, I haven't tried a fork in there. I know you're not supposed to, but I'm waiting for someone else to do it, to see what happens.

GJ: Yes, it's kinda fun, also, if you burn a disc, like a CD or something, stick it in the microwave. it makes a nice little show for you, so you might try that. It's kinda a fun thing to do. But , the thing is, I don't know of a way to dustify steel in any situation, and...

In any situation? Hasn't Greg Jenkins heard of explosives?
What happens if you use sandpaper on metal?
If he doesn't know this, how can he be qualified to as an authority on it?

JW: Let's talk about physical principles.


JW : If you heat steel..and if you heat some kind of... .pick some particular kind of element , and heat it, if you have the right vapour pressure, it evaporates.

GJ: It evaporates , yes.

JW: So if you have enough temperature, enough energy, you can quickly put a lot of energy into something, it'll go ''poof''.

GJ: It will evaporate, yes. Correct.

JW: And if you do that to one surface, maybe the surface right below there, it doesn't necessarily do the same thing to, because there's a different process going on from the direct hit and the indirect hit.

GJ: That depends on the heat conduction of what you're trying to evaporate.

JW: No. not heat conduction! We're talking about an effect on a molecule. Why does the paper towel in a microwave not burn when water heats up?

GJ: Because it doesn't have water in it.

JW: Right. So the energy does one thing to paper, does another thing to water.

GJ: That's because microwaves are absorbed by water, and the paper in the towel is not absorbed by water. It has to do with the resonant energy of water.

JW: So if you have some kind of energy you put into a particular element, that excites that particular element...

GJ: If you excite an element you're talking on the scale of EV to excite the electrons. If you're talking about a crystal , then you're talking about the bonding energies associated with that crystal. So if you're talking about steel...

JW: Hang on, hang on. There's a slide that presents this information that I've started using. First you figure out what happened, then you figure out how it happened, then maybe why it happened, then who done it. But you 've got to start and do it in that order. You've got to figure out what happened..

GJ: OK...

JW: What happened doesn't depend on what you know about, and here's the example I gave [at] the talk I

gave in Seattle. You know , the slingshot, the BB

gun, and ... oh, pick something else... firecracker.

That's all you know about. So you can only pick from

those if you're going to describe what happened to the

Twin Towers. Does that make sense?

GJ: No.

JW: If you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

GJ: Well, ...

JW: If I can figure out what happened first, then how it happened is down the road.

GJ: Okay, can we talk about your analysis on what happened?

JW: Yes. That' s really where we are right now.

GJ: Okay. That's great.

JW: We don't know the serial number on the gizmo that was used, or was it something that came off over...

GJ: Okay. So, one thing that is puzzling to me that you had calculated the ratio of a building that was the Kingdome, right? And you looked at the ratio of before collapse height to the ratio of after collapse height...

JW: Not the height, the mass. There's an approximate number of ballpark numbers...

GJ: You've come up with 12%, or something like that , for the before and after collapse height.

JW: There's 30 feet - it's been a long time since I looked at those numbers - the Kingdome was 30 feet, and I think it was something like 250 , originally?

GJ: Well, I have the number, and you quote on your website as it could be 12 point something per cent, but it was about 12 %.

JW: That page is in the most rough state possible. You can probably see it's half done, we haven't really touched that since I first started posting it, so I'm not really familiar with the numbers now since it's been so long...

GJ: Okay. That's fair enough.

JW: I haven't done the triple, double checking, but I've looked at general trends, and general trends - you have a 30 times difference in potential energy. That was the biggest thing I'm focussing on. Now looking at the rubble pile when you're all done with, let's look at the pictures. You know, exact numbers - who cares? Let's look at the pictures. You have these little people, look like tiny ants, this huge outer edge of the Kingdome...

GJ: Correct.

JW: .... and if you recall the World Trade Center, they had, when they were looking for survivors, they had the rescue workers. they worked horizontally.

GJ: Yes.

JW: And they were pulled down.

GJ: Yes.

JW: They didn't have to climb up over, you know, many times their height.

GJ: So in that ratio , if you do look at the numbers and you use your analysis for the kingdome...

JW: Which numbers?

GJ: On your website you had stated a certain average height of the Kingdome before collapse, and a certain height...

JW: The center of it or just the average shape? And it really would have been lower if you looked at the actual... .I was looking at easy to find numbers, but the air would be in favour of, it would make a thirty times bigger number.

GJ: Okay It would make it bigger than your 12%

JW: Because I have it that it's too high already.

GJ: I see.

JW: Because the roof is very thin.

GJ: Yes, it is.

JW: And so if I'm saying just from the shape, you have the cylinder with the spherical cap on it, and I'm saying it all is the same weight per volume.

GJ: Yes.

JW: And the top part's really thin.

GJ: Yes.

JW: You're giving it too much benefit, so that's making the center of it too high...

GJ: Correct, and I agree with that, I definitely agree that's a good way to look at it.

JW: The air is in... the 30 is a low number.

GJ: Right. Now, on the rim of that , when you you take the after-collapse height, the rim , it's mainly concrete , like the structural concrete.

JW: I'm not talking about the volume of the thing, I'm talking about..

GJ: I understand.

JW: ...there's quite a lot of places where somebody measured that. I didn't measure It. According to the reference I provided, that's the number they gave.


JW: Then I look at the comparative height. The towers were a whole lot taller to begin with.

GJ: Yes, of course.

JW: About four times or so?

GJ: The towers were 110 floors, roughly 12 feet, and so they were about 1350 feet tall.

JW: 1368.

GJ: Yes.

JW: I don't remember exactly the equivalent in stories of the other one...

GJ: Well, if you take the collapse ratio and say it's 12% of the height, then it would be 13 or 14 floors you had come up with on the debris height. That's what you did on your website.

JW: I haven't looked over that page in a while.

GJ: I'm just trying to refresh your memory.

JW: Okay. I thought I'd made some equivalent of how many floors the 250 feet was worth at the Kingdome. But in any case, I said that 13 or 14 floors ...if you start looking around the WTC site,is there anything that's that tall?

GJ: No, but it didn't collapse in on its footprint either.

JW: True. Why didn't it?

GJ: Because it didn't.

What kind of logic is Greg Jenkins using? "Just 'cuz" ?
Why can't Greg Jenkins answer this question?

JW: Where did it "collapse"?

GJ: It collapsed in a radius six times its footprint.

JW: Six times its footprint?

GJ: Yes.

JW: I think if you want to count its material it's probably like a million times its footprint. It went in the upper atmosphere. You know, where do you stop counting it? Is it a mile away - the dust...?

Figure 6. Ground-level view of the enormous quantity of dust wafting skyward. Conventional demolition dust does not do this.

GJ: You can take any kind of distribution you want. The rough radius was roughly, makes an area of six times bigger, if you look at the debris coming down off of that building.

JW: But what are you calling debris? Are you calling this Nano-particles?

GJ: Nano-particles?

JW: The very fine, ultra-fine dust that was in the upper atmosphere for months.

GJ: The dust was an average of 70 microns large.

JW: Which dust?

GJ: ...of all the dust which was sampled by USC.

JW: Did they sample the stuff in the upper atmosphere?

GJ: I didn't see a lot of stuff go up into the upper atmosphere. I saw it all come down first , and then it spread out at that point. So as it's coming down...

JW: Maybe you should review the pictures.

GJ: I have reviewed the pictures.

JW: The video I have of the kingdome... where the roof height is...this is about the highest where the dust comes up (indicates with hands). The thing goes 'pouf', it goes down, it goes sideways. It doesn't go into the upper atmosphere. And if you look at - well, even Jim's pictures he showed tonight . The 'fingers' coming up. They go up and up and up.

Figure 7. The demise of WTC1 Source

GJ: A lot of that was the oxgyen-starved fire that was going up into the upper atmosphere, because it was there even before and during the collapse.

JW: There are some smoke bombs going off.

GJ: My point is not really what it was, but it was there before and after the collapse.

JW: After the quote, ''collapse'', you have this ultra-fine dust going into the upper atmosphere. How long does that oxygen-starved fire survive in the upper atmosphere?

GJ: How do you know it was ultra-fine dust and what do you mean by that?

JW: Why is it going up?

GJ: Because of the hot air. It's not really the issue. We're talking about the radius of the collapse field.

JW: Have you seen some of the satellite images?

GJ: I've got pictures right here, if you'd like to see them.

JW: It goes over, maybe , it covers the East Coast, the Eastern Seaboard.

GJ: Right. Eventually it does, because of diffusion, and just the heat of the energy being expelled will make that expand out.

Figure 7. This is a photograph taken from the International Space Station a day or two after 9/11/01. How far would you say the "debris field" covers?

GJ: Now , if you look at this picture..

JW: Thank you. This is a good example. It's going straight up. Imagine that.

GJ: That was smoke that was there before the collapse.

JW: What, down here on the fiftieth floor? The fortieth floor? I thought the fire was up at the eightieth floor.

GJ: I know all that dust... that picture right there... that dust was there before the collapse, because that's the smoke coming from the fire.

JW: But this (points to Banker's Trust building) is a forty-story building, so this is emanating from the fiftieth floor.

GJ: What's emanating form the fiftieth floor?

JW: The stuff that's going up.

GJ: How do you know the stuff emanating from the fiftieth floor is going up?

JW: It's not going down.

GJ: There's stuff going down in that picture, that's my whole point.

JW: You've just gone around the circle. You're saying it was there before the tower went 'pouf?' But the tower is in good condition up to about the seventieth floor or whatever it was.

GJ: It wasn't that high.

JW: I didn't see the fire down here.

GJ: Could we go back to the original point? I mean...

JW: But this is what what you're asking about here.

GJ: I'm asking about the radius the debris falls on the ground.

JW: Wait a minute! Because this wasn't working for you, you wanted to change to another subject?

GJ: No.

JW: We'll stay with this one. Here the dust is going straight up. Well, that's where we came from because you were saying the dust all went straight down, and I'm saying the dust goes up, and I'm using this picture to emphasize that it goes up. Here's about where the fiftieth floor would be. If that's a forty-storey building, the fiftieth floor is just about there, and it looks like all the stuff coming up is coming from there.

GW: (No reply)

JW: So where's the rest of the building?

GJ: Well, I ... I don't know.

JW: Oh , wait a minute , You're saying it it burned up, in four seconds? Five seconds?

GJ: I didn't say the building burned up. I said there was smoke from the fires that went up.

JW: But if there were some fires, fires were up here (indicates). This was fifty stories, so where would that make 110 stories, like up here? (indicates )

GJ: It wouldn't be that high, no.

JW: Well, we don't see the bottom of the building.

GJ: But you know roughly what the width of the building was, that ratio.

JW: It's somewhere up here.

GJ: The width of the building is 200 meters and the height is like 1300 meters[sic].

JW: 1368. And we don't see the bottom here. The bottom's down there somewhere.

So, if this is a forty story building here, we don't see the bottom of the building. It's probably about that big. We're now up to the eightieth floor, so it's going to be about somewhere in there.


JW: So if you have something up here - and that's where the fire was - why is the smoke coming from down here?

GJ: I don't know why it is coming from down there.

JW: What about this part of the building ( points to top )?

GJ: From that picture it looks like a lot of it goes down.

JW: Where's it going down?

GJ: You don't see any parts of the building going down there?

JW: I see that we have about one third of the building left. Two thirds of the building is missing, and it's not in the volume of this 'snowball' as I call it, to account for two thirds of the building.

GJ: So- what's going down? Is there any debris falling?

JW: I don't see anything that's really falling there.

GJ: You don't see any debris falling from the building?

JW: I see a round snowball. I call this a snowball.

GJ: Okay, so there' s no debris falling in that picture.

JW: I didn't say no debris.

GJ: How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?

JW: I see some... I don't have a magnifying glass. Sorry!

GJ: Oh, it's that small you can't tell what's falling from the picture?

JW: Below this point here ( points to bottom of the snowball). I don't se much difference. It look like the building is in good health. There's a little bit of cloud of haze there, but... I don't see any major material and the building is still completely intact from this point down, at that moment, below the snowball.

GJ: So you really don't see any falling debris there?

JW: Are you asking these questions for sincere, honest purposes?

GJ: I really am. This is sincere. I see falling debris in that picture and I'm wondering, I can't fathom why you don't see falling debris in that picture. It's hard for me to understand.

JW: Maybe ...

GJ: Because maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say.

JW: I'm not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some, like, pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it's not a significant volume of material.

GJ: I see. OK.

JW: the snowball here is about... it's bigger than the width of the building, and about that same amount in height. So, it's a little bit wider so you can't say it's the density of the building.

GJ: No, you can't say it's the density of the building.

JW: It's less dense, so we're missing two thirds of the building already...

GJ: Yes.

JW: ...where did it go?

GJ: I don't know. I saw it go down, but maybe I don't remember seeing the videos right or something.

JW: I don't see it below that point.

GJ: That's because this is a picture shot before the whole building collapsed. It's during the collapse.

JW: "Collapse?" If it was a collapse I would expect to see the material piled up. If it was literally a collapse, this is about two thirds of the building. How compact might that be...

GJ: Remember the ratio of the building is 200 meters wide by 130 meters tall[sic!]. OK.

JW: Correct. But you have this perspective of depth in the picture. I'm just going by this is a 40 story building, and its bottom is below the picture. That's 40 stories, that's 40 stories, that's 40 stories, so 110 is up to here. So between here and here you have a whole lot of building to account for. And it' s 207 or 208 feet wide all the way up to that point, but it's still two-thirds of the height.

GJ: The width is two thirds of the height?

JW: No. The amount that's missing is two thirds of the height.

GJ: OK . All right.

JW: It's missing , and this snowball can't account for it all. Where'd it go?

GJ: Well, I'm not sure if that's...I mean, I'm not sure if that accounts for it all. I saw a lot of debris go down from that building, and based on that picture it seems plausible to me that most of the building is within that debris.

Comment from audience: (inaudible)the pyroclastic flow that happened.

JW: It hasn't got down to any point to flow anywhere yet.. It's just...this material here is all that's left, except for what's going up.

Audience member: So is the pyroclastic flow included in the debris moving out?

JW: I wouldn't really call this a pyroclastic flow. I would call this explosions. This part of the building is being exploded out.

Audience member: You were both disagreeing on the amount of debris, how far it went away. I just wondered if you include that in the debris (inaudible)...

JW: I'm just saying, there's not much building left. I'm not saying exactly what radius it goes to. You have inch deep dust a mile or two away. Do you count that? It gets spread all over the place. But what I see in this picture is we don't have much building left, and it has yet to hit the ground.

GJ: OK. (searches through papers) Um...

JW: I'm glad you brought this. This is my favourite picture.

GJ: Excellent. I'm glad. Well, I guess that accounts for why you put it on your website. OK. All right. So, for any kind of beam weapon to annihilate the steel or anything like that, you would have to pump in a certain amount of energy to do that.

JW: It depends what wavelength you use.

GJ: No. The energy doesn't depend on the wavelength.

JW: It does to the extent of how efficient that energy is with that material.

GJ: OK . All right, so if you pump in a laser to heat the building up...

JW: Think how much energy it takes to heat a cup of coffee in my microwave, versus that same water on the stove. Different amounts of energy...

GJ: True. That's because we know that the microwave is exciting the resonant energy of the water to heat your coffee.

JW: The heat is exciting the water too,

GJ: Right, but it still takes the same amount of energy to heat that coffee no matter how much energy you lose.

JW: But it's a lot less efficient.

GJ: Okay. If you assume that you don't lose any energy at all, okay, and you vaporize steel, you can calculate what energy is involved in vaporizing steel. It doesn't matter how you do it.

JW: Yes, it does.

GJ: No, that would only increase the number.

JW: How about if you heat the water up by putting a resistance across it versus putting a fire next to it?

GJ: The minimum amount of energy to evaporate a wire, by fire, by electric current, by anything...

JW: We're not talking about evaporation. This is like, kind of, being silly. You started out talking about dustification, then you're talking about beam energy, then native (?) energy, then it's about vaporization...

GJ: This is not me, this is from your website. It's you saying these things.

JW: I'm taking about the data on my website. I'm not making calculations for how much you took for anything, as I don't think we should get distracted with that...

GJ: Conservation of energy is not a distraction.

JW: (holding up photo of South Tower) Is this pulverized?

GJ: I see falling debris there, Now, maybe it's not, maybe that's a different picture of something else, I don't know.

JW: The building is pulverized, and you see when the story is over with at the end of the day, you don't have much building left, anywhere. The buildings are gone, like, let's look at Building Six for example. You get these big holes with nothing in them. Where did the material go?

GJ: If you melted down all the steel in the...

JW: Where did it go?

GJ: If you melt down all the steel in that...

JW: You've changed the subject.

GJ: No, no, I'm not. I'm really not. If you bear with me you'll see that I'm not. the 110 floors of the building, if you melted down the steel into its footprint it would only be six feet tall. There'd be one slab, the cross sectional area of the building six feet tall..

JW: How about the concrete? How about the bookcases and so forth? It'd be more than six feet tall.

GJ: Not much. Not if you melted it all down. Okay. I'm just saying that is the amount of steel.

JW: Is that what you're saying....

GJ: Those buildings really were mostly empty space by volume, so you have to do some analysis...

JW: Is dust denser than solid steel or is it less dense?

GJ: Of course not. It's much less dense.

JW: Okay, so how much do we have?

GJ: How much of what should we have?

JW: (no reply)

GJ: Of steel? Or of concrete?

JW: This is not productive. It's not educational.

GJ: It's educational for me.

JW: What's the subject now? Is it steel, is it concrete, or is it dust?

GJ: You choose. Please.

JW: This is a game you're playing.

GJ: I'm really not playing a game. I'm just trying to figure out what it is you had on your website. I'm just asking questions regarding...

JW: What is your question? Ask the question, and we stay on that subject, through the whole sentence.

GJ: Through the whole sentencing[sic].

JW: See if you can handle that.

GJ: Okay, I'll see if I can handle that. Let's see. All right. The buildings collapsed in a larger area than their footprint. Would you agree with that statement or not?

JW: No.

GJ: No?

JW: They did not collapse.

Why was Greg Jenkins trying to manipulate her into calling this collapse?
What motivates Greg Jenkins to call this a collapse?

Figure 5. What motivates Greg Jenkins to call this a collapse?
What motivates Greg Jenkins to manipulate others into calling this a collapse?

GJ: (Pause) How big was the debris field?

JW: We covered that already.

GJ: What was your answer? I didn't catch it.

Figure 6. Ground-level view of the enormous quantity of dust wafting skyward. Conventional demolition dust does not do this.

Figure 7. This is a photograph taken from the International Space Station day or two after 9/11/01.

Comment from audience: Couldn't there be an answer that they collapsed and were pulverized at the same time? Both things happened?

JW: That's very misleading. ''Collapse".

Security guard enters the room and tells the Greg Jenkins camera crew they must leave.

GJ: OK. Well, thank you, I really appreciate your time. Thank you very, very much for clarifying some of these issues. I certainly have learned a lot here. I think the people who will view this video will have learned a lot as well.

JW: To see how welcoming I am to questions? To playing games?

GJ: I don't think it was a game. It wasn't a game to me. So...but I do appreciate your patience, and your time for answering my questions. Thank you.

JW: Oh, you want that picture? Good.

GJ: Sure.

JW: Please study it.

Member of the audience: [A member of the audience apparently asked GJ who's interest he was trying to protect..]

GJ: I'm not here trying to protect anyone's interest.

"Thinking for Ourselves" Judy Wood, Ph.D. (3-6-07) E-mail
A Slave Planet Interview, from 9/11 We Know
In this 1.5-hour discussion, Dr. Judy Wood, former Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, takes us on a journey into greater possibilities, using data from Ground Zero and the events of 9/11. Wood first presented this material on October 28, 2006 in Seattle, and it has received both admiration and heavy criticism ever since.  Listen to her talk, and judge for yourselves.  A teacher by training, she has a gift for making the esoteric manageable.

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