|Some dare call it|
|What THEY don't want|
you to know!
Judy Wood Ph.D. is a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering who believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by a directed energy weapon.
She earned her doctorate in materials engineering science from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1992. Her dissertation was on the topic of thermal stresses in bimaterial joints.
From 1996-9 she was a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.
From 1999 to 2006 she taught mechanical engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.
Since 2006 she has been an independent researcher, lecturer and author.
Dr Wood's observation of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 led her to the conviction that the towers did not collapse but were "dustified" by a directed energy weapon. According to her, dustification involves molecular dissociation and transmutation.
In a whole series of lectures and media appearances, Wood has maintained that the debris pile was nowhere near tall enough to account for the aggregate mass of the towers and their contents. Rather, she states, the towers were pulverized in mid-air and simply blew away on the breeze.
On her web site, Wood presents a 41-point list of "The principal evidence that must be explained." It includes (point 9) "The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth", and (point 6) "The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition."
She consistently declines to speculate about the exact nature of the weapon involved, where it was situated or who operated it. Her position is that, as a scientist, her role is to determine what happened that day. Others might or might not address those more political questions.
On 10 January 2007, at the National Press Club, Dr Wood agreed to be interviewed on video by Dr Greg Jenkins, a physicist who was unconvinced by Dr Wood's theory of dustification. Opinion is sharply bilateral -- some analysts have claimed a triumph for Greg Jenkins, others the reverse.
 Legal actions
On 25 April 2007 Wood was Plaintiff/Relator in a qui tam petition to The United States District Court, Southern District of New York. In the nature of the Qui tam process, she was acting on behalf of the United States of America. She named a list of 23 respondents headed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp.(SAIC).
The petition claimed that the respondents acted fraudulently in giving advice to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) during their investigation of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. The Statement of Case included these words:
- "Those who performed work and received payment from NIST are alleged to have engaged in scientific fraud by petitioner, Dr. Wood, a materials engineering scientist, based upon a process of fraud documented by Dr. Wood’s original source research and findings that concluded that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by an unconventional energy weapon that can be directed and thus is referred to as a form of what are called “directed energy weapons” (DEW)."
- "Dr. Wood has demonstrated that the Twin Towers did not burn up nor did a significant portion of them crash down; they turned to powder in mid air and fire cannot turn a quarter-mile tall building to powder in 8-10 seconds. The respondents herein knew or should have known this and they therefore engaged in actionable fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act."
After a prolonged series of hearings, addressing the question whether Dr Wood's status was or was not an "original source", the District Court dismissed the petition on 26 June 2008. Wood filed an appeal which was denied by Judge George Daniels on 11 July 2008.
On 14 October 2009 Wood filed a petition for a writ of a certiorari (plea for judicial review) in the US Supreme Court. Briefs on behalf of two respondents were filed during December 2009. The petition was denied on 25 January 2010.
Wood potentially stood to cash in big-time if her petition had succeeded, since successful qui tam relators are normally granted 15-25% of the final settlement. In fact, in this case, since the Attorney General declined to intervene, the relator's share could have been boosted to as much as 30%. The original petition sought to recover "all available damages and other monetary relief under the common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake of fact, recoupment of overpayments and common law fraud". The suit also claimed "[T]he amount of the United States' damages, multiplied as required by law, and such civil penalties as are required by law, together with all such further relief as may be just and proper".
- ↑ For example, UK lecture tour 2012
- ↑ Appearing on Coast to Coast AM on the 13th anniversary of the catastrophe, Wood objected to the term pulverized since it specifically implies mechanical abrasion, which according to her could not have happened. Answering a caller who asked why it took two years to haul away the debris, she replied that for two years "they were hauling in dirt, dumping it, then hauling it out again." In actual fact, site clearance was complete by May 2002, after removal of more than a million tons of steel and concrete (ref. WTC timeline
- ↑ The principal evidence that must be explained list
- ↑ This web page seems to suggest a link to John Hutchison's now-discredited directed energy
- ↑ Wood, Judy (2010). Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11. The New Investigation. pp. 544. ISBN 978-0615412566.
- ↑ The book was effectively self-published. In early 2009 Wood signed a contract with Feral House, publishers of various flavors of woo. Months of acrimony between Wood and Adam Parfrey, Feral's publisher, then followed. Parfrey refused to publish over 500 pages and balked at the number of color illustrations and the paucity of copyright clearance information. He says Wood was uncontactable for a long period. Eventually Wood bought out her contract.
- ↑ See discussion on Amazon involving Adam Parfrey and others
- ↑ Transcript and analysis by Arabesque in 911blogger.com
- ↑ Transcript and analysis by Andrew Lowe Watson and Judy Wood
- ↑ The interview on Youtube, Part 1
- ↑ In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed.See the Wikipedia article on Qui tam.
- ↑ Explanation of Judy Wood's Qui tam petition
- ↑ US Supreme Court docket #09-548
- ↑ Qui tam petition filed 09/12/2007, p.2
- ↑ Qui tam petition filed 09/12/2007, p.35
- Image of WTC wreckage from Wikipedia commons
- Dr Judy Wood's web site
- Judy Wood biographical
- Judy Wood on Facebook
- Judy Wood: pathway to absurdity (Discussion of her 11th of September, 2014 appearance on Coast-to-Coast AM)
- The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers by Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. and Matt Sullivan
- Scientific Critique of Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapons by James Gourley
- The becoming of the World Trade Center. 'The Week' November 2005. How the 1.2 million tons of wreckage was disposed of.