October 26th in September 11 Attacks Research and Analysis by .

Reviewing, “Where Did The Towers Go?”

A dozen years ago I was a fan of Dr. Judy Wood.  There, I said it. To be fair, at one point or another I was a supporter of most of the truther hypotheses, and I assume most serious truth seekers have a similar story, of bouncing around from one …

A dozen years ago I was a fan of Dr. Judy Wood.  There, I said it.

To be fair, at one point or another I was a supporter of most of the truther hypotheses, and I assume most serious truth seekers have a similar story, of bouncing around from one camp to another in search of the truth.  After a while I realized that none of the popular hypotheses have a satisfactory explanation for what happened on 9/11, that instead of leading me to the truth, they all left me with more unanswered questions.

There is no collaboration of research in the misnamed movement, no sharing of notes to eliminate those hypotheses that don’t fit the evidence, no open debates or peer reviews.  The 9/11 Truth Movement is an ironic name for an online popularity contest.  It is not a peace movement, or even a truth movement; it is a place to keep the unwashed masses busy, while the war machine marches on.  I was a much younger man than I am today, when I realized that if I was ever going to learn the truth, I would have to do the work for myself.

From what I know about forensic investigations, the first step ought to be to examine the scene of the crime for clues, but this is evidence the truth movement won’t touch.  To ignore such critical evidence seemed strange to me, because at the time I was still under the naive impression the truth movement was started to expose the truth about 9/11.  Now however, I am under no such illusions.  After 17 years of war, war and more war, it goes without saying that exposing the truth was never the goal; all along the intent was to divide and conquer us.  For more than a decade and a half the leaders of the opposition have been leading us in circles, transparently attempting to cover-up the evidence that can lead to the truth, while misdirecting us with half-truths and false-leads.  This is what controlled opposition looks like, but to convince the average “truther” of this has been a challenge.  You know what they say; it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

We in the 9/11 Truth Community are often myopically focused on the details of the event; the collapses, the planes, the jumpers, etc., but a sometimes overlooked line of investigation is the history of propaganda, propaganda techniques and the methods used in perception management.  So if you haven’t already done so, take a detour from your 9/11 studies to learn about how easily the “powers that be” control opposition movements; and that they do so by leading them; which brings me to Dr. Judy Wood.

I have resisted reading Dr. Wood’s book, “Where Did the Towers Go?” for more than a decade because the evidence I’ve seen leads me to the conclusion the World Trade Center was gutted of all infrastructure, and planted with explosives, just as all controlled demolitions are.  There is no evidence to support the conclusion the steel was turned to dust by exotic, top secret weapons, and to read what I already know to be irrelevant seemed like a colossal waste of time.  Besides, the thought of supporting (with my money), what I consider to be full-blown propaganda, was distasteful to me.

What’s changed is that lately I have been targeted by Dr. Judy Wood’s followers as an agent of “disinformation,” something that amuses my friends, co-workers, and family.  Dr. Wood’s fans behave like cult members; they treat their mystical leader with awe and reverence while they cling to her book like some sort of Bible, and they won’t listen to anyone who hasn’t read it.  So to show my heart is in the right place, I held my nose, paid my money, and set aside the time to review “Where Did the Towers Go?”.  I admit I am biased against Dr. Wood and her followers, but that’s only from personal experience.

Here is the exchange I had with Dr. Wood from about six years ago, when I started the 9/11 Crash Test project:

At 12:58 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De’ak wrote:
Greetings Dr. Wood,

As I’m sure you already know, Dr. Reynolds and I are embarking on a publicity-stunt/laboratory-experiment designed to help raise awareness in the slumbering masses. We disagree on much but we have put aside our differences for this project, and in the same spirit of peace, solidarity and fellowship I invite you to join us with a public endorsement. The goal is to have the truth movement put aside their differences and join forces with more mainstream organizations who share our common goal of peace.

Please let me know your thoughts, and thank you.


Steve De’ak



From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 7:04 PM
To: Stephen De’ak
Subject: Re: 9/11 Crash Test
Importance: High

Dear Steve De’ak,

I am not part of a “Truth Movement” so I must decline being a part of whatever it is you are seeking to advance.

The truth is known. Why seek to cover it up and distract away from it?

As a forensic scientist and engineer, I have no interest in participating in a “publicity stunt” nor do I wish to be a part of it.

You say your group wishes to “join forces with more mainstream organizations,” but it is not clear if you are referring to organizations related to the entertainment industry or if you are referring to organizations related to professional engineering disciplines.

If you are seeking to join forces with the entertainment industry, you may be on the right path. But that is not my area of expertise.

If you are seeking to join forces with the engineering profession, you are not on the right path. But this is my area of expertise. As an engineer, I have conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation and have published the report in a way that anyone can understand if they truly want to know what happened.

The truth is known, so why spend yet more energy and expense to divert attention away from it and create yet another “opinion movement” or a “distraction movement” …unless it is your intention to cover up the truth?

So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?

With sincerity,

Dr. Wood


B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)
M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics)
Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science



At 08:46 PM -0600 9/2/12, Stephen De’ak wrote:
Dear Judy Wood,

Perhaps “publicity stunt” was a poor choice of words, but I was being sincere. The point is to raise awareness. I will be surprised if a scientific test that could prove the government lied will be allowed, but every step of the project will help raise awareness with the public, so if we’re being honest, and I am, then it is a publicity stunt/scientific experiment.

The truth may be known to you as a forensic scientist, but I am trying to reach everyone else.

My “group” is me, and me alone; I am trying to do what I can and I’m sorry you don’t want to be a part of it.


Steve De’ak


From: Dr. Judy Wood
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Stephen De’ak
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Mr. De’ak,

(I do not believe we are on a first-name basis.)

You say you want to “help raise awareness with the public.” Do you think the public is unaware that something happened on 9/11/01?

I will ask again,

So, I must ask, what is your objective?
What problem are you trying to solve?

If it is to “raise awareness,” why not wear a sandwich board and walk around the streets where people are.

If you want to prove that the official story is not what we were told, well…that’s already been done, submitted to a government agency, and taken to court. Why cover that up? Why reinvent the wheel? To distract away from what has been done and start all over again to run out the clock?

But your “test” will not prove the official story is incorrect. At best, you will only demonstrate that you were unable to replicate it. That will not prove anything, but just confuse and muddle things up. That’s what keeps a cover up in place. Perhaps that is your objective.

Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve?
You need not tell me your answer, but it might help if you asked yourself this question, first, before proceeding.

With sincerity,

Dr. Wood


To: ‘Dr. Judy Wood’
Subject: RE: 9/11 Crash Test

Dear Dr. Wood,

Please call me Steve. I’m surprised that someone with your credentials would recommend a sandwich board as a way to raise awareness.

Good luck,



So with that, here is a draft of a review of the first three chapters of “Where Did the Towers Go?”  More to follow.


Author’s preface:

She writes, quite correctly,

“This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.  Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined, what was done, and how it was done. “

She then lists the order of importance of the investigation:

“The order of crime solving is to determine

  1. WHAT then
  2. HOW it happened (e.g. by what weapon), then
  3. WHO did it. And only then can we address
  4. WHY they did it (i.e. motive).”

She’s basically paraphrasing the familiar, “means, motive and opportunity” theme, we’re all accustomed to seeing played-out on every detective movie ever made. The first steps should be to figure out what happened, and how it happened, and the next step should be to conclude who had the means, motive and opportunity to accomplish it.  It sounds good right off the bat, but she skips the evidence that explains what happened, and how it happened, and leads the reader down a rabbit hole that would make the Mad Hatter blush.

She refers to the court case she filed, and claims that only SHE – Dr. Judy Wood – has conducted a comprehensive investigation into what had been done.  She claims she is uniquely qualified to conduct this investigation.  In propaganda terms this is called appealing to authority; her own authority, as well as to the court’s authority, and she does so while challenging the NIST’s authority.  But she skips to the END of the event, (the collapses), and completely ignores the beginning of the event (“the crashes”), which is where the evidence is that can explain what happened, and how it happened.  This doesn’t bode well for the investigation.

  1. Introduction:

She briefly compares the impact holes to “Wiley Coyote” cutouts from the Roadrunner cartoon, so for a moment there I thought she would address the evidence at the scene of the crime, but I was soon disappointed.  She wrote that based on her understanding of material science, she thought the holes were laughable, but that’s as far as she goes.  She then skips right to the collapses, not offering any explanation at all about the impact holes.  Perhaps she’ll revisit the subject later.

On Page 4, she admits she does not know how the towers were built, so she didn’t try to model that.  This means that everything in this book is based on assumptions.  She states as fact, on page 6, “we know that 9 out of 10 floors were not missing…”  How can she know that?  She doesn’t even know how the towers were built, and now she’s assuming every floor was there at the time of demolition.  That’s quite an assumption, but then she goes right into calculating how much time it would take for 110 floors to fall to the ground – all without even knowing how they were built or verifying whether or not all the floors and contents were there at the time.  One assumption built on another, and I’m still on the Introduction.

On Page 7 she wrote:

“It is tempting to jump to the question of how this was done, based on the knowledge of possibilities…”

Why then does she not seriously consider the very real possibility that the towers were gutted and prepared for demolition by removing non load-bearing walls and floors, as is standard practice with all controlled demolitions?

From page 8:

“We cannot determine who did it until we determine what was even done and how it was done…Doing such a thing, going after who did it before establishing what happened and how it happened, is a way of ensuring that the truth will be hidden for a very long time, if not forever.  It is called a cover-up, and I will not be part of a cover-up. “

We’ll see about that.

  1. The Billiard Ball Example

In this chapter she discusses whether or not the “apparent” airstrikes could have brought down the building, again missing the evidence at the point of impact; evidence that should make it obvious to a forensic scientist like Dr. Judy Wood, that it couldn’t have been caused by airstrikes.  She then goes into an analogy of calculating how long it would take a billiard ball to free fall to the ground.  She writes about how unbelievable the official estimate is, of 10-seconds for a quarter mile high building to fall to the ground, which in propaganda terms this is called an argument from incredulity.

She wants the reader to be amazed by the shallow depth of the debris field, and includes a couple of photos of the dust and paper, like this one:

The thing is, had she started her investigation from the beginning of the event, rather than from the end of the event, she would have noticed the same dust and paper were present from time of the first shock and awe explosions:

Paper and dust in the fireball:

Evan Fairbanks’ footage after the first impacts; notice all the dust and paper in the air and on the ground?

More footage from the base of the towers; dust and paper:

And still more footage of dust and paper pouring out of a wall panel, long before the towers were “dustified:”

Given the fact that dust and paper were already pouring out of the towers after an alleged plane crash and subsequent kerosene ignition, but before the demolition, I don’t understand why Dr. Wood and her followers continue to be baffled by the amount of dust and paper that littered the streets after the collapses.  The same goes for that faction of the truth movement that insists the buildings were vaporized by nuclear weapons. I mean come on people; the dust was already there!

But I do understand the power of propaganda, and the herd mentality.  The fact that truthers continue to reject this information is a great example as to why it is so important to the establishment to control the opposition by leading it, and what happens when they do.

She then addresses the “Pancake Theory,” noting that the rubble had no signs of pancaked floors, as compared to other collapses.  As an example, she provides a photo of a building collapse in Pakistan, to demonstrate what pancaked floors should look like, but this is an apples to oranges comparison.   To discover how the towers were demolished requires knowing how the towers were constructed.  The idea of a pancake collapse is not consistent with the photographic and video record, or with the manner in which the place was built.

According to the video and photographic evidence of the collapses, and of the debris field after the collapses, most of the floors weren’t even there at the time.  But she never considers that option, instead arriving at the conclusion that the 220 acres of concrete floors that the authorities need us to believe were there, and which she admittedly assumes were there, must have been pulverized into dust!

Never once does she consider the possibility that the towers might well have been built to be destroyed, nor the possibility that the surreptitious preparation for controlled demolition must have taken many years to complete, and would require a massive amount of publicity to prop-up the belief that the WTC was a “city within the city,” of 50,000.  To go down that path would be to admit that such a conspiracy would have required the collaboration of the media, and the Port Authority (which only answers to the Governors of New York and New Jersey), not to mention the alleged tenants.  Very quickly the list of conspirators grows exponentially, but only when all the evidence is addressed, and only when all the possibilities are considered.  But she doesn’t do that.

On page 15 she provides images of the destruction of the towers, with what she claims is material that has been ejected upward and outward.

But this is obviously not true, as can be seen in the collapse videos.

What’s happening is the exterior walls are being blown outward and downward, trailing dust behind them as they fall. Their arch-like trajectories can be seen in the trailing dust clouds, and make perfect sense considering the construction of the towers as a “tube within a tube.”  The outside curtain wall panels (measuring somewhere around 36×10 feet), are being blown apart at the seams and pushed away from the core.  Given the scale of this ruse (global media, State, and Federal government, etc.), it should go without saying that if the perpetrators really were conducting a massive hoax as a way to drum-up public outrage and support for long-planned aggressive wars, then the act of packing their prop-buildings with dust and paper would be child’s play.  But this option is never considered.

Rather than arrive at a real world explanation that the corrupt leaders of the media/government/military/industrial complex have perpetrated fraud on the world, she does what military propagandists have been doing since before Hammurabi, and concludes that the military has godlike prowess.  According to Dr. Wood, the military is capable of turning large parts of major cities into dust, but for some reason it can’t tame Afghanistan.

On page 18 Dr. Wood lays out her case for her incredulity that the towers were demolished by “progressive” collapse, which is a major plank in the platform of the official story. She writes,

“…for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, each lower floor would have to start moving before the higher floor could reach it…”

Sure, that sounds right, but then, if most of the floors were removed, or were never installed to begin with, that can explain the collapse even better than assuming top secret weaponry was used.  Apparently she assumes quite a bit, and wonders why the ground only rumbled for 8 seconds while WTC1 collapsed.  This isn’t a mystery when standard demolition practices such as dismantling and removing building contents and infrastructure are considered.  Furthermore, taking into consideration the involvement of the authorities, none of the information provided by them should be taken at face value either; such as the seismic data, for example.  How do we know they weren’t salting the well of information, to give their controlled opposition something to talk about, as part of the plan of their “Big Lie?”

On page 20 she asks the below questions:

  1. “How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fall at exactly the same time?
  2. If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would the portion of the building tip over, or would it fall straight down into its own footprint?
  3. What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?”

Her questions expose her ignorance about the construction of the towers, illustrating what happens when we “assume:”  Answers below:

  1. What supporting structures? One of the reasons the towers were advertised as modern marvels is because the floors were truss-supported, and spanned from the inside of the exterior walls, to the core, and on out to the opposite exterior walls.  This is what gave each floor an acre of space, not cluttered by support columns.  The only way to remove the “supporting structures” for the floors was to remove their connections to the exterior walls and to the core columns, or to remove the walls and core columns themselves.
  2. This hypothetical question is irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the way the way the towers were constructed. The floor trusses were bolted to the walls.
  3. The supporting structures were the core columns and the exterior walls. If she knew how the towers were constructed she wouldn’t need to assume so much.

For the official story of progressive/pancake collapse to have been possible requires the existence of floors to pancake.  Dr. Wood starts with the same assumption, that there were 220 floors there at the time.  What she’s doing is supporting the official story by arguing against it, but neither explanation (hers or theirs), fits the observable evidence.  In the collapse videos the walls are blown outward and arch-down to the ground as they fall, trailing dust behind them.  The video evidence shows the walls being blown-apart, an action she refers to as “removing the supporting structures.”  She is laying the ground work to direct the reader’s attention away from the most obvious conclusion; that the reason there was little or no resistance from the floors, is that most of them weren’t there.

Chapter 2 ends with calculations and comments about conservation of energy and elastic collisions, which are irrelevant because she doesn’t understand the construction of the floors.

  1. The “Jumpers”
    ‘It Was Like Raining People’

On page 25 she does what all propagandists do, and digs back into our emotions,

“Among the most horrific images from 9/11 is that of “The Falling Man…”

and provides this is an iconic photo from Richard Drew:

However this image appears to have been tampered with, as can be seen in the pixelation around the image of the man.  His image was apparently inserted on top of the background image of the towers.

The same goes for the next image, listed under the “A.  Energized Launch” section.  She refers to the “fellow in the orange shirt,” who was actually a shirtless fellow.  What I see is a guy reclining on a park bench, pointing at something in the distance.

This is not only a transparently fraudulent image; it is also used as part of the ongoing indoctrination efforts.  The image below is from the WTC museum.  The claim is these wall columns were the same ones from the impact hole,


This is obviously not true; it is clearly not the same panel, as anyone can see who compares the images:

So in just one photo we have evidence of tampering, as well as evidence of official collusion, with the tampered image being used as the basis for a museum exhibit, which is designed to indoctrinate school children (and the unwary adult), into believing impossible things.

On page 26 Dr. Wood then channels the fellow’s thoughts, writing,

“He did not expect to be here.”

This is an odd comment coming from a forensic scientist, but not so odd coming from an official propagandist.   She then asks,

“Where did he come from and why is he here?”

For Dr. Wood to not even question the veracity of an obviously fraudulent photo would make me question her sincerity, if I didn’t already do so.

She continues to write about the shirtless fellow, again referring to him as wearing an orange shirt, and then speculates,

“Someone choosing to jump to their death would likely choose to carry something special with them, perhaps a photo of their loved ones, or even a briefcase or backpack.”

Honestly?  I’m pretty sure if I was in a panic and choosing to jump to my death, I wouldn’t stop to grab my briefcase.  All good propaganda targets emotion, and she just reeks of the stuff.

She carries on, wanting the reader to be amazed by the distance from the towers some of the jumpers traveled, and I am pretty sure she did this because anyone who paused to think about it would know that such distances would be impossible, and to have photos of impossible things, is only proof of fraudulent photos.  She is directing the attention of the reader away from the most logical conclusion, that the images were tampered with; a conclusion that only benefits the media that provided the images.

The role of the media must be protected, because if people lose faith in their favored media, all bets are off.  Before you know it they’ll start thinking for themselves.

But not all the images were tampered with, and not all of the videos are fraudulent, as seen in this footage of a man who was apparently trying to climb down from the tower, but slipped and fell.  He was not being hit with an energy field; judging by his actions, he was trying to escape:

For all we know the people hanging in the windows were prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, or acrobats from a circus troupe.  When looking at the footage of the jumpers, many of them appear to just “let go,” and many of them go one after another, like a string of base jumpers.  It does appear to be some sort of macabre show that was being played out for the local crowd; it is called the “big lie” for a reason, after all, and the whole idea would be to terrorize the world into supporting War, War and more War.  The outrage and horror over the human loss would be of paramount importance to the perpetrators, so apparently they used creative editing to increase the impact.

She goes on about the people in the window, and highlights one person who she assumes by his stance, is removing his pants.

She writes:

“At this juncture we must introduce a hypothesis in an attempt to explain the strange behavior.  Consider what might be expected if some sort of energy field, such as a microwave field, had been affecting that area just inside the building.  Such a filed might be part of what comprises the Active Denial Systems (ADS) that are now being used for crowd control.  It is equally possible that such a field was part of whatever was destroying the building.  In either case, wet clothing intensifies the pain caused by such microwaves, as is acknowledged in an article about ADS: “Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.”

Thus, the actions of people appearing to disrobe while hanging outside of a building are consistent with their being an energy field contained within the walls of the building.”

Well that sounds pretty impressive until the countermeasures for ADS are considered:

“Countermeasures against the weapon could be quite straightforward – for example covering up the body with thick clothes or carrying a metallic sheet – or even a trash can lid – as a shield or reflector.”


The people were standing in a metal building.  How effective would such a weapon be against a building that reflects the beam?  Could the beam be contained within the walls of the building, if it was fired from outside of the building?  How could the parallel columns with windows between them contain such a beam?  Is she guessing?

With the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that these fancy weapons she assumed were used on 9/11, were only just being researched at the time, and have since proved to be fantastic duds which are still not in use anywhere:

“Almost all of this program has been a waste of money,”


Furthermore, the guy she assumes is taking off his wet pants still has his pants on.  Is he attempting to pull off wet pants by grabbing one of his pant legs? Has Dr. Wood ever tried to peel off wet pants before?  In my experience it is next to impossible even by pulling on both pant legs.  How does she know he’s not just scratching his ankle, or rubbing an injured foot, or holding on to the person below him?  Her assumptions know no bounds.

On page 33 she continues her speculation by digging back into the emotions of the people she sees in the images.

“Briley looks relaxed and at peace, as though he just solved the worst problem of his life – and just before he realized the next one, one that he would not be able to solve….

But it is quite clear that with the people hanging from the building and taking off their wet clothes, we have an indicator of some other factor at play besides just extreme heat and/or smoke.  In the area where these people are hanging outside of the building there is no apparent fire or smoke emerging from the windows.  There is however a stream of hazy fumes flowing from we know not were.”

Hazy fumes from we know not were, eh?  Well, “we” can speculate just as well as Dr. Wood can.  If, as the evidence suggests, the towers were glorified props in a 30-year plan to dupe the world into accepting a new Machiavellian world order of diminished liberty and endless aggressive war, the perpetrators would deploy their propaganda organs, and their military, and whatever other means they had at their disposal to accomplish it.  There would be no need to resort to top-secret weapons to destroy a complex they already had complete access to, and “we” also need to remember that 9/11 wasn’t only about the World Trade Center.  Unfortunately, though, Dr. Wood doesn’t address the other two sites.  Perhaps this is why; taking a quick detour to the Pentagon “we” can see that at least there, they embellished the carnage with a low-tech, military-grade smoke machine:

So “we” have the precedent of the use of smoke machines on 9/11; a clue as to the depth of this conspiracy, but how about at Shanksville?

Notice that in this footage of the Shankville crater taken apparently before the “first responders” arrived, there is no plume of white smoke emanating from the crater:

And yet later, after the first responders arrive, voila; white smoke consistent with a portable smoke machine:

Considering the precedent of smoke machine use at the Pentagon, it stands to reason a small, hand-held version was also used at Shanksville.   The below image was captured before the second pickup truck arrived, which can be seen parked in front of the fire truck in the second image.  Apparently the guys were walking around with a portable smoke machine at the time this image was captured.  Smoke can be seen hanging in the air around the crater, and the plume is off to the left, outside of the crater…

…but a little later (after the pickup truck pulled up and parked beside the fire truck), the plume moved to inside the crater:

Given that smoke machines were likely used at two of the three 9/11 sites, Dr. Wood’s statement about not knowing where the hazy fumes might have been coming from is disingenuous, but since her agenda appears to be to inflate the prowess of the military while directing energy and our attention away from these important clues, “we” never hear about Shanksville or the Pentagon, but I’m still reading.  Maybe she investigates these sites later in the book.

In section C., Stepping Around the Bodies, she dives back into the star wars stuff:

“As we evaluate this possibility of an energy field, another important question occurs:  What did eyewitnesses observe that day?  Did they see an airplane hit the tower?  Did they hear an airplane?”

Actually, the first eyewitnesses reported anything but a large plane. (no planes (bombs), small planes, missiles), but It was the media and the authorities (police, fire, etc.) that reported a large plane.  The clues point to the media and the government as the most likely suspects for 9/11, therefore it should be assumed that whatever information the media and government provide, is intended to cover their tracks.  Had Dr. Wood investigated Shanksville and the Pentagon, she would have seen evidence that indicates no planes crashed at either of those sites, setting another precedent for the whole event ( i.e., if no planes crashed and they used smoke machines at two of the three sites; what did they use at the WTC?), which would lead an investigator down a path that is much more down to earth than the one Dr. Wood is taking us.

She continues:

“After 9/11, along with a number of my colleagues, I began to look at some of the first-responder-transcripts (discussed elsewhere in this book).  Reading through them gave me a sense of seeing through the eyes of the first responders.  I began to feel that I was able to see what they had seen, and go where they had gone. Throughout my reading, I kept looking for evidence that an airplane had crashed into the building.  Many first responders did not even realize that anything had happened to WTC2 until they were told an airplane had hit it…”

Again, more clues that the plane impacts were fabricated by the media and the authorities.

She then writes about how horrific it must have been for the first responders, and lists quotes from some of them.  Remember, it wasn’t until the “first responders” arrived at Shanksville that the smoke machine can be seen.

The jumpers are a disturbing chapter for 9/11 researchers, by design.  It is an emotional tale, but all she’s doing is continuing to appeal to the authorities.  The carnage they describe on the ground is not supported by the photographic evidence. There is still no photographic evidence of bodies on the ground; therefore we are reduced to taking the word of the authorities about it. The official reason for this is due to respect for the families of the dead, but there aren’t even any amateur images of any of them, which is hard to believe, considering our war-porn addicted society.

But what if the leaders of the police and fire departments were already neck-deep in the operation?  What if they are included in the list of conspirators?

Many years ago, the late Leslie Raphael exposed just that; that the authorities are involved, and he named names.  In his magnificent investigative article, “Jules Naudet’s First Plane Shot Was Staged,” Raphael exposed the Naudet brothers, members of the Mayor’s office, the Port Authority, the NYPD, the FDNY, OEM, etc., as being part of the conspiracy.  He exposes the Naudet film itself as a propaganda piece that would make “Triumph of the Will,” pale in comparison.

Raphael passed away a few years ago, and his work has since been scrubbed from the web, but I have an archived copy saved to PDF, linked below:


I bring up the Naudets because in their movie, “9/11,” at the 1:17 mark, one can see James Grillo, who was a real member of the FDNY, and was allegedly injured in an explosion, screenshot below:

Grillo, like many of the other firefighters Dr. Wood lists on pages 35-37, talks about the horror of the jumpers, and also said the whole place could be rigged with explosives.  The fact that the he is included in a video that has been exposed as propaganda, should be a clue as to whether or not his claims have merit, but beyond that, he was also featured by CBS:

And then on the very next day, “Hamburger Nose Grillo” was featured on Larry King live, where he sported his remarkable healing abilities.

Now I know from personal experience that after an injury like that, the swelling is always worse the next day, and usually takes several days to fade, and yet Grillo only had a bandage over his nose, hints of black eyes, and no swelling.  I am also very familiar with stage makeup, being a huge fan of Halloween:

And I can recognize the “spirit gum itch” scratch reflex when I see it:

So we have evidence of conspiracy that includes the leaders of the media, the leaders of local and federal governments, and members of the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, and the list goes on.  But the corruption doesn’t stop there!

Even the rank and file of the first responders has been exposed:

NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack

  • Retired NYPD officers, firefighters and corrections officers claimed they had PTSD and depression because of the Ground Zero clean up
  • Received thousands in annual disability compensation from 9/11 disability fund as a result, promising that they retired
  • Investigators found that they had second careers and did things that their supposed disabilities wouldn’t have allowed them to do
  • Cost taxpayers $21.4million dollars
  • Lawyers coached fraudsters on how they should talk about leaving the TV on all day and constantly napping, having trouble grooming themselves


I will comment more on the rest of the chapters as time permits.

Thanks for reading,


Steve De’ak


      • Why do you demand witness accounts for the use of missiles (which I have provided), but you don’t provide witness accounts for the use of Directed Energy Weapons?
      • Missiles are known to exist in the real world, and can account for the damage as found, but if there is another weapon that can better account for the damage, can you describe what weapon that is?
      • What cut the plane shaped hole (explosives, directed energy weapons, or…)?
      • Why mimic the lateral impact of small projectiles, rather than the head on impact of a large one?
      • If the towers were gutted and empty, and prepared with demolition charges, that would mean the dust and paper would have had to have been added as “props” for the big show. Does not this video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column, seem to support that conclusion? If not, what conclusion does it support? https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
      • Why would there be so much evidence of missing bolts, but no evidence of partially “dustified” steel?
  • Leave a Reply

    yankee451.info The Truth Hurts