It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judy Wood and her 'Energy Beams'.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by micpsi
Thermite is a red herring. Even if Professor Steven Jones' findings were confirmed by other scientists, sceptics could still argue that what was detected was thermite used by workers at Ground Zero to cut up girders. There are, indeed, photos suggesting that thermite was used in the clear-up. See Fig 14(a), (b) & (c) at . So, if you think the alleged discovery of thermite by Professor Jones is a smoking gun, you are sadly mistaken.

I had never heard that before and it's very interesting. Doesn't explain the molten thermite puring from the building before collpase, but mabe tnat was melted plane...

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Judy Wood was fired and her student was murdered.... the one student who was doing 9/11 research with her to prove Steven Jones' work faulty. Check the 2nd link above for details.

Yikes! Very suspicious in some direction if true...

This is shaping up to be an interesting thread. Flagged it.

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by talisman

I know you want to attack Jones at any chance, you can start another thread on that. But let us put that aside here since this thread is about Woods and her 'Energy Beams'.

I was a MAJOR supporter of Jones who emailed 100s of structural engineering professors asking for support. It took me a while to "see it", but I now know he's a plant. But you need not believe me. Instead, you should look at the data:

Judy Wood and her story is ridiculous. She had a chance to talk about it, and quite frankly she did a very poor job. I'm being as honest as I can be.

She did a poor job because it was an ambush interview designed to discredit her. This article explains in full. Again, look at the data:

BTW it isn't an insult what I said earlier about her, it is the truth. That is exactly how she came across. Look we are dealing with 9/11 where people lost loved ones and many things happened.

If people want to go public with outlandish things then they are fair game, since 9/11 isn't just another topic, the search for truth is of paramount importance.

I don't think tolerating people like Woods who are doing nothing but discrediting the search for truth is wise.

What you need to do is look at the data.

Jenkins did a very fine job of refuting the 'science' in his article which got into some technical language. I don't defend Jenkins, but he sure as hell was reasonable 90% of the time.

Jenkins' conducted an "ambush interview" of Dr Wood. Look at the data:

If you don't accept Jenkins or Jones, then fine. Don't accept them, but this surely isn't the reason to jump on the Judy Wood's and Fetzer train.

I don't accept J/J based on their fraudulent activities. I don't jump on any train. What I do is look at data. You should do the same instead of just trusting someone.

Jenkins might have been a little sarcastic, he might have been a little bit of everything and nothing, it doesn't change the fact that anyone with a fair and open mind can see clear as day how she behaved, her logic and her evasive answers were enough.

Let's say you went to a conference intending to just sit in the audience. And then, on your way to restroom, someone asks you to be interviewed. It's after 10 o'clock at night. You're not prepared. But you don't want to refuse. How would you behave?

Now, let's say that you didn't get any sleep in almost 24 hours. What would you're behavior be like then?

And what if the interviewer showed you a different picture than the one put on the google video? How would you feel then?

That's exactly what happened to Judy. Again....

look.... at.... the..... data....

She looked to be right out of it. That is exactly how she looked and I think most would agree. The film speaks for itself.

The film shows disinfo agent Jenkins' in action.

What you were saying earlier in another thread is deceptive, she did in fact offer on the Fetzer show the idea that these 'Beams' could have been fired from Space, arguing that she doesn't call them 'Space Weapons' or 'Space Beams' is just playing word games. An Energy Beam fired from Space to me is a space weapon end of debate.

I was not deceptive. Judy never said that the beam MUST have come from space.

Fetzer then comes along and starts talking about the source being Bldg-7. I mean come on, for the love of God. From what source did the Beam come from??? So either it came from above in space-- from a satellite, or from Building 7!? This is absolute hogwash.

I don't defend Fetzer's statement.

....continued in next post

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:12 AM

What Science do you have? What peer reviewed accepted article or paper saying:


Show me this.

How do you define "peer review"

Now... a few questions for you:

Take a look at this animation:

Are the towers still there?

If there wasn't enough energy in a high-tech, high efficiency directed-energy weapon to vanish the towers (as Jenkins asserts), how could a low-tech, low energy technique work?

Listen to this interview with Dr Wood. What do you disagree with?

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I had never heard that before and it's very interesting. Doesn't explain the molten thermite puring from the building before collpase, but mabe tnat was melted plane...

Take a look here. Scroll down a bit to the photos of dripping from the tower:

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 08:10 AM
Why should the NASA photographic data of the WTC complex have been altered in order to create suspicious looking hot spots that really contradict the official story that the collapse of the two towers was a combination of fire and damage by planes? If you want to suggest that the alteration was done in order to make the heat of the fires look far greater than that suggested by the video evidence, then I would say few professional fire fighters would find such lingering hot spots plausible, in which case the plotters have been caught hoisted by their own petard. On the other hand, if the evidence was fabricated in order to make us think that thermite was used to bring down the towers, I have to ask why the plotters would have wanted to doctor suspicious evidence, even if it pointed towards the wrong causative agent? Such risk-taking seems highly implausible to me because it is pointless.

I feel therefore that you are merely trying to discredit prima facie evidence that does not fit your preferred hypothesis that something other than thermite destroyed the towers. This is both unscientific and unnecessary because why do we need to embrace only one causative agent? Both thermite AND some exotic military weapon that turned most of the towers into dust could have been deployed. Both Jones AND Wood may be right.

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:24 PM

I was a MAJOR supporter of Jones who emailed 100s of structural engineering professors asking for support. It took me a while to "see it", but I now know he's a plant. But you need not believe me. Instead, you should look at the data:

Like I said, this is about Judy Wood and her 'Energy Beams'. I know you want to turn it into an attack on Steven Jones but you can as I already stated start your own thread on that. So far, all you have linked me to was a site that has links to a guy named Fintan Dunne who thinks almost everyone in the 9/11 truth movement is working for the CIA.

Give me a break and nice try. Raise suspicions about other everyone hoping in the end it will raise suspicion about YOURSELF and eventually it leads to a person believing in nothing.

I don't fall for that garbage. You also had a link about Steve Jones and cold fusion some 20 years ago, so what? Big Deal? I am sure everyone has done things, besides he hasn't spoken to it on that documentary. Its pointless.

Did Steve Jones delay Cold Fusion? Or did he just believe otherwise? That is up in the air.

she did a poor job because it was an ambush interview designed to discredit her. This article explains in full. Again, look at the data:

Excuse me, that article is ridiculous and after the fact with most of it just someone saying 'its this way and this is the way it happened'. Why should I believe the writer of that article?
What are we dealing with here? A 2 year old? She knew the game she should always be prepared to deal with people who have questions.

Lots of people in the field of Science, be it doctors or whatever deal with lack of sleep etc.

That isn't her excuse. She did poor but she spoke a little too much. You can point to links where people claim all kinds of things, but the FILM IS WHAT IT IS.

She spoke and ended up vaporizing her own theory.

People can make up their own mind.

What you need to do is look at the data.

Show me the data that shows the military *TEST FIRING* some energy beam on a large building! Every weapon must be tested, so where was this one tested?

How would they know exactly how this weapon would work?

Then you go on about the this article at the "Ambush" of Judy Wood. The following defending Wood.

why did he bring at least two professional video cameras, recording equipment, special lighting, and a camera crew to the National Press Club that evening and not attend Jim Fetzer's presentation?

So what was so "special" about the lighting>? Can you prove it was special lighting? Or is this another "its this way because I say so"?

More from that article:

Why did Greg Jenkins plan this interview without telling anyone who knows Judy?

Prove it. To me that is just the writer telling me something. So what. The film is what it is. She had the time to speak.

The article continues:

Jenkins and/or his group tried to talk Judy out of going to the restroom, saying the "interview" would only take 2-3 minutes. But, Judy felt she couldn't wait. She saw the cameras for the first time after she came back from the restroom.

Again prove it. The author states this. So what.

the people helping Jenkins felt they needed to change the lighting and camera positions. As you can see in the video, Jenkins is well lit and Judy is half in shadow for most (if not all) of the interview.

So now because Judy is in the shadow her mind couldn't think straight?

This article goes on with a bunch of nonsense and garbage.

But what is on film best represents Judy Wood. It is what it is. Take or leave it.

The film shows disinfo agent Jenkins' in action.

I know the game here. I won't bite. You claim a whole bunch of people are dis-info. Some people do this in hopes eventually they get called dis-info, the goal being to create doubt about everyone leaving the person with a lack of ability to 'trust'.

You can claim you feel the odd person might be dis-info, but it seems to be a running theme on that site and with people like Fintan.

Nice try, but I won't bite. I think a lot of people can see where that nonsense leads.

To me the site your writing for seems more interested in 'sowing' doubt about "A LOT OF PEOPLE". Not just a few.

Doubt is contagious, the more you sow, the more you reap. It won't work with this person. I can read Steve Jones and know as clear as day what he is saying isn't dis-info.

But again this is about Judy Wood. I am sure many people originally thought she was "dis-info" but now think she just hasn't got the right 'logic' to deal with this.

I was not deceptive. Judy never said that the beam MUST have come from space.

Your being deceptive again. Just because she never said "MUST HAVE" doesn't mean she didn't refer to it as a space based weapon, as she did on the Fetzer show.

Now you also asked me what my definition of 'PEER REVIEW WAS'.

Let us go with how most Scientist's understand it:

Get the work reviewed by respected and top experts in the field and then to have it written in a respected Journal.

I can go into detail, but I think we all know what 'Peer review' is and means.

So again, show me the PEER REVIEW article that is going to be published in a respected Science Journal and has undergone expert opinions and review.

Show me this that states "ENERGY BEAMS DESTROYING THE TOWERS" is a viable hypothesis.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by talisman]

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:01 PM
well if you READ her page, some of your questions would be answered.

about testing the technology, she mentions the microwave oven. Jenkins made her look really bad on this subject... but what she was saying is that microwaves were invented/discovered/whatever in 1945... so some 62 years ago. its not a far leap that major advances have been made in that area in that period of time, and will not be seen by the public for a very long time after its inception. beam weapons are being used in Iraq, and were in New York for the Republican Convention prior to the 2004 elections.


as another case in point, remote controlled aircraft. who had heard of this prior to 911, and even some time afterwards? but there were tests around the same time of landing large aircraft via remote control. and around the time of the Iraq invasion, we began to learn about the Predator dronecraft, remote control planes used for observation and assasination used in the Iraq theatre and controlled half a world away in Florida!

the main point of her theory has legs... where did the material from the buildings go? if you look at the aftermath, the rubble is not even half the height of the lobby structure that was left intact... its just not there!

WTC 1 & 2 fell from the top down, and WTC 7 from the bottom up... the rubble pile for WTC 7 is taller or equal to the rubble of WTC 1 & 2.

at any rate, these are interesting theories worth a look into, regardless of what Jenkins says. if this guy is Truth oriented, why would he bother releasing the video? it was apparently a bad interview of no merit other than to discredit Judy Woods.

its apparent to me she is brilliant... but socially inept and sometimes those things go hand and hand. i have read that Judy Woods was in a coma for 6 years prior to earning her PhD, and maybe that affected her in social settings?

she has published over 60 technical publications in her field (Structural Engineering), and is writing a book currently about her research into 911.

posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 11:45 PM
[removed quote of entire previous post]

Here's a real presentation by Dr Judy Wood:

Judy Wood speaking at the forum 9/11 Search for Truth in Seattle October 28, 2006.

As you can see, Dr Wood believes that one must look at all the available data first ("what" happened), and afterwards come up with theories ("how" it happened).

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 12:23 AM
frankly, i only skimmed this thread.

however. i pretty much know how it went, so far.

here my rub.

there is (literally) TONS of anomalous information.
from put options, to vapourized steel and molten steel, and 10 micron steel spherules, to freudian slips by all the 911 playas.

the point is not to handwave something that doesn't fit your pet theory, but to have a 'floating point' style summation of the problem.

i think there is a good chance jones is an ingenius NSA plant. ditto ANY really good conspiracy groundbreaker. nico haupt, alex jones, david icke, rick eyewitness, ...take your pick.

when people start identifying with pure information, instead of the messenger who intially brings it to the table, is when the veils can be ripped ass-under, as toilet paper in a hit storm.

discretion is in the eye of the beholden.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:11 PM

GO TO THREAD TITLE: "Proof that Judy Wood is bogus"

[edit on 21-7-2008 by mrwiffler]

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:28 PM

Steven Jones has already been shown to be a government plant put in place to distract people from Judy Wood's evidence:

The link does not work, please quote your evdence directly.

Seems quite outlandish to me that anyone would hire a 'plant' that essentially proves their guilt. I understand that he may be trying to discredit Dr. Woods, but he discredits the OS much more so, focusing entire papers on it.

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:59 PM
Remember the 'disallowing of information' is the same as covering it up.

Options must remain open to find the truth. Even if the truth doesn't supposedly exist.

911 the day humans abused the right to use (alien/foreign technology) right in the open.

(-Quality Control- ) had to see what they were playing with. Damn testing results.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by menguard]

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM
There are some weird pictures that take place during 911 check it out.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:32 PM
Now listen to me. Mr. Bush was quite clear that he would not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories and malicious lies, or you'll be locked up and tortured. The way Ms. Wood is carrying on she deserves a damn good microwaving. And the Hutchison chap. Now, do some work or it's the Beam for the lot of you.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:23 AM
Judy Wood may be wrong and she may be a poor speaker, but she has survived.

I post this now, so many years after this thread started, because today was the first I heard of her and her ideas.

I heard her on Coast to Coast. She's a bit stuffed-shirt and defensive, like many academics, but her arguments are no farther out than those of anyone else. And I can actually get some concept of how her hypothesized cause for the destruction of those buildings could have been effected.

We might at least pause to consider the ramifications of her idea...

Could it be that some criminal element in our society has managed to acquire the technical ability to destroy buildings from a remote location with the use of agencies invisible to the human eye? Could it be that on 911 they flaunted that ability, staging a "terrorist attack" so flawed in its design and execution that ideas that it was really just a cover would never die? And could it be that our government's "War on Terror" has, all this time, been aimed at the incorrect target, and has, perhaps as fully intended by the real enemy, only served to bankrupt our country and increase our willingness to accept more limitations on our freedoms?

Many of the original links on this thread are now broken. The discussion is continued elsewhere on this site.

But I don't think this idea is going to go away. I know it is now added to my list of possible truths.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:44 AM
Well you can tell your people at work, that energy beams requering the power level to take down huge structures would have produced an quite intense light as well, not to mention colaterral damage unless she can get those beams to fire down in an square form. There is no shred of evidence for even the existence of high powered Laz0r killer sattelites.

SDI was designed to take out incoming ICBMs. I seriously doubt anything powerfull enough to dustify a building can be squeezed into the space shuttle.

This Judy woods is the only source for that claim.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by Cassius666

Though the concept appears to be somewhat farfetched. The technology in possession by the Govt. and military is at least 40 years beyond that of what is known to exist in the civilian world of technology.

Conceptually It would be possible to amass the necessary energy by focusing several lasers upon the target for example off of a reflector in orbit.
The cumulative energy of the combined lasers would provide amount necessary to destroy the target.
Hence the term...."Ground Zero".

In actuality, Lasers do not operate/function in the visible frequency spectrum.
That is the product of Hollywood and Television used to dramatize the particle beam.
IF a laser beam were visible, much of the energy would be lost to light anyway and not focussed upon transmission of said energy to the target.

A common example of a Laser in everyday use is, that of the LIDAR used by LEO for the purpose of issuance of speeding citations. It too is completely invisible if you have ever seen one used on the side of a road by local revenue officers.

I personally have experimented with chemical lasers used in the manufacturing of plastic components used in electronics.
They work very well with certain plastics as an alternative to mechanical drilling which might result in cracking the material instead.

When the laser was actuated, you also couldn't see any visible light. The only evidence that anything had occurred was the hole created in the material, followed by a small puff of smoke from the vaporized material.

We would sometimes unscrew the prism used to focus the laser downwards and point the laser directly into a nearby cinder block wall of our laboratory and it would burn a shiny glass lined half inch deep hole into the concrete wall.

Deeper if we increased the voltage of the laser.

No visible light. And once again, The only evidence was a small whisk of smoke.

Interesting hypothesis by Dr. Woods. Unfortunately years and years of working Calculus equations doesn't aid in one's oral communication skills....

Also as to why Lawyers aren't mathematics majors.

But as they say....don't judge a book by it's cover.

posted on Oct, 4 2013 @ 04:22 PM
A warning about Dr. Judy Wood:

I would be careful about trusting Dr. Judy Wood. Here is a warning about her from a credible source, Professor Jim Fetzer, a key 9/11 Truther who helped Dr. Judy Wood get exposure. Apparently, she, or possibly one of her followers, has been impersonating Jim Fetzer's wife in order to try to bring him down. This is in spite of the fact that Fetzer and his wife helped her out a lot in the past. In fact, Fetzer even gave her a lot of publicity on his radio show when she first came out onto the Truth scene. It's hard to believe how some people will backstab those who helped them like this. People can be so mean. I never thought that a scientist seeking the truth, as Dr. Wood claims to be, would resort to committing fraud and impersonation like this. It's very illogical and reflects a psychologically disturbed mind. This is really bad and does not bode well for her credibility.

Here is Jim Fetzer's announcement about this in his newsletter to warn everyone.

Professor Jim Fetzer:

We have been hit with a series of posts extolling the virtues of Judy Wood but using my wife’s name as the email handle. This is a perfect example of the kind of shabby attack that has come from Judy Wood and the members of her cult. The point that you cannot solve a crime if you do not know what crime was committed–consider the police looking for suspect without knowing how a decedent died!–is itself impeccable. But the implication that we have not addressed HOW IT WAS DONE is obviously and completely absurd.

I know Judy very well and this post and the others–there are at least FIVE using my wife’s name–appears to me to have been written by JUDY WOOD HERSELF. She is very good at congratulating herself for her brilliance. But she had none nothing at all to explain away the USGS dust evidence, which reveals that this was a nuclear event. WE HAVE EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS DONE AND WHY THE NUCLEAR DEVICES MUST HAVE COME FROM ISRAEL. In all the time I have know her, she has never addressed WHO DID IT!

Personally, I find her actions and those of the members of her cult to be disgusting. And the term fits: they have core dogmas (DEWs did it!), a sacred text (WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?), a mystical leader (Judy Wood herself), and a praetorian guard (which viciously attacks anyone who would suggest that she might be wrong, even slightly). So when I posted my 5-star review of her work, I mentioned in passing that, while she had ruled out maxi nukes, she had not actually excluded mini or micro nukes.

Lest there be any doubt . . . .

For that, MY REVIEW has been subjected to MORE THAN 4,000 VERY NASTY ATTACKS from Andrew Johnson and Judy herself, not to mention lesser minions, some of whom actually use their real names. I posted the original BEFORE The Vancouver Hearings and, AFTER being besieged by some 2,000 attacks at the time, revised it and downgraded it to a 3-star review. This is how she, who claims to be a scientist, responds to evidence that disproves her theory–by attacking me again and again and again.

I am all for “free energy”, but Judy turns out to be a flake. She insists that SHE DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY when the cover of her book proclaims, “EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11″, as though that did not imply that her theory IS that free energy technology was used on 9/11. She also maintains the absurd position that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, which is simply absurd. Empirical evidence consists of physical things (such as steel beams, dead bodies and dust samples), which are not the sort of things that CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE. So EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ANY KIND OF TRUTH, much less THAT THEORY MUST MIMIC. If a theory (which consists of statements or propositions which CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE) were to “mimic” empirical evidence, since mimicry is a form of imitation or replication, THAT WOULD ONLY BE MORE EVIDENCE!

She has repeatedly claimed that she DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY, but without a theory, she can’t explain anything. And instead of sucking it up and attempting to explain away the USGS dust samples, here she is reaffirming a position we have already shown to be false (or at least hopelessly inadequate), BECAUSE SHE CANNOT COPE WITH THE USGS dust samples. And her definition of DEWs as forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed APPLIES TO MICRO OR MINI NUKES, which a forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed, as we have explained: This appears to have been done using shaped neutron bombs that can be directed upward! So given her vague definition of “DEWs”, OUR THEORY THAT IT WAS DONE USING SHAPED MICRO AND MINI NEUTRON BOMBS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, MEANS THAT IT WAS DONE USING DEWS, WHEN YOU CONSIDER HER DEFINITION. The situation is absurd.

Not only that, but in addition to featuring her 15 TIMES on my radio programs when no one had ever heard of her and publishing a chapter by her in the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, I gave her an unprecedented THREE HOURS TO SPEAK during the Madison conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11″. She drove from South Carolina to get here and brought along her two cats. She asked my wife to look after them, which was unexpected but which she graciously did (even though, at that time, we had three cats of our own). For the kindness we have extended to Judy Wood and for the generous fashion in which I have promoted her work in the past, she now abuses my wife by using her name as a false handle to attack me. This woman is not only a paragon of ingratitude but appears to me to display the symptoms of someone who is profoundly sick, not mentally well and even sadistic.


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D."

Fetzer has a lot more to say about Dr. Wood. Apparently, they go way back and have a long history together. To listen to what he says about her, and the drama that occurred between them, see his radio podcast archive here:

At the site above, enter "Judy Wood" in the search field at the top to pull up the relevant podcasts. Fetzer's radio show is one of the best conspiracy shows out there. It's highly informative and in depth. Check it out and you'll see what I mean. I highly recommend it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in