Dr. Judy Wood’s groundbreaking work on 9/11 has not received the attention it deserves. David A. Hughes, PhD is trying to change that by publishing a series of articles in defense of Wood. In this interview, Hughes returns to the Solari Report to discuss the geopolitical and other major implications of Dr. Wood’s work on invisible weaponry.
Ok, finally got to this. Been deep diving on this for 18 months.
– No, you don’t need large energy inputs to achiever over-unity.
– You can go beyond Schrödinger’s Limit – See Salvatore Pais’ work, patents and the superforce.
– Please have Bob Greenyer on the show in regards to cold fusion and LENR. You can see his channel at: https://www.youtube.com/@MFMP/videos
– Has the technology been shown anywhere else? Absolutely. The MH370 case blows this wide open. Don’t be deterred by the serial social media campaign to discredit it, follow the evidence and yes Ashton Forbes is a great person to have on the show and can teach about all these technologies: https://www.youtube.com/@JustXAshton/podcasts – The video evidence is real and undeniable.
Mini cold-fusion nukes is getting warmer. Some gaps in here but decent job. Nukes are obsolete. Love ya work David!
Please speak to these guys – very important work. Much love.
Look what this guy has documented in his travels. From what I gather, he is a long haul trucker. Turn down the volume and look at what he is documenting. More clues of the same or a variant of the same technology. Or the tech gone wild! Field effects of using this tech all over the globe? https://www.youtube.com/@jeffsnyder210
Thank you for conducting this interview. While it may have raised more questions than answers, I enjoyed it immensely.
One other piece that no 9/11 investigator, to my knowledge ever mentioned was Hurricane Erin, that was steaming up the east coast on 9/11. There was a complete media blackout around it and how it magically turned out to sea once it was needed to. A core essence of her thesis is that enormous electrical energy was needed to de-manifest the material in the buildings and what bigger source of electrical energy could be manifest on demand other than a hurricane.
The media blackout event, IMO, points to the culprits. Who owns the media, who had plans for a Greater Israel, and the destruction of what they term Edom? There you will find the culprits.
I haven’t watched this yet. However, I did read Hughes’ paper about Wood’s work.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet, to my knowledge, including in Hughes’ Omniwar paper, are the many instances of the prevalent Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) that were used to start all of the anomolous fires, beginning, to my knowledge, in California in the fall 2017. We have the Paradise fires of 2018 and the Lahaina fires of 2023, and many other places in recent years, including in Oregon, British Columbia, Alberta, and Boulder, Colorado.
These DEW fires would completely destroy homes (which doesn’t happen in a normal wildfire) while leaving some structures right next to them untouched, including not burning the trees and shrubbery immediately adjacent to them. I believe this is the same kind of technology deployed on 9/11. I believe this needs to be a part of the conversation.
Below I will post a link, I previously found on the Solari website, showing evidence of this:
Thank you for the link, Clint.
It was not discussed here because it was not part of David’s investigation.
Dear Elze and David,
The Truth Is Not Hidden – It Is Drowned Out by Thousands of False Narratives
The world needs to restoring the place of Dr. Judy Wood – we need to know what her work really means
She didn’t speculate about who – She Focused on What.
She didn’t chase suspects or motives.
She didn’t accuse governments, agencies, or factions.
She asked just one question:
What actually happened to the Twin Towers?
Her answer was simple in wording but radical in implication:
“They didn’t collapse — they disappeared.”
She didn’t follow politics or theories. She followed evidence.
Where others built stories, she stayed with the physical facts:
Why was there so little debris?
Why were nearby buildings intact while vehicles were scorched?
Why were people standing near the epicenter — unharmed?
Why was the seismic signature of the collapse virtually absent?
These are not ideological questions. They are forensic.
And they led her to a conclusion that made her untouchable:
A form of energy was used that does not exist in the public domain.
A Forensic Analysis That Undermines the Foundations of the Official 9/11 Narrative
Unlike many in the “truth movement,” Wood didn’t argue over politics.
She didn’t settle for thermite, bombs, or planes.
She analyzed the unexplained physical anomalies, such as:
Pulverized concrete — not crushed, but turned to dust mid-air
Melted cars with intact leaves nearby
Circular holes in buildings as if bored out from above
No sufficient seismic activity for buildings of that mass
Magnetic and radio interference during the event
Wood asked the forbidden question:
Is there a technology in use that has not been disclosed?
Her answer: yes — and it must be able to disintegrate matter without heat, pressure, or explosive force.
She called it “directed energy” — not as science fiction, but as scientific necessity to explain what we saw.
A Weapon Beyond War Is Also a Tool for Peace
This is where the true threat of Wood’s work begins — not for national security, but for the security of the current power model.
If she’s right — and much supports her analysis — then we must accept:
“What happened on 9/11 was not destruction. It was disappearance. Not collapse. But controlled dematerialization.”
That means:
War is not technologically necessary anymore.
Control over mass and energy is more advanced than we’re told.
The world we think we live in is artificially constrained.
In short:
Peace is already technologically possible. But it has been politically suppressed.
Why Her Voice Was Silenced
Dr. Judy Wood was not refuted.
She was ignored.
In academic terms, that’s called epistemic exclusion.
In human terms, it’s what happens when someone sees too clearly and too early.
She threatens not just the official story, but the structure of knowledge and control itself:
She exposes the limits of peer review in the face of state secrecy
She challenges both the mainstream and the “approved dissent”
She shows that truth may not be buried — just drowned in noise
The silence around her work is not evidence of its weakness.
It’s proof of its danger to war, secrecy, and narrative power.
Why Her Work Matters More Than Ever
Dr. Judy Wood deserves:
A place in any serious analysis of 9/11
A voice in the global conversation on suppressed technologies
Recognition for her scientific integrity, not ridicule
And most of all: respect for her courage to stand alone
She is a scientist who followed the data beyond the limits of what society was willing to hear.
And that is precisely why we must now help restore what was erased:
Discuss her book
Share her research
Challenge the silence
And reclaim the possibility she uncovered — the possibility of peace through truth.
Judy Wood’s work shows us that truth doesn’t always hide — sometimes it’s simply drowned out by manufactured noise.
Our choice now is not between belief and denial —
but between listening to the static, or finally hearing the voice that saw what others were told to forget.
Well put. Always seemed to me that Architects for 9/11 Truth was another version of the Warren Commission. Designed to deflect from the truth.
Wow, I’m the patsy again! I thought I knew the truth behind 911…I had bought into the Thermite/Thermate story for years. This is one of the most amazing interviews ever on Solari. Such clarity and brevity. David Hughes is so articulate, distilling difficult concepts into easy to grasp layman’s terms…all spoken without ego in calm manner. Elze is a great interviewer, as well. Thank you, Solari!
Dr. Judy Wood’s book is the book on 9/11. She is not the best presenter in a video format but her book’s thesis is solid.
I still find it baffling how many people go for narratives and so few question them. So many things do not stack up using a bit of logic, but put “specialist” before a name and a guaranteed sell for the multitudes. Why is that? So many “historical buidings” current humanity can’t reproduce, but primitives have built them! And on and on many narative stories go. To date nobody has explained in a satisfactory way why multitudes embrace scientism insted of science. Bribe, corruption and control files does not explain all of this. Controll of thought does. This idea scares me and no doubt “technology that manipulates perception” exist. It still does not explain why minorities slip thru the cracks but thankfull for it. Pray that this minority keeps existing.
Pray that this minority will become the majority, one person at a time.
Once you see, you cannot unsee.
At the end of the book ‘Microcosmos and medium’, dr. Farrell gives suggestions for combatting mind control. An important one is nurturing the culture.
We can rekindle a civilized, creative and inspired culture
“Bad times, hard times, this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times.”
~ St. Augustine of Hippo
Thank you for this interesting video.
I am also an engineer and I have had a lot of trouble with Wood’s analysis. They may be worth a look again after Santa Rosa, Lahina and LA, however, the firestorm there is quite prolonged and different. The summary for this article is combining “pancake collapse” and nano-thermite findings. These are two different theories. The first theory about pancaking was put out immediately after the collapse, supposedly required no explosives and has been thoroughly debunked. The second theory was that the entire building was detonated and turned to dust using nano-thermite explosives placed throughout the building. There is a lot of evidence for the nano-thermite – the building does detonate outward with powerful explosions. Firefighters saw rivers of molten metal in the basement before the explosion and the metal stayed molten long after. But finding thermite in the dust, when it shouldn’t be there at all is most damning. If you have ever worked in an office. No one pays any attention to construction or maintenance crews. They could have been wiring the building for months and no one would know. Nano-thermite can be applied in a paint. With Wood’s theory, you would not see the minor explosions before the big ones, which you do see. The debris did not evaporate – the dust was blown in a huge pyroplastic cloud for blocks and blocks around the buildings and you saw people walking around covered in the dust.
Both Hughes and Wood explain in their presentations why according the evidence they have evaluated the nanothermite theory is not tenable.
Hello Elze,
I am sorry, but Dr. Wood only counters the nanothermite by both excluding a serious body of evidence, some pseudoscience, and a whole bunch of handwaving. This is some serious incompetence by David Hughes putting this together, and it misses a huge amount of evidence, some of which I will share below.
I was an engineer member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for decades, and while not an important member, I was on their petition and spent several years looking at evidence.
Let us start where I agree with Dr. Wood. Planes crashing into the building and their resulting fire could not have brought down the twin towers. The amount of energy to destroy the buildings in the manner in which they were destroyed is impossible with just this event. Some days after the event, MIT released a supposed explaination of pancake collapse. This is not supported by the video or speed in which they collapsed. After this is where Dr. Wood and I diverge.
The presence of nanothermite is not conjecture or a theory. Nanothermite was found in several analyses of the dust from 9/11. It was difficult for independent reseracher to access the actual rubble but since the dust was all over NYC they got hold of the dust. Up until these dust analyses came out, no one knew what was used. Nor has anyone come out with anything definitive that this was the only thing used. With WTC7, it is obvious that it was a standard demolition and a different demolition than WTC 1 and 2.
Some of the scientists speaking about their findings on what they found in the dust of the WTC – Dr. Wood avoids this completely – https://www.bitchute.com/video/t3snIT1LPzYe
Again, this could be used with other explosives, maybe other corrosives, we do not know. However, we do know that there was eyewitness testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the plane and several explosions prior to the buildings’ full collapse.
The Dr. Wood and Hughes keep claiming that there was very little rubble and that the rubble was cold. Again we have plenty of evidence that there was a lot of rubble (the WTC had 6 floors of basement that this all fell into and still it rose high above ground). in the following video you will see the piles towering over large backhoes. Dr. Wood and Hughes also falsely claim that the rubble was cold when again there is a pile of evidence of molten rubble weeks after.
In the video – David show a picture with water from the firetruck on the ground and says there can’t be hot temperatures. The bigger question is – what the heck were they hosing down before that picture and how long. Obviously the firemen were putting out some kind of fire. There is no time on that picture.
Then we get to Dr. Wood’s complete and total lack of understand of “Cold Fusion”. Cold Fusion creates heat. You know cold fusion is happening because it is CREATING HEAT. The difference between “cold fusion” (which is now better known as Low Energy Nuclear) and regular fusion is the starting point temperature. cold fusion heats starts reacting to create heat at room temperature whereas regular fusion starts at temperatures in the sun. But to blow apart it would derive energy from heat. The whole discussion by Wood on cold fusion is like a two year old just making up stuff about what cold fusion is and somehow everything stays cold.
But don’t look at the smoke from the rubble – that isn’t smoke according to Wood – that is “fuming”. Don’t look at burnt cars – they are “toasted”. The hole in the top of the building wasn’t falling debris which is all around the rest of the building – it is something else.
And the video Hughes doesn’t show of people hearing the explosions floor by floor. You can see the squib exposions going off first several levels below the full collapse explosion. https://www.bitchute.com/video/negplizWn2rx
Jonathan:
I very much appreciate your posting.
I have been lobbied very heavily over the years to have Dr. Woods on the Solari Report and have always declined doing so as I was not comfortable with her presentation and did not want to expend a significant investment of time doing an analysis of what and how the towers came down. I would note that John Titus pointed out on Money and Markets that he does not think some of her photos are legitimate – that she has not been sufficiently careful with sourcing evidence.
That said, I am constantly baffled as to why any discussion of Woods works immediately causes anger, frustration and upset. Its one of the reasons that I shifted out of helping 9/11 truth.
I did interview Dr. Niels Harrit when I was in Denmark – it triggered surprising surveillance by Danish teams who I believe were instructed by NATO. – which caused me to cut short my plans for sightseeing in Copenhagen and leave the country early for Switzerland which was not in NATO. https://solari.com/solari-report-special-truth-telling-9-11-with-dr-niels-harrit-thomas-meyer/
I have become convinced through watching the financial patterns over the last 30 years that we are dealing with multiple forms of invisible weaponry causing floods, drought, fires, earth quakes, tsunamis and various forms of bombing, such as rod of god, as well as the endless stream of mind control and emotion influencing tools. I have found it extremely difficult to get reliable intelligence and even to frame the unanswered questions or sort through all the disinformation.
I have been very grateful for David Hughes efforts to try and sort through some of this material and I very much want to encourage him continuing to do so.
I have also been grateful for your postings here on Solari – Jonathan I am not surprised you have spent a great deal of time looking at what happened to the towers on 911. The detailed feedback on evidence for David and Elze is very much appreciated.
I have no idea what portions of Wood work makes sense and what do not. What I do believe her work does is the same as any analysis of what happened to the towers that day. The official reality is bunk and whatever happened says that there were financial issues, forces and technologies at work we do not yet understand and we would be well served to get to the bottom of it if we can.
So I am glad Elze and David did this discussion – and would welcome suggestions about how we do more on gathering intelligence on invisible weaponry. I want to keep digging,
Catherine
I can speak a bit about some of the invisible weaponry simply from my background. I have a specialty in high-end optical systems, and more than a few of the companies I worked for or with had defense arms or were involved with this. I wasn’t under any security clearance, so I can relate most of what I know.
The most relevant to invisible weapons that I know about would be the Airforce’s Airborne Laser Project. Some of the engineers that I worked with had worked on this project and it was fully active and being used in Desert Storm in the early 1990s. This involved massive laser weapons. The engineer that told me about this said it was the only time he had seen a laser “kick” because it was so powerful. There were limits to this system in that it was generally a fire once and then the plane needed to land to reload. It could target a plane or a missile but didn’t have the power to target something like a building. This would require a laser of massive power. I have also used large lasers that drill holes and vaporize things. These lasers tend to be in the infrared spectrum and thus invisible to the human eye. I also know of a scientist that was decapitated by accidentally walking through the beam of one of these lasers.
These high-power laser evaporates everything in its path, so a laser weapon of some kind if used in 9/11 would not have a dust cloud above the destruction as it would evaporate the dust too and you would see the beam as a clear area through the dust. Also the laser itself would be so massive you likely could see in space with a telescope and would not fit on a plane.
There is always some possibility of super secret tech but there is a lot of tech in the defense companies that most people don’t imagine or know exist and is all dependent on more conventional principles.
In another area of this type of tech there was a decade or so ago I came across an engineer that was posting videos of homemade HERF guns. These are basically high-powered microwave guns that can fry electronics at a distance. The principles are well known. I also know a Silicon Valley entreprenuer who in her youth made an electronic device that she plugged in at her high school when she was a teenager that fried the entire school’s electrical system so they had to cancel school for several weeks.
I will also say that I was part of the briefing about Desert Storm when I was at West Point. The cadets were not privy to any invisible weaponry but I can say there is a whole lot more to the whole war which has never made the news media and even in 20 years will likely not ever be released.
The last comment, is that I worked on some of the highest tech stuff and the people who created some of the highest tech stuff for the defense companies. There are very people capable of doing the design work even at the highest conventional level. While there may be some level above this, it likely is limited in scope just because the lack of people that can understand and work at these levels. Even more and Catherine knows this as well as anyone, the people at the highest political level are smart but they are not smart in terms of the technical science. It takes imagination and management to put together these high-end systems. I never worked for a major defense contractor, but the reason I ended up sometimes getting roped into a defense area was because the defense contractors were heavily corrupt, but also didn’t have the talent to do stuff themselves and thus relied on smaller specialists. People like me tried to avoid this stuff because it has so many issues, and I simply don’t want to make weapons. Across the defense industry, it is the Boeing issue writ large. I would think most of the invisible weapons stuff is more along the mind control stuff and influence stuff.
Hello Jonathan,
David Hughes actually goes deeply into refuting the nanothermite theory, see his article ‘In Defence of Judy Wood’, from “The Nanothermite Hypothesis… such as a LENR event.”
“Nanothermite was found in several analyses of the dust from 9/11.”
In the paper that Hughes cites, only aluminum and iron oxide were found, and those were taken as an indication of the presence of nanothermite. Can you share the research papers with the alleged proof of nanothermite?
As you write, there is evidence of use of explosives. I am familiar with that evidence, I believe it is credible. However, the deployment of explosives does not exclude the application of other technologies. It can be an/an instead of either/or. The explosives and the nanothermite theory do not explain the anomalies that were witnessed/ are documented.
“The Dr. Wood and Hughes keep claiming that there was very little rubble and that the rubble was cold”
As both Hughes and Wood explain, the amount of rubble was simply not sufficient to account for all the mass of the two towers. The earthquake metrics did not record a collapse of this magnitude, and the ‘bathtub’ did not have major damage. If their statements are wrong, where is the data on the tons of steel of the towers and other debris, and where it went?
Hughes does not just ‘keeps claiming’ the rubble was cold, in the interview, as well as in his article, he presents multiple arguments on why there was no evidence of heat. Which ones do you disagree with, on what basis?
“Dr. Wood’s complete and total lack of understand of “Cold Fusion” …[…] Cold Fusion creates heat. ”
We all have a lack of understanding of Cold Fusion/ LENR or any other breakthrough energy technology, because these are black technologies. Wood is avoiding to state what technology was used – she shows the parallels between the experiments of John Hutchison and what we see at 911.
Hutchison’s experiments and their anomalous effects – transmutation, metal/wood objects melted, loss of mass, etc, take place at room temperature.
“Don’t look at burnt cars – they are “toasted””
The cars do not look like they have been burned by a typical fire. Wood shows the anomalies. What causes engines in cars to disappear? Why were cars flipped? Why were they disintegrating, similar to the steel in the Bankers Trust building?
To avoid confusion, Wood choses a different word to stress that we look at something that differs from what we would expect from a regular fire.
“The hole in the top of the building wasn’t falling debris”
What type of falling debris would cause a round hole all through a building, as if it was taken out with an apple corer?
I still have many more questions than answers about what happened there.
Elze
Hello Elze,
Iron Oxide and Aluminum is effectively thermite. If you just go to the Wikipedia page, it has the Iron Oxide and Aluminum reaction as the main example. You do not need Wikipedia; many other chemical references will confirm this, independent of Wikipedia, but in this case, the article is ok.
LENR and John Hutchison are two different things. LENR comes form the work of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. There are many other groups that have repeated the LENR experiment and groups working on this. We actually have good understanding of LENR, enough to get independent people to repeat it. Hutchinson’s stuff is of a completely different nature and involves electric fields and not what is know as LENR. All this mishmash of experiments and work is the most troubling part of Dr. Wood’s explanations.
Some more issues on the claims of missing debris.
a.) WTC1 and WTC2 were mostly air. The structure of the building was very strong center columns with a screen-like matrix of outer beams. Its lightwieght structure was needed to build so tall and was very innovative for the time. If you go into any high-rise, each level is mostly empty space with some column, the WTC was especially empty.
b) In the videos linked above, the people talk about 6 levels of basement and feeling explosions in levels underneath that. There were underground parking structures and subway tunnels. All of this collapsed too. So you have 6 stories of rubble just to get back to ground level. Even then, you see in the videos of aftermath and everything being cleared that the rubble is stacked up after that and also spread out much further than the footprint of the towers.
c.) Massive amounts of the WTC complex was turned to dust. You see the pictures of New York and the dust covers half the city. That dust came from the WTC. But there is dust and beams and things spread out all over. You can argue the dust came from invisible weapons but it could also come from explosives. Either way it is a large part of the rubble and there is plenty of evidence of the existence of rubble.
As far as the cars I can only conjecture, after seeing years of talk about 9/11, this is the first I have seen of the cars. But if I was to conjecture, it would be that some of the hot debris fell on the cars and missed some of the other, and the cars caught fire. They are different from, say, Lahina. In Lahina, the aluminum part of the cars turned molten, but the steel parts stayed intact. Also in Lahina all the insulating material burned. I would say a lot of Lahina was an airborne energy weapon, possibly microwave, but likely multispectral. These WTC images are a bit late to the party and not particularly good.
As far as the hole in the building, that building would be considered a skyscraper in another city. Debris would have fallen through several floors. All we get is a black hole – this is being very selective. It could be another part of the building collapsing that caused the roof to also collapse there. I don’t ascribe the hole to anything because we don’t have any pictures or other evidence to see the area around the hole.
So the whole point of the 9/11 truth movement was to say that the official story of planes causing the WTC to collapse was wrong. The government has never deviated from this explanation. It has not been that a collapse occurred in a certain way or that way, just that it could not have happened the way the government said. Also, no one from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has claimed that WTC 1 and 2 were a controlled demolition. It has been more than the video evidence shows a demolition, but an obviously uncontrolled demolition, likely meant to create the biggest shock, which it did.
Dr. Wood on the other hand proposes a theory that she believes there was invisble, unknown to the general public, weapon that caused the destruction. In order to believe or go along with Dr. Wood, one has to dismiss the smoke from the rubble as not smoke, as the rubble itself as not existing, as the stories of eyewitness hearing all kinds of explosions as not hearing explosions. 9/11 Truth like any truth movement is muddled with disinformation agents who aim to make people investigating the event seem more kooky and lead them off into red herrings. All I am saying is that we cannot select half the evidence as Dr. Wood did, mix in a bunch of other technology terms and say this is what happened. We have never a Philadephia experiment weapon – it could possibly exist, but Dr. Wood doesn’t really explain how we get from the Philadelphia levitation experiments to weapons that destroy buildings. LENR mildly heats a tabletop aquarium worth of water. I don’t see any steps from that to blowing apart a building. To believe these things also requires dismissing a whole lot of other evidence. The explanation needs to fit everything. I don’t see why these areas of research even need to be included because there aren’t any clear paths on how we get to the destruction of buildings with them. There is military grade nanothermite that does melt steel and blow things up quite effectively.
There was a big push to also put out that the planes were really holograms. This also could technically be possible, but why not just use a real plane? It is possible to have secret high-energy weapons based on principles that no one understands, but why not just use real explosives?
I just want to add some last thoughts on Dr. Wood and the rest of 9/11 truth.
Most of the 9/11 truth movement has been to attack the government narrative. There are key pieces that many in the truth movement were working on and working to uncover. Why does the building look like an explosion instead of a collapse due to fire? Especially because it looks like there was evidence of thermogenic explosives. Why in a plane crash do they collect every piece of the aircraft to reconstruct what happened yet all the rubble was carted off? Maybe it went to China but we don’t really know where and only small parts were given to NIST to study. There are a lot of questions on the explosion testimony of the day. There are also a lot of questions about the security and who had access to the buildings in the months prior. If you believe in magic weapons then there is no reason to pull this thread.
Dr. Wood instead of attacking the government narrative, spins several counter-narratives that get people to question evidence from other 9/11 researchers. According to Dr. Wood, there was no heat from explosives. Then she is making a case that there was no rubble. Then it was a magic weapon from the sky, so you shouldn’t pull the thread of who could access the building. She is one of the few people who call themselves 9/11 researchers who spend considerable time attacking and casting doubt on the evidence of other researchers instead of attacking the government narrative.
It really isn’t the job of a 9/11 researcher to posit exactly what happened, but to point out all the differences in the actual videos and evidence that disrupt the government narrative. Dr. Wood attacks the other researchers to posit a hypothesis of the day, but one that, if believed, makes all the other researchers the people in the wrong, but does so with an even more unsubstantiated claim.
The big question and the one that is the most damning to the government’s case is WTC 7. This is obviously a controlled demolition. This building was not hit by a plane. It certainly was not evaporated by a magic energy weapon, as it fell down right into its own footprint. And then we have a strangely small area damaged at the Pentagon and lack of evidence of airplane wreckage – the taped of the crash from local security cameras still have not been released.
For David Hughes to say he can’t find articles on the rubble. It is difficult to research any area of 9/11 because most of the information has been pulled down, censored, or stripped off the web. Loose Change went to the top of Google Video at the time and was the first video ever to be pulled off and censored. Over 20 years of censorship means it is especially difficult to figure things out now. But the information was never forthcoming or easy to find to begin with.
I think Ken Wheeler has shed the most light on the cause of these fires in a short 15 minute video. He is easy to find on the internet if curious. Buy the books he references and read them, then please, share your thoughts.
JPF has said much of the same thing in his own way. The grid in the wrongs hands can be a weapon. The weapon you are looking for is already installed.
The roll-out of high voltage power lines everywhere is a concern, not nano-thermite.
Dear Jonathan,
You are no follower. You’re someone who has swum against the tide for years — with technical knowledge, integrity, and persistence. Your search for the truth about 9/11 deserves respect, not because you were “right,” but because you kept searching when most had already stopped.
But maybe it’s time for a different question.
Not: “What’s wrong with Judy Wood’s theory?”
But: “What keeps me from truly revisiting her work — without the lens of my group, my theory, my history?”
Because if you’re honest — and I believe you are — you know that even your thermite-centered explanation doesn’t account for everything. It’s an important fragment, but not the full picture. The fires, the debris, the explosions — they’re real. But they don’t explain the dust clouds that vaporized without heat. Not the toasted cars. Not the seismic silence. Not the missing mass.
Judy names those anomalies — not as dogma, but as questions. And it’s exactly that kind of question where your expertise is still deeply needed.
You know the structures, the language, the resistance. You have both the technical background and the experience of being deceived.
What if, instead of defending your version, you helped expand hers?
What if you didn’t reject her, but complemented her — and finally helped piece together the greater puzzle?
It takes courage to admit you might have spent years fighting on the wrong battlefield.
But it takes even more courage not to fall into bitterness after that — and instead choose again.
To break out of your own bubble. Not to “believe in Judy Wood,” but to honor the truth itself, even when it arrives in unfamiliar form.
Maybe Judy doesn’t have proof of everything.
But what she does have is a key to a door that no one else has opened.
And that key is now in your hands too. Not to validate her, but to help open what has remained locked for far too long.
If you dare to take that step — if you’re willing to be a bridge instead of a bastion — your role in the 9/11 narrative may become more powerful than ever.
You would no longer be a defender of one theory, but a builder of deeper understanding.
The world doesn’t need more warriors.
But it does need those willing to shift their loyalty away from the familiar — and toward that which has not yet revealed itself fully, but may be true nonetheless.
Are you ready not only to resist the system — but to help shape what might transcend it?
In respect and connection, a voice from the field where you once began
Hello Monique,
I had an open mind to revisit Wood by listening to this video. I was astonished at how bad the Judy Woods scientific understanding actually is. You are right, the nano-thermite is super small part of all of what happened. I mention that above. Dr. Wood put the nano-thermite front and center, the main movement was always about counter the fire from plane destroying a building – it only becomes a whole theory in the Wood false narrative.
What I posted is a small part of the counter evidence. It is what I could quickly find in an hour or so to post a comment. If Judy Wood was correct it should have start to give me a better understanding of all the evidence but it did not. Far from it, it was evident when she started speaking about cold fusion that she was lying outright and was using some semantics about the words cold fusion to cast the spell of psychopath. It is not just that, it is many many distortions of both the history and the rest of the evidence.
My mind was open to listen; however, I then used my discernment to see that this did not counter the other evidence, it did not add anything to my understanding, and that Judy Wood is lying about many things. There are too many things to list, I have already listed enough for people to look into the rest of what Wood does not show. If you want to believe this vampire, you can. I couldn’t stop people from taking the jabs if they got it in their heads to do so.
Are you empowered by Judy Woods “revelations”?
Hi Jonathan,
I just re-read Joseph P. Farrell’s “The Grid of the Gods” book. Wether one believes there is a tangible physics behind “shocking the medium” or not, entanglement in the various tentacles of realities in the unfoldment of the method used, is. I find that the hard part, not getting bogged down and overwelmd by the strategy of evil and thus getting swooped up in its tentacles not seeing the bigger picture anymore. Let alone help counterbalance the bigger picture by battling just tentacles.
Ok, finally got to this. Been deep diving on this for 18 months.
– No, you don’t need large energy inputs to achiever over-unity.
– You can go beyond Schrödinger’s Limit – See Salvatore Pais’ work, patents and the superforce.
– Please have Bob Greenyer on the show in regards to cold fusion and LENR. You can see his channel at: https://www.youtube.com/@MFMP/videos
– Has the technology been shown anywhere else? Absolutely. The MH370 case blows this wide open. Don’t be deterred by the serial social media campaign to discredit it, follow the evidence and yes Ashton Forbes is a great person to have on the show and can teach about all these technologies: https://www.youtube.com/@JustXAshton/podcasts – The video evidence is real and undeniable.
Mini cold-fusion nukes is getting warmer. Some gaps in here but decent job. Nukes are obsolete. Love ya work David!
Please speak to these guys – very important work. Much love.
Lots of clues found on this guys youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIBqO9RSf8w
Look what this guy has documented in his travels. From what I gather, he is a long haul trucker. Turn down the volume and look at what he is documenting. More clues of the same or a variant of the same technology. Or the tech gone wild! Field effects of using this tech all over the globe?
https://www.youtube.com/@jeffsnyder210
Thank you for conducting this interview. While it may have raised more questions than answers, I enjoyed it immensely.
One other piece that no 9/11 investigator, to my knowledge ever mentioned was Hurricane Erin, that was steaming up the east coast on 9/11. There was a complete media blackout around it and how it magically turned out to sea once it was needed to. A core essence of her thesis is that enormous electrical energy was needed to de-manifest the material in the buildings and what bigger source of electrical energy could be manifest on demand other than a hurricane.
The media blackout event, IMO, points to the culprits. Who owns the media, who had plans for a Greater Israel, and the destruction of what they term Edom? There you will find the culprits.
I haven’t watched this yet. However, I did read Hughes’ paper about Wood’s work.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet, to my knowledge, including in Hughes’ Omniwar paper, are the many instances of the prevalent Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) that were used to start all of the anomolous fires, beginning, to my knowledge, in California in the fall 2017. We have the Paradise fires of 2018 and the Lahaina fires of 2023, and many other places in recent years, including in Oregon, British Columbia, Alberta, and Boulder, Colorado.
These DEW fires would completely destroy homes (which doesn’t happen in a normal wildfire) while leaving some structures right next to them untouched, including not burning the trees and shrubbery immediately adjacent to them. I believe this is the same kind of technology deployed on 9/11. I believe this needs to be a part of the conversation.
Below I will post a link, I previously found on the Solari website, showing evidence of this:
https://www.chemtrailplanet.com/DEW.html
Thank you for the link, Clint.
It was not discussed here because it was not part of David’s investigation.
Dear Elze and David,
The Truth Is Not Hidden – It Is Drowned Out by Thousands of False Narratives
The world needs to restoring the place of Dr. Judy Wood – we need to know what her work really means
She didn’t speculate about who – She Focused on What.
She didn’t chase suspects or motives.
She didn’t accuse governments, agencies, or factions.
She asked just one question:
What actually happened to the Twin Towers?
Her answer was simple in wording but radical in implication:
“They didn’t collapse — they disappeared.”
She didn’t follow politics or theories. She followed evidence.
Where others built stories, she stayed with the physical facts:
Why was there so little debris?
Why were nearby buildings intact while vehicles were scorched?
Why were people standing near the epicenter — unharmed?
Why was the seismic signature of the collapse virtually absent?
These are not ideological questions. They are forensic.
And they led her to a conclusion that made her untouchable:
A form of energy was used that does not exist in the public domain.
A Forensic Analysis That Undermines the Foundations of the Official 9/11 Narrative
Unlike many in the “truth movement,” Wood didn’t argue over politics.
She didn’t settle for thermite, bombs, or planes.
She analyzed the unexplained physical anomalies, such as:
Pulverized concrete — not crushed, but turned to dust mid-air
Melted cars with intact leaves nearby
Circular holes in buildings as if bored out from above
No sufficient seismic activity for buildings of that mass
Magnetic and radio interference during the event
Wood asked the forbidden question:
Is there a technology in use that has not been disclosed?
Her answer: yes — and it must be able to disintegrate matter without heat, pressure, or explosive force.
She called it “directed energy” — not as science fiction, but as scientific necessity to explain what we saw.
A Weapon Beyond War Is Also a Tool for Peace
This is where the true threat of Wood’s work begins — not for national security, but for the security of the current power model.
If she’s right — and much supports her analysis — then we must accept:
“What happened on 9/11 was not destruction. It was disappearance. Not collapse. But controlled dematerialization.”
That means:
War is not technologically necessary anymore.
Control over mass and energy is more advanced than we’re told.
The world we think we live in is artificially constrained.
In short:
Peace is already technologically possible. But it has been politically suppressed.
Why Her Voice Was Silenced
Dr. Judy Wood was not refuted.
She was ignored.
In academic terms, that’s called epistemic exclusion.
In human terms, it’s what happens when someone sees too clearly and too early.
She threatens not just the official story, but the structure of knowledge and control itself:
She exposes the limits of peer review in the face of state secrecy
She challenges both the mainstream and the “approved dissent”
She shows that truth may not be buried — just drowned in noise
The silence around her work is not evidence of its weakness.
It’s proof of its danger to war, secrecy, and narrative power.
Why Her Work Matters More Than Ever
Dr. Judy Wood deserves:
A place in any serious analysis of 9/11
A voice in the global conversation on suppressed technologies
Recognition for her scientific integrity, not ridicule
And most of all: respect for her courage to stand alone
She is a scientist who followed the data beyond the limits of what society was willing to hear.
And that is precisely why we must now help restore what was erased:
Discuss her book
Share her research
Challenge the silence
And reclaim the possibility she uncovered — the possibility of peace through truth.
Judy Wood’s work shows us that truth doesn’t always hide — sometimes it’s simply drowned out by manufactured noise.
Our choice now is not between belief and denial —
but between listening to the static, or finally hearing the voice that saw what others were told to forget.
Well put. Always seemed to me that Architects for 9/11 Truth was another version of the Warren Commission. Designed to deflect from the truth.
Wow, I’m the patsy again! I thought I knew the truth behind 911…I had bought into the Thermite/Thermate story for years. This is one of the most amazing interviews ever on Solari. Such clarity and brevity. David Hughes is so articulate, distilling difficult concepts into easy to grasp layman’s terms…all spoken without ego in calm manner. Elze is a great interviewer, as well. Thank you, Solari!
Dr. Judy Wood’s book is the book on 9/11. She is not the best presenter in a video format but her book’s thesis is solid.
I still find it baffling how many people go for narratives and so few question them. So many things do not stack up using a bit of logic, but put “specialist” before a name and a guaranteed sell for the multitudes. Why is that? So many “historical buidings” current humanity can’t reproduce, but primitives have built them! And on and on many narative stories go. To date nobody has explained in a satisfactory way why multitudes embrace scientism insted of science. Bribe, corruption and control files does not explain all of this. Controll of thought does. This idea scares me and no doubt “technology that manipulates perception” exist. It still does not explain why minorities slip thru the cracks but thankfull for it. Pray that this minority keeps existing.
Pray that this minority will become the majority, one person at a time.
Once you see, you cannot unsee.
At the end of the book ‘Microcosmos and medium’, dr. Farrell gives suggestions for combatting mind control. An important one is nurturing the culture.
See at 17min39 for some inspiration –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
We can rekindle a civilized, creative and inspired culture
“Bad times, hard times, this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times.”
~ St. Augustine of Hippo
Thank you for this interesting video.
I am also an engineer and I have had a lot of trouble with Wood’s analysis. They may be worth a look again after Santa Rosa, Lahina and LA, however, the firestorm there is quite prolonged and different. The summary for this article is combining “pancake collapse” and nano-thermite findings. These are two different theories. The first theory about pancaking was put out immediately after the collapse, supposedly required no explosives and has been thoroughly debunked. The second theory was that the entire building was detonated and turned to dust using nano-thermite explosives placed throughout the building. There is a lot of evidence for the nano-thermite – the building does detonate outward with powerful explosions. Firefighters saw rivers of molten metal in the basement before the explosion and the metal stayed molten long after. But finding thermite in the dust, when it shouldn’t be there at all is most damning. If you have ever worked in an office. No one pays any attention to construction or maintenance crews. They could have been wiring the building for months and no one would know. Nano-thermite can be applied in a paint. With Wood’s theory, you would not see the minor explosions before the big ones, which you do see. The debris did not evaporate – the dust was blown in a huge pyroplastic cloud for blocks and blocks around the buildings and you saw people walking around covered in the dust.
Both Hughes and Wood explain in their presentations why according the evidence they have evaluated the nanothermite theory is not tenable.
Hello Elze,
I am sorry, but Dr. Wood only counters the nanothermite by both excluding a serious body of evidence, some pseudoscience, and a whole bunch of handwaving. This is some serious incompetence by David Hughes putting this together, and it misses a huge amount of evidence, some of which I will share below.
I was an engineer member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for decades, and while not an important member, I was on their petition and spent several years looking at evidence.
Let us start where I agree with Dr. Wood. Planes crashing into the building and their resulting fire could not have brought down the twin towers. The amount of energy to destroy the buildings in the manner in which they were destroyed is impossible with just this event. Some days after the event, MIT released a supposed explaination of pancake collapse. This is not supported by the video or speed in which they collapsed. After this is where Dr. Wood and I diverge.
The presence of nanothermite is not conjecture or a theory. Nanothermite was found in several analyses of the dust from 9/11. It was difficult for independent reseracher to access the actual rubble but since the dust was all over NYC they got hold of the dust. Up until these dust analyses came out, no one knew what was used. Nor has anyone come out with anything definitive that this was the only thing used. With WTC7, it is obvious that it was a standard demolition and a different demolition than WTC 1 and 2.
Some of the scientists speaking about their findings on what they found in the dust of the WTC – Dr. Wood avoids this completely –
https://www.bitchute.com/video/t3snIT1LPzYe
Again, this could be used with other explosives, maybe other corrosives, we do not know. However, we do know that there was eyewitness testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the plane and several explosions prior to the buildings’ full collapse.
Here is a link to some of that testimony – testimony that Mr. Hughes ignored
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rIkH1JHUE
alternate link
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0KPJtLhOBivB
The Dr. Wood and Hughes keep claiming that there was very little rubble and that the rubble was cold. Again we have plenty of evidence that there was a lot of rubble (the WTC had 6 floors of basement that this all fell into and still it rose high above ground). in the following video you will see the piles towering over large backhoes. Dr. Wood and Hughes also falsely claim that the rubble was cold when again there is a pile of evidence of molten rubble weeks after.
Video of the large amount of hot and molten rubble.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NQdhVh8BdTLD
more on the molten rubble (with some repeat)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/a0w4YWPBIgzS
In the video – David show a picture with water from the firetruck on the ground and says there can’t be hot temperatures. The bigger question is – what the heck were they hosing down before that picture and how long. Obviously the firemen were putting out some kind of fire. There is no time on that picture.
Then we get to Dr. Wood’s complete and total lack of understand of “Cold Fusion”. Cold Fusion creates heat. You know cold fusion is happening because it is CREATING HEAT. The difference between “cold fusion” (which is now better known as Low Energy Nuclear) and regular fusion is the starting point temperature. cold fusion heats starts reacting to create heat at room temperature whereas regular fusion starts at temperatures in the sun. But to blow apart it would derive energy from heat. The whole discussion by Wood on cold fusion is like a two year old just making up stuff about what cold fusion is and somehow everything stays cold.
But don’t look at the smoke from the rubble – that isn’t smoke according to Wood – that is “fuming”. Don’t look at burnt cars – they are “toasted”. The hole in the top of the building wasn’t falling debris which is all around the rest of the building – it is something else.
Bonus – firefighters on 9/11 injured by explosions in the Lobby before the towers fell.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nFgMwMXcZQ6m
And the video Hughes doesn’t show of people hearing the explosions floor by floor. You can see the squib exposions going off first several levels below the full collapse explosion.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/negplizWn2rx
Jonathan:
I very much appreciate your posting.
I have been lobbied very heavily over the years to have Dr. Woods on the Solari Report and have always declined doing so as I was not comfortable with her presentation and did not want to expend a significant investment of time doing an analysis of what and how the towers came down. I would note that John Titus pointed out on Money and Markets that he does not think some of her photos are legitimate – that she has not been sufficiently careful with sourcing evidence.
That said, I am constantly baffled as to why any discussion of Woods works immediately causes anger, frustration and upset. Its one of the reasons that I shifted out of helping 9/11 truth.
I did interview Dr. Niels Harrit when I was in Denmark – it triggered surprising surveillance by Danish teams who I believe were instructed by NATO. – which caused me to cut short my plans for sightseeing in Copenhagen and leave the country early for Switzerland which was not in NATO. https://solari.com/solari-report-special-truth-telling-9-11-with-dr-niels-harrit-thomas-meyer/
I have become convinced through watching the financial patterns over the last 30 years that we are dealing with multiple forms of invisible weaponry causing floods, drought, fires, earth quakes, tsunamis and various forms of bombing, such as rod of god, as well as the endless stream of mind control and emotion influencing tools. I have found it extremely difficult to get reliable intelligence and even to frame the unanswered questions or sort through all the disinformation.
I have been very grateful for David Hughes efforts to try and sort through some of this material and I very much want to encourage him continuing to do so.
I have also been grateful for your postings here on Solari – Jonathan I am not surprised you have spent a great deal of time looking at what happened to the towers on 911. The detailed feedback on evidence for David and Elze is very much appreciated.
I have no idea what portions of Wood work makes sense and what do not. What I do believe her work does is the same as any analysis of what happened to the towers that day. The official reality is bunk and whatever happened says that there were financial issues, forces and technologies at work we do not yet understand and we would be well served to get to the bottom of it if we can.
So I am glad Elze and David did this discussion – and would welcome suggestions about how we do more on gathering intelligence on invisible weaponry. I want to keep digging,
Catherine
I can speak a bit about some of the invisible weaponry simply from my background. I have a specialty in high-end optical systems, and more than a few of the companies I worked for or with had defense arms or were involved with this. I wasn’t under any security clearance, so I can relate most of what I know.
The most relevant to invisible weapons that I know about would be the Airforce’s Airborne Laser Project. Some of the engineers that I worked with had worked on this project and it was fully active and being used in Desert Storm in the early 1990s. This involved massive laser weapons. The engineer that told me about this said it was the only time he had seen a laser “kick” because it was so powerful. There were limits to this system in that it was generally a fire once and then the plane needed to land to reload. It could target a plane or a missile but didn’t have the power to target something like a building. This would require a laser of massive power. I have also used large lasers that drill holes and vaporize things. These lasers tend to be in the infrared spectrum and thus invisible to the human eye. I also know of a scientist that was decapitated by accidentally walking through the beam of one of these lasers.
These high-power laser evaporates everything in its path, so a laser weapon of some kind if used in 9/11 would not have a dust cloud above the destruction as it would evaporate the dust too and you would see the beam as a clear area through the dust. Also the laser itself would be so massive you likely could see in space with a telescope and would not fit on a plane.
There is always some possibility of super secret tech but there is a lot of tech in the defense companies that most people don’t imagine or know exist and is all dependent on more conventional principles.
In another area of this type of tech there was a decade or so ago I came across an engineer that was posting videos of homemade HERF guns. These are basically high-powered microwave guns that can fry electronics at a distance. The principles are well known. I also know a Silicon Valley entreprenuer who in her youth made an electronic device that she plugged in at her high school when she was a teenager that fried the entire school’s electrical system so they had to cancel school for several weeks.
I will also say that I was part of the briefing about Desert Storm when I was at West Point. The cadets were not privy to any invisible weaponry but I can say there is a whole lot more to the whole war which has never made the news media and even in 20 years will likely not ever be released.
The last comment, is that I worked on some of the highest tech stuff and the people who created some of the highest tech stuff for the defense companies. There are very people capable of doing the design work even at the highest conventional level. While there may be some level above this, it likely is limited in scope just because the lack of people that can understand and work at these levels. Even more and Catherine knows this as well as anyone, the people at the highest political level are smart but they are not smart in terms of the technical science. It takes imagination and management to put together these high-end systems. I never worked for a major defense contractor, but the reason I ended up sometimes getting roped into a defense area was because the defense contractors were heavily corrupt, but also didn’t have the talent to do stuff themselves and thus relied on smaller specialists. People like me tried to avoid this stuff because it has so many issues, and I simply don’t want to make weapons. Across the defense industry, it is the Boeing issue writ large. I would think most of the invisible weapons stuff is more along the mind control stuff and influence stuff.
Hello Jonathan,
David Hughes actually goes deeply into refuting the nanothermite theory, see his article ‘In Defence of Judy Wood’, from “The Nanothermite Hypothesis… such as a LENR event.”
“Nanothermite was found in several analyses of the dust from 9/11.”
In the paper that Hughes cites, only aluminum and iron oxide were found, and those were taken as an indication of the presence of nanothermite. Can you share the research papers with the alleged proof of nanothermite?
As you write, there is evidence of use of explosives. I am familiar with that evidence, I believe it is credible. However, the deployment of explosives does not exclude the application of other technologies. It can be an/an instead of either/or. The explosives and the nanothermite theory do not explain the anomalies that were witnessed/ are documented.
“The Dr. Wood and Hughes keep claiming that there was very little rubble and that the rubble was cold”
As both Hughes and Wood explain, the amount of rubble was simply not sufficient to account for all the mass of the two towers. The earthquake metrics did not record a collapse of this magnitude, and the ‘bathtub’ did not have major damage. If their statements are wrong, where is the data on the tons of steel of the towers and other debris, and where it went?
Hughes does not just ‘keeps claiming’ the rubble was cold, in the interview, as well as in his article, he presents multiple arguments on why there was no evidence of heat. Which ones do you disagree with, on what basis?
“Dr. Wood’s complete and total lack of understand of “Cold Fusion” …[…] Cold Fusion creates heat. ”
We all have a lack of understanding of Cold Fusion/ LENR or any other breakthrough energy technology, because these are black technologies. Wood is avoiding to state what technology was used – she shows the parallels between the experiments of John Hutchison and what we see at 911.
Hutchison’s experiments and their anomalous effects – transmutation, metal/wood objects melted, loss of mass, etc, take place at room temperature.
“Don’t look at burnt cars – they are “toasted””
The cars do not look like they have been burned by a typical fire. Wood shows the anomalies. What causes engines in cars to disappear? Why were cars flipped? Why were they disintegrating, similar to the steel in the Bankers Trust building?
To avoid confusion, Wood choses a different word to stress that we look at something that differs from what we would expect from a regular fire.
“The hole in the top of the building wasn’t falling debris”
What type of falling debris would cause a round hole all through a building, as if it was taken out with an apple corer?
I still have many more questions than answers about what happened there.
Elze
Hello Elze,
Iron Oxide and Aluminum is effectively thermite. If you just go to the Wikipedia page, it has the Iron Oxide and Aluminum reaction as the main example. You do not need Wikipedia; many other chemical references will confirm this, independent of Wikipedia, but in this case, the article is ok.
LENR and John Hutchison are two different things. LENR comes form the work of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. There are many other groups that have repeated the LENR experiment and groups working on this. We actually have good understanding of LENR, enough to get independent people to repeat it. Hutchinson’s stuff is of a completely different nature and involves electric fields and not what is know as LENR. All this mishmash of experiments and work is the most troubling part of Dr. Wood’s explanations.
Some more issues on the claims of missing debris.
a.) WTC1 and WTC2 were mostly air. The structure of the building was very strong center columns with a screen-like matrix of outer beams. Its lightwieght structure was needed to build so tall and was very innovative for the time. If you go into any high-rise, each level is mostly empty space with some column, the WTC was especially empty.
b) In the videos linked above, the people talk about 6 levels of basement and feeling explosions in levels underneath that. There were underground parking structures and subway tunnels. All of this collapsed too. So you have 6 stories of rubble just to get back to ground level. Even then, you see in the videos of aftermath and everything being cleared that the rubble is stacked up after that and also spread out much further than the footprint of the towers.
c.) Massive amounts of the WTC complex was turned to dust. You see the pictures of New York and the dust covers half the city. That dust came from the WTC. But there is dust and beams and things spread out all over. You can argue the dust came from invisible weapons but it could also come from explosives. Either way it is a large part of the rubble and there is plenty of evidence of the existence of rubble.
As far as the cars I can only conjecture, after seeing years of talk about 9/11, this is the first I have seen of the cars. But if I was to conjecture, it would be that some of the hot debris fell on the cars and missed some of the other, and the cars caught fire. They are different from, say, Lahina. In Lahina, the aluminum part of the cars turned molten, but the steel parts stayed intact. Also in Lahina all the insulating material burned. I would say a lot of Lahina was an airborne energy weapon, possibly microwave, but likely multispectral. These WTC images are a bit late to the party and not particularly good.
As far as the hole in the building, that building would be considered a skyscraper in another city. Debris would have fallen through several floors. All we get is a black hole – this is being very selective. It could be another part of the building collapsing that caused the roof to also collapse there. I don’t ascribe the hole to anything because we don’t have any pictures or other evidence to see the area around the hole.
So the whole point of the 9/11 truth movement was to say that the official story of planes causing the WTC to collapse was wrong. The government has never deviated from this explanation. It has not been that a collapse occurred in a certain way or that way, just that it could not have happened the way the government said. Also, no one from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has claimed that WTC 1 and 2 were a controlled demolition. It has been more than the video evidence shows a demolition, but an obviously uncontrolled demolition, likely meant to create the biggest shock, which it did.
Dr. Wood on the other hand proposes a theory that she believes there was invisble, unknown to the general public, weapon that caused the destruction. In order to believe or go along with Dr. Wood, one has to dismiss the smoke from the rubble as not smoke, as the rubble itself as not existing, as the stories of eyewitness hearing all kinds of explosions as not hearing explosions. 9/11 Truth like any truth movement is muddled with disinformation agents who aim to make people investigating the event seem more kooky and lead them off into red herrings. All I am saying is that we cannot select half the evidence as Dr. Wood did, mix in a bunch of other technology terms and say this is what happened. We have never a Philadephia experiment weapon – it could possibly exist, but Dr. Wood doesn’t really explain how we get from the Philadelphia levitation experiments to weapons that destroy buildings. LENR mildly heats a tabletop aquarium worth of water. I don’t see any steps from that to blowing apart a building. To believe these things also requires dismissing a whole lot of other evidence. The explanation needs to fit everything. I don’t see why these areas of research even need to be included because there aren’t any clear paths on how we get to the destruction of buildings with them. There is military grade nanothermite that does melt steel and blow things up quite effectively.
There was a big push to also put out that the planes were really holograms. This also could technically be possible, but why not just use a real plane? It is possible to have secret high-energy weapons based on principles that no one understands, but why not just use real explosives?
I just want to add some last thoughts on Dr. Wood and the rest of 9/11 truth.
Most of the 9/11 truth movement has been to attack the government narrative. There are key pieces that many in the truth movement were working on and working to uncover. Why does the building look like an explosion instead of a collapse due to fire? Especially because it looks like there was evidence of thermogenic explosives. Why in a plane crash do they collect every piece of the aircraft to reconstruct what happened yet all the rubble was carted off? Maybe it went to China but we don’t really know where and only small parts were given to NIST to study. There are a lot of questions on the explosion testimony of the day. There are also a lot of questions about the security and who had access to the buildings in the months prior. If you believe in magic weapons then there is no reason to pull this thread.
Dr. Wood instead of attacking the government narrative, spins several counter-narratives that get people to question evidence from other 9/11 researchers. According to Dr. Wood, there was no heat from explosives. Then she is making a case that there was no rubble. Then it was a magic weapon from the sky, so you shouldn’t pull the thread of who could access the building. She is one of the few people who call themselves 9/11 researchers who spend considerable time attacking and casting doubt on the evidence of other researchers instead of attacking the government narrative.
It really isn’t the job of a 9/11 researcher to posit exactly what happened, but to point out all the differences in the actual videos and evidence that disrupt the government narrative. Dr. Wood attacks the other researchers to posit a hypothesis of the day, but one that, if believed, makes all the other researchers the people in the wrong, but does so with an even more unsubstantiated claim.
The big question and the one that is the most damning to the government’s case is WTC 7. This is obviously a controlled demolition. This building was not hit by a plane. It certainly was not evaporated by a magic energy weapon, as it fell down right into its own footprint. And then we have a strangely small area damaged at the Pentagon and lack of evidence of airplane wreckage – the taped of the crash from local security cameras still have not been released.
For David Hughes to say he can’t find articles on the rubble. It is difficult to research any area of 9/11 because most of the information has been pulled down, censored, or stripped off the web. Loose Change went to the top of Google Video at the time and was the first video ever to be pulled off and censored. Over 20 years of censorship means it is especially difficult to figure things out now. But the information was never forthcoming or easy to find to begin with.
I think Ken Wheeler has shed the most light on the cause of these fires in a short 15 minute video. He is easy to find on the internet if curious. Buy the books he references and read them, then please, share your thoughts.
JPF has said much of the same thing in his own way. The grid in the wrongs hands can be a weapon. The weapon you are looking for is already installed.
The roll-out of high voltage power lines everywhere is a concern, not nano-thermite.
Dear Jonathan,
You are no follower. You’re someone who has swum against the tide for years — with technical knowledge, integrity, and persistence. Your search for the truth about 9/11 deserves respect, not because you were “right,” but because you kept searching when most had already stopped.
But maybe it’s time for a different question.
Not: “What’s wrong with Judy Wood’s theory?”
But: “What keeps me from truly revisiting her work — without the lens of my group, my theory, my history?”
Because if you’re honest — and I believe you are — you know that even your thermite-centered explanation doesn’t account for everything. It’s an important fragment, but not the full picture. The fires, the debris, the explosions — they’re real. But they don’t explain the dust clouds that vaporized without heat. Not the toasted cars. Not the seismic silence. Not the missing mass.
Judy names those anomalies — not as dogma, but as questions. And it’s exactly that kind of question where your expertise is still deeply needed.
You know the structures, the language, the resistance. You have both the technical background and the experience of being deceived.
What if, instead of defending your version, you helped expand hers?
What if you didn’t reject her, but complemented her — and finally helped piece together the greater puzzle?
It takes courage to admit you might have spent years fighting on the wrong battlefield.
But it takes even more courage not to fall into bitterness after that — and instead choose again.
To break out of your own bubble. Not to “believe in Judy Wood,” but to honor the truth itself, even when it arrives in unfamiliar form.
Maybe Judy doesn’t have proof of everything.
But what she does have is a key to a door that no one else has opened.
And that key is now in your hands too. Not to validate her, but to help open what has remained locked for far too long.
If you dare to take that step — if you’re willing to be a bridge instead of a bastion — your role in the 9/11 narrative may become more powerful than ever.
You would no longer be a defender of one theory, but a builder of deeper understanding.
The world doesn’t need more warriors.
But it does need those willing to shift their loyalty away from the familiar — and toward that which has not yet revealed itself fully, but may be true nonetheless.
Are you ready not only to resist the system — but to help shape what might transcend it?
In respect and connection, a voice from the field where you once began
Hello Monique,
I had an open mind to revisit Wood by listening to this video. I was astonished at how bad the Judy Woods scientific understanding actually is. You are right, the nano-thermite is super small part of all of what happened. I mention that above. Dr. Wood put the nano-thermite front and center, the main movement was always about counter the fire from plane destroying a building – it only becomes a whole theory in the Wood false narrative.
What I posted is a small part of the counter evidence. It is what I could quickly find in an hour or so to post a comment. If Judy Wood was correct it should have start to give me a better understanding of all the evidence but it did not. Far from it, it was evident when she started speaking about cold fusion that she was lying outright and was using some semantics about the words cold fusion to cast the spell of psychopath. It is not just that, it is many many distortions of both the history and the rest of the evidence.
My mind was open to listen; however, I then used my discernment to see that this did not counter the other evidence, it did not add anything to my understanding, and that Judy Wood is lying about many things. There are too many things to list, I have already listed enough for people to look into the rest of what Wood does not show. If you want to believe this vampire, you can. I couldn’t stop people from taking the jabs if they got it in their heads to do so.
Are you empowered by Judy Woods “revelations”?
Hi Jonathan,
I just re-read Joseph P. Farrell’s “The Grid of the Gods” book. Wether one believes there is a tangible physics behind “shocking the medium” or not, entanglement in the various tentacles of realities in the unfoldment of the method used, is. I find that the hard part, not getting bogged down and overwelmd by the strategy of evil and thus getting swooped up in its tentacles not seeing the bigger picture anymore. Let alone help counterbalance the bigger picture by battling just tentacles.