The Implications of Dr. Judy Wood’s Work with David A. Hughes
Skip to content
Solari Report
Invisible Weaponry
The Implications of Dr. Judy Wood’s Work
With David A. Hughes
“If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened.”
~ Dr. Judy Wood
Weekly Solari Report
Invisible Weaponry
The Implications of Dr. Judy Wood’s Work
May 13, 2025
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.
Latest Money & Markets and Ask Catherine
Log in or subscribe to the Solari Report to enjoy full access to exclusive articles and features.
Already a subscriber?
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