BeardMonkey (@B3ardMonkey)

@B3ardMonkeyOct 19

Debunking dr. Judy Wood Index Index to posts that refute Judy Wood's book and thesis on how Directed Energy Weapons were supposedly utilized on 9/11 to dustify the World Trade Center Twin Towers: Introduction xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… The three core arguments xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Supporting arguments xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… The tactics xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… ------------------------- Core argument 1: The towers turned to dust xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1A: Understanding the WTC complex xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1B: Material quantity and expected debris xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1C: What the actual evidence shows xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… Core argument 1D: Refuting Wood's arguments about the debris xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/209… --- Core argument 2: The Bathtub should have been destroyed xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Core argument 3: The seismic signals were too small xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Core Arguments recap xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… -------------------------- Argument 4: Earth's magnetic field on 9/11 xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 5: Hurrican Erin xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 6: Toasted Cars xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 7: Dustification & Lathering xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 8: "Jumpers" xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 9: Holes xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 10: Cartoon Physics xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 11: Missing Wing xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/210… Argument 12: Freefall Billiard Ball xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/211… Argument 13: Tissue Beams and Tortilla Chips xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/211… Argument 14: Weird Fires xitter.cf/B3ardMonkey/status/211…

@B3ardMonkeySep 7

Debunking dr. Judy Wood 1 - Intro In this series I will have a critical look at one of the more ‘fantastical’ conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, namely that the twin towers did not collapse but were largely ‘dustified’ by some unknown Directed Energy process or weapon (DEW). Main proponent of the idea is one dr. Judy Wood, who wrote a book about the topic, 'Where Did The Towers Go?', and has given a number of interviews and presentations over the years that can be found online. The main premise of the book is so far-out, it gets little traction even within the broader 9/11 Truther communities. I don’t have a personal connection to the theory. As was the case with my earlier #MH370x work, this simply crossed my path and sparked some new interest in the events of 9/11, about which I learned SO much during the brief time researching this topic. Beyond the work of Wood herself there is a handful of followers who copy and spread her arguments. Most popular among them is @911revisionist, along with smaller account like @MathEasySolns and @mysticbazaar911. Adjacent channels/persons include Mark Conlon, Richard D. Hall, Chris Hampton, and Andrew Johnson. Accounts like 911Rev are mainly just copy-pasting the same messages ad-nauseam, directing as much traffic as possible to their own Substack sites, and have little to offer in terms of new arguments. Occasionally I might discuss their material when applicable to the topic at hand. As sources for Wood’s arguments I primarily used her many social media appearances and interviews, with a special focus on her 2012 ‘Breakthrough Energy Conference’ presentation [1], her book ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’, and her 2007 interview with Greg Jenkins [2]. [1] Breakthrough Energy Conference, 2012 (youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyi…) [2] Greg Jenkins Judy Wood interview, 2007 (youtube.com/watch?v=Rdmh76Kr…)

702

Tony Adams · Oct 26, 2026 · 9:02 PM UTC

BeardMonkey retweeted

Tony Adams

@adams_at_mh370Oct 26

Replying to @AshtonForbes

@AshtonForbes says, “Even AI can't fake triangle formation of orbs flying around a plane in 3D.” Here’s a screen recording of me faking a triangle formation of orbs flying around a plane in 3D. It took about 2.5 minutes in After Effects. The features used were available in 2014.

141

BeardMonkey · Oct 26, 2026 · 10:11 AM UTC

BeardMonkey retweeted

@B3ardMonkeyOct 26

Replying to @US_did_911 @BardiBodyGuard3

The debris pile for WTC3 was on average more than 3 floors high, easily sufficient for the "a pile needs to be at least 10% of original height" argument. The pile for WTC 4 and the debris of WTC 2 on top is also easily 3-4 stories high. WTC 4 was just 8 stories tall, so if my calculations are correct, that is also a tadbit more than 10% For both WTC 3 and 4 we didn't even take into account the basement collapses/debris, but fine. WTC 1 and 2 , the towers, had their footprints filled with highly compacted debris, and the piles on top are easily 3-4 stories as well. That makes 9-10 stories of debris JUST in the footprint. That is without the massive collapses down to bedrock around the towers, and without all the debris on the surface. But tell me again how you're feelings trump the facts 😂

BeardMonkey · Oct 24, 2026 · 10:35 PM UTC

Dangerous

Describe him in a word.

BeardMonkey · Oct 24, 2026 · 6:03 PM UTC

Yeah making this guy a trillionair was a smart move. Braindead commentary. Gg

Elon Musk

@elonmuskOct 23

Hitler was a far left socialist. Literally in the name of his party!

BeardMonkey · Oct 24, 2026 · 9:56 AM UTC

* edit: instant unblock? And that was the last message before a predictable block by @Paul_L_Rotary. Pathetic, yet a bit disappointing, as we were in perfect agreement on the #MH370x bullshit. Being able to apply critical thinking in one area does not make one immune to believing tinfoil nonsense in others. "No one takes my conspiracy theory seriously! Why won't nobody discuss it" * Blocks everyone at first sight of opposition *

Replying to @Paul_L_Rotary

Debris filled the towers footprints to bedrock, that's about 9 floors of debris there with above surface pile, at least. Add to that the collapses to bedrock in much of the basements around the towers, including the PATH station at B6. Then add to those all the debris on the massive debris field around the towers. 1.4-1.6 M tonnes of debris hauled out of the site. Where exactly is this dustification? There was a lot of dust, and a big part of the concrete slabs was pulverized to dust, but saying the towers as a while dustified is directly refutes by the evidence.

100

BeardMonkey · Oct 24, 2026 · 7:45 AM UTC

Hilarious to see @911Revisionist called out for uncritically parroting dr. Judy Wood, to then responding doing exactly that with verbatim quotes from her book and presentation 🤣🤦🏻‍♂️ Also, if he had in fact done any research, he would have dismissed her nonsense claims immediately.

@B3ardMonkeyOct 19

BeardMonkey · Oct 22, 2026 · 9:28 PM UTC

Ouch, did @CurtWeldontruth just call @911Revisionist a phony blowhard and an outside loser? Hilarious to see Norman keep posting as if nothing happens. Curt knows what's up, Rev needs the clicks 😂🫣🤦🏻‍♂️

Curt Weldon

@CurtWeldontruthOct 22

Replying to @JamesAFreeman @911Revisionist @quantumheat

This is why I avoid the internet. I was onscene at the WTC ‘93 and 9/11 looking for FDNY friends. I publicly criticized the USG on CNN live on 9/11 for failures in Intel that now prove the perpetrators. I don’t need some phony blowhard from outside the US trying to generate personal income through misrepresentation. As HASC Chair I held hearings about EMP/DE in 1987 and created the EMP/DE Commission. I will not respond to outside non US losers. For 25 years my focus has been on who planned and managed 9/11 and hold them for Treason.

BeardMonkey · Oct 23, 2026 · 1:46 PM UTC

Should've added "outside flunky trying to make money off our greatest tragedy" Embarrassing. But to Curt's point, why is a random South African dude so invested in spreading 9/11 disinfo??

BeardMonkey · Oct 23, 2026 · 10:04 AM UTC

Who knows, might beome a thing 😂

101

BeardMonkey · Oct 23, 2026 · 9:56 AM UTC

Only in dr. Judy Wood World can you take a normal picture of fire and flames, add the caption "chunks of flame" and pretend it is something spectacular that needs a DEW explanation. Anyone who has ever sat around a campfire can instantly dispell Wood's flaming nonsense...

Replying to @B3ardMonkey

(3/3) l) The central theme throughout is this need for Wood to deny high heat in the debris piles. Why exactly is not clear, as fires were clear as day in the towers before collapse and even if they then dustified, what remained on the ground could just as well catch fire in Wood’s version of events? Why Wood has to go against ALL available evidence of fire and heat in the debris is mind boggling. m) Whatever the case, thermal imaging done of Ground Zero in September, and which identified several hot spots under the debris field, needs to be refuted. This is mainly attempted through showing images of nearby locations that aren’t hot, which still isn't a valid argument, because fire places, camp fires, etc. See part 1 of this post. n) The existence of hot spots in the debris, and furnace like fires that raged for weeks and months even, is extremely well documented. The last fires were put out on December 19th, 2001. Again, why Wood feels the need to attack established facts such as these is mystifying. o) The chapter contains a number of glaring errors: i. Wood places hot spot E from the thermal imaging in the middle of the road instead of the WTC 3 debris pile. ii. A photo of the hole in Liberty Street is captioned as the WTC2 basement which it is not. iii. Another photo is captioned WTC 1 basement which it is not. iv. The FDR cars that we dispelled before are mentioned, yet again. None fatal, but which do show once again the slopiness and lack of knowledge on Wood's part. For how long this chapter was, it offered very little. --- Sources [1] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010) – chapter 13 'Weird Fires' , page 257 Or Judy Wood, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (youtu.be/vadSaWyiozg?si=xE0-…) [2] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010) – [grappler image], page 265 [3] ENR.com, ‘First Quarterly Cost Report’ (2002) ( enr.com/articles/28870-first…)

BeardMonkey · Oct 19, 2026 · 6:04 PM UTC

@B3ardMonkeyOct 19

Debunking dr. Judy Wood 22 – (Arg. 14) Weird Fires In this chapter [1], Wood builds on her earlier observations of paper on the ground not burning around burning cars, and discusses temperatures around Ground Zero. As with other chapters, a dose of common sense is enough to dispel most of it. Fires were weird and heat was impossible is the TLDR. a) In a puzzling display of personal incredulity, Wood again starts pointing out items that are not on fire in close proximity to things that are, stating that that should not be possible. Papers next to fires should burn because of their ‘comparatively low ignition temperature’. Aluminum cladding next to other fires should have melted, she baselessly asserts. b) Wood appears oblivious to fire places inside of homes being a thing. Sitting around a camp- or bonfire likewise should also result in people catching fire I, right? That’s actually an argument she makes on page 272: “If these hot spots at Ground Zero were “real,” rescue workers, at 400-800 degrees Celsius, would have been instantly cooked, charred, and desiccated.” Real physics has left the room. Or rather, was never invited? c) She points to papers, bushes and shrubbery, and other items she asserts us should be on fire as well, counter to every real-world experience a person should have. Many items cited are found far from the towers at the edges of Ground Zero. d) I want to stress how absolutely pointless this whole line of arguments is for her narrative, because even if we grant her her magic DEW device or energy fields to set the burning items on fire to begin with, why in her narrative would the papers and items around it not catch fire? Is the DE process making the papers magically flame retardant?? Is she arguing the flames we see are cold? e) Further on in the chapter she makes similar arguments on the debris field, where hot debris from the fires and the collapse, as well as subsequent subterranean fires that raged for weeks, created hot spots that were difficult to put out. She keeps making arguments using photographs pointing to wet and cold places like access roads, arguing there can’t be heat or those couldn’t be there. f) Again, Wood’s argument is on the level of thinking a fire place inside a home means the entire home must be scorching hot. But a piece of road being cold and wet from firefighting does not mean that close-by a furnace fire under the debris can’t be raging, or that all hot debris must’ve cooled off. (1/3)

139

BeardMonkey · Oct 22, 2026 · 7:04 PM UTC

(2/3) g) The chapter is filled out with a wide range of observations. As in most other chapters, personal testimonies take a center stage, but only those that fit Wood’s story. Incredibly, she self-undermines her use of witness testimony when it goes against that story, with this gem of a quote on page 270: “Now please note, in no way am I saying or implying that the fireman was lying about “molten metal.” On the other hand, memories are not like tape recorders and there is no question that memories can be manipulated. False memory syndrome refers to the creation of memories that are not based on factual events.” Astonishing. h) On no less than three occasions in her book, Wood uses a photo of a grappler holding a glowing hot piece of debris. According to Wood if it was really that hot the grappler would instantly stop working because the hydraulics wouldn’t handle the hot temperature [2], which is moronic as the grappler would likely handle such pieces only briefly, and the temperature would have no way to heat the buckets, crane arm and attached hydraulics that fast. In Wood’s world, hot debris simply cannot be handled, end of story. i) Documented cooling of equipment by water spraying is discarded without valid reason as Wood falsely asserts that that is done when the equipment is already glowing hot and it would crack them. Reports on the grueling conditions of Ground Zero on equipment leading to frequent repairs [3] being needed are absent. j) She goes so far as to cite operating temperatures and viscosity numbers for the hydraulic systems, a pointless fluffing of a non-existent argument. k) Wood’s conclusion that the debris was not hot goes directly against the countless first hand witnesses who actually worked at the site, the measured thermographic data, and observations from hundreds of photographs and videos. Wood, who never set foot in the pit or handled even one piece of debris herself, is fighting reality, and losing badly.

133

BeardMonkey · Oct 23, 2026 · 9:53 AM UTC

BeardMonkey · Oct 22, 2026 · 9:22 PM UTC

Excellent example by @_andrewsimon_ . In Wood-World©®™ this forklift would instantly seize operating. Ooh and the people would be charcoal. But like I stated in the post, Wood is fighting reality, and losing badly

Andrew Mason

@_andrewsimon_Oct 22

Replying to @B3ardMonkey

Oh look, a pretty regular looking forklift truck, rubber tyres and all, carrying a very hot chunk of almost white hot metal. Hmm. youtube.com/shorts/NlAezzcwZ…

What kind of forklift are you using Just carry it #forging #welding #construction #metalfabrication

What kind of forklift are you using Just carry itLIKE | SHARE | S...

youtube.com

115

BeardMonkey · Oct 22, 2026 · 7:42 PM UTC

For some odd reason dr. Judy Wood can't have any heat on Ground Zero, not even from regular fires. I don't understand why yet, but it leads to another great example of cherry picking the data, this time in witness testimonies. Though she fluffs many chapters with (in total) almost a hundred examples of witnessess that she (falsely) thinks support her DEW narrative, she is quick to assert how unreliable memories really are and we shouldn't trust them when one of them says something that does not fit her narrative. uh what? Also unclear: why does she include this in the first place? She could have simply left out that testimony? It's not like cherry picking data is not her go-to research tactic 🤷‍♂️

Replying to @B3ardMonkey

BeardMonkey · Oct 20, 2026 · 7:36 PM UTC

@B3ardMonkeyOct 20

A typical Conspiracy Theorist's response, or complete lack thereof When discussing Judy Wood's DEW hypothesis, proponents typically start off very sure of themselves, loudly proclaiming to hold the truth, sharing one substack article after another, 100% confident of their materials and evidence. These conversations easily go off track, and to the outside reader, could go both ways. If anything, the DEW story has some nice visuals prepared to spew at unsuspecting commentators. It looks persuasive. After all, how many people have really studied 9/11 in-depth? The collapses, ground zero, looking up building schematics, searching through thousands of photos, videos, witness testimonies? It's easy to see a lay person being bedazzled by the endless stream of (nonsense) material. It's funny to see however what the responses are reduced to once you bring the receipts. Because that is what I did. I honestly researched the exact claims made. Found the pictures, looked at the data, constructed floor plans. And for how eager the proponents for example are to yell how empty the basements were, if you show them a certain number of pictures from all the collapses and debris in the basements, their arguments lose all their strength. They just look silly. To illustrate: in her 500+ page book, Wood uses exactly 1 (!) photograph to detail the collapse state of the B1-B6 basement levels. Six floors. Ten acres. One photo as evidence. In contrast, my silly tweets contain more than 20 photographs detailing the collapse. Any argument for an empty basements is thus rendered moronic. So what do they do? What you'd expect. @911Revisionist just blocks and ignores. @MathEasySolns also blocks, but indirectly responds calling you a disinfo agent, but also doesn't engage the material. And James? He has his own mental coping strategy of trying to ask a gotcha question. He has no answer for any of the arguments made, but somehow also feels a need to respond. Mind you his question has a very simple answer, but that's not the point. It's about the diversion. The incompetence or ignorance oozing out of every subsequent response. I really hoped I'd get some proper discussion. I make mistakes, surely they could point them out? For all their credential slinging (Wood's, not their own of course), they seem, unfortunately, extremely ill-prepared for any decent refutation. With most of Wood's silly book squarely debunked, I don't have hopes of any real response anymore. It is what it is 🤷‍♂️ Saving just one poor soul from this mental garbage is sufficient for me.

James

@Product_007Oct 20

Replying to @B3ardMonkey @mysticbazaar911 @MathEasySolns @911Revisionist

Why can’t you tell me what happened to all the metal door knobs? You always avoid the question. I’m just a regular guy trying to learn, but you ain’t teaching me anything.

135

BeardMonkey · Oct 20, 2026 · 12:16 PM UTC

@B3ardMonkeyOct 20

Note that I have skipped part three for now. The material is long done but the animation/video I want to use for it needs to be made and will take some time, and time is sparse at the moment. Part three will focus on a more accurate model which refutes Wood's pointless model. Just as a preview, collapse time from collapse initiation floor to ground level for WTC 1 are: Freefall: 8.6 s Conservation of Momentum: 11.9 s Above + subtracting floor shearing energy: 13.4 s Above + dustifying 50% floor: 15.3 s So even in a model with way more restrictions than Wood's model, but a little dose of reality, collapse doesn't reach even 2x freefall times. Appreciate that when Wood tries to sell you on 97 seconds next time!

@B3ardMonkeyOct 14

Replying to @B3ardMonkey

(2/3) k) Next Wood attempts some basic calculations to show how the floors collapsing down would result in collapse times much larger than what was observed. In her ‘ ”Pancaked” every floor ’ model [4], she arrives at an astonishing MINIMUM collapse time of 97 seconds. l) Wood’s model however has no discernible connection to reality. m) Right out of the gate she deceptively has the collapse start at the very top with the highest floor, progressing one floor at a time. This is misleading as the top blocks above collapse initiation, and which started falling down, comprised 12 and 29 floors for WTC 1 and 2 respectively. n) Ironically, if the collapse started as Wood suggests with just one floor, models and calculations show it would almost certainly have been halted! o) Wood immediately follows up with the next grave error in setting up a scenario in which the first floor starts collapsing, coming to a complete halt on impact with the floor below, which then start collapsing from scratch to the next floor, and so on... p) She is pretending two things to accomplish this: 1) Virtually all the kinetic energy is used up to start the next floor collapsing 2) Nothing gets added to the falling mass. It remains one floor down to ground level q) In her model, floor 20, which in reality has the debris of 90 floors above it crashing into it, still completely halts the collapse before moving down to floor 19. r) After 110 floors this is how she arrives at 97 seconds, a meaningless and idiotically large number, even for an abstract approximation. She shows another calculation with 9 out of 10 floors removed ariving at 30 seconds, but which suffers the same fatal errors. --- A more grounded calculation using Conservation of Momentum, energy lost for shearing off the floors, and mass being expelled, comes to a radically different conclusion, as we will see in the next part.

BeardMonkey · Oct 20, 2026 · 12:04 PM UTC

@B3ardMonkeyOct 20

You don't have to take my word for it when I say Judy Wood cherry picked her magnetometer data and that the entire dataset shows zero correlation to the events of september 11. I included links to the downloadable data specifically so that everyone can have a look for themselves. I invite everyone interested to do the analysis I did themselves if they don't trust me. If Wood is right, I MUST be wrong, and people should be able to point out where, right?