Comment: I haven't seen her book. I

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Question (see in situ)

I haven't seen her book. I

I haven't seen her book. I started to question her credibility after she made some very basic physics mistakes regarding conservation of momentum back in her early days. It felt like negligence given that she was an ME professor. Later I heard her talking about mini-nukes and space based weapons, which, given all the evidence, completely destroyed her credibility.

No doubt the concrete was turned into dust, which requires serious energy. That energy can't be accounted for in the official theory. I spent years researching this and never saw any evidence that the steel was turned to powder. Thermite and byproducts, yes. Columns turned to powder, no. I know the claims she makes about the rapid oxidation are better explained by simpler answers which do have supporting evidence.

Over the first year or so of her involvement in the truth movement I watched Wood go from someone reasonable who made some basic errors to a liability. She and a handful of others acted reasonable and rational until a serious push was made for credible research. They positioned themselves in fledgling academic organizations, one as a co-founder, then started spouting completely unsubstantiated claims, some of which are at best sci-fi. Be very careful of believing any of her claims. She concocts an outrageous theory, then shoehorns evidence into that theory. Her explanation of oxidation on the cars is foolish. I suspect whatever she is saying about powdered metal is too.

In truth, I suspect she and a handful of others are agents intent on poisoning the well. If they aren't, then they are nuts. I watched her and her compatriots closely.

"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered." -- Cicero