you accuse Dr. Woods of being some sort of disinformation agent. What would have been her motivation? It seems to me that for what she put out there she was mostly mocked by peers. The woman does have relevant professional expertise. It seems normal to me that, as the case with others in related fields, the pictures and official story didn't make sense to her. And so she developed a hypothesis. That's what scientists do! Just because it might seem wacky to some isn't reason in itself to assume she had some malicious intent or ulterior motive.
I'm not defending her because I think her theory is right. I wouldn't know. It would seem to me that the consensus among engineers is that it was a controlled (or assisted) demolition. And that would be damning enough! But *could* there be some sort of exotic weaponry out there that the public might not be aware of? It seems to me within the realm of possibility. How long was there a denial of the government being involved with sophisticated methods of weather modification (including for use against an enemy), only later admitted? And btw, this included the "wacky" idea, apparently put forth first by Russia, of shooting particles into the stratosphere, i.e., what might be described as potential "weapons from space." (I think there was some sort of treaty to end that possible scenario.)
And if so, if there *were* some sort of secret weaponry (maybe ours but not necessarily), *could* it have been used on 9-11, alone or perhaps in combination with other, more traditional, means of collapsing a skyscraper? As far as I'm concerned, that would remain within the realm of possibility.
Maybe by this time, with so many anomalies concerning 9-11, and with different theories as to how and by whom it could have been accomplished - theories, debunking of theories, and debunking of the debunkings - there is, um, just a bit of a *trust* issue? You accuse others, but maybe *you* are the disinformation agent insisting it was a matter of conventional technology! :)
Okay, here's why I will defend Dr. Woods. Whether she's smarter than everyone, totally out of her mind, or some plant, she *was* among those publicly speaking against the official story and posting information and questions for the world to see. Initially, based on some panel discussion I'd heard on C-Span, I didn't come away with a high opinion of "truthers." One angry guy seemed like a rabid anti-American. I more or less dismissed the idea. And I had my own concerns at the time (our failed education system). Looking into 9-11 wasn't a priority for me.
As it turned out, I have since joined those questioning the official story, and that's thanks to (a while ago) my coming across some post of Dr. Wood's. I went to her website and read every word - most of it over my head, although I did try to understand, going off on all sorts of tangents in the process. Well, I'm sure you know how it works on the internet, how one thing leads to another and you can find yourself swiftly falling down the rabbit hole. Btw, if you haven't seen it, I recommend Nick Begich's tutorial on HAARP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b-gA9qq3o
So for the issues she raised to explain why the official story could not be valid, for helping to spread awareness, I, for one, am grateful. As to her idea of what did happen, well, if all the questions she's raised that she believes could only be explained by some exotic free-energy technology actually have more mundane explanations, then good! It narrows things down.
Lastly, I do have another question, one that JW raised. How could that cloud that came spewing out of the towers horizontally and rolled down the streets (what looked like a volcanic ash cloud) melt doorhandles, the gaskets on windshields, and rubber tires yet leave papers and other more perishable materials intact - including, one would the think, the clothes, if not skin, of those who were caught in it? And you're correct. I'm *not* agreeing with Wood's explanation. I'm quite satisfied to go with the "simpler explanation" if there is one.