Where have I lied about Dr. Wood? She is no longer a professor. She has a total of 23 peer reviewed papers to her name, all of which STOPPED being published in 2004, and she is a proponent of a discredited wacko pseudo-scientist who has admitted faking some of his evidence. She is NO LONGER PRACTICING that I can find, except on fringe sites where she uses her degrees to lend them credibility. Have degree will speak.
She embraces the discredited anti-gravity/metal gellification Hutchison Effect to explain what happened to the WTC. It's not reproducible. . . even if Hutchison stumbled onto something. Until someone ELSE can reproduce what Hutchison has claimed to have done, it isn't real. Even she couldn't do it with her degrees. That's not science.
Wood's EXPOSTULATING OUTSIDE HER FIELD OF EXPERTISE and experience! That pretty much sums up the quality of her opinions.
. . .try to convince people to ignore her wise counsel on 911. . .
What "wise counsel," MHGinTN? Is it this "wise counsel" you refer to?
"9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy."—Dr. Judy Wood.
That's just one example Dr. Wood's "wise counsel on 911" and it's just one example of why she doesn't get very far in my book. Wood requires the use of an unproven "science" of which she has absolutely zero evidence, except the word of an admitted faker, to prove her thesis.
That does not make her wise, or at all credible, in my opinion.
I'd hate to apply her credibility to you.
I am still open to "The Who" of 911. . .
But I don't have to invent complicated conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators to accomplish the bringing down of the towers and the attack on the Pentagon, or use pseudo-scientific gelatinized steel as Dr. Wood is proposing with Hutchison, or kidnapping four planeloads of passengers only to kill them retail later, just so someone can either hit targets with missiles faked up to look like those planes and then detonate pre-planted coordinated demolition charges, and convince millions of eye-witnesses they really didn't see what they saw, AND plant appropriate aircraft parts at the forensically appropriate locations inside the Pentagon and on the lawn, when a perfectly logical and physically workable solution does the job, simply, easily, with only 19 men (who ever they are), and most importantly cheaply. . . ALL WITHOUT DOING ALL THOSE IDIOTIC COMPLICATED CIRCUMLOCUTIONS which are fraught with too many opportunities for failure built into them.
Use the KISS principle. . . Keep It Simple, Stupid.
I also believe in Saint Murphy who once observed: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." And by making something so complicated, it will fall apart of its own complicated weight.
People like you have been trying to shame folks who have experienced UAPs and abduction events for decades. Your methodology is not a mystery, you seek to malign those you either don't agree with or whom you have been instructed to malign.
And for this record, Dr. Judy Wood has more credibility than you could ever have because she has stuck to the 'what' from the beginning. Also, for this record, try explaining the nice round cored out sections of adjacent structures in the Tower complex, or explain for us the vagaries of building Seven which was 'pulled' the afternoon of 9/11, having the perfectly placed charges put in place while the building was belching black smoke..
And finally, when Judy Wood offers her OPINION that a directed energy weapon was used on 911, I agree with her, because no other explanation fits the video evidence from that day and I know that such weapons have been in development since the late eighties.
I can disagree with her on the 'free energy' since I am aware of capacitors which could handle the output quite easily from an airborne platform. But that disagreeing doesn't negate her insights which you are either too dense to comprehend or are serving an agenda to turn folks attention away from the Truth of what happened on 911. Frankly, I suspect you are in the latter.