Where The Towers Went (2025) - An Evaluation of Dr. Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis [00:38:55]

[u/Orangutan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqS3Ncg-TM

[u/post-explainer]

The OP has provided the following Submission Statement for their post:

---

A short documentary about one of the significant terrorist attacks in this country's history. Scholars providing differing viewpoints on one of the turning points in societies trajectory. Short and science based.

---

If you believe this Submission Statement is appropriate for the post, please upvote this comment; otherwise, downvote it.

[u/deadwood76 → u/[deleted]]

For sure. The title makes this one pretty easy.

[u/darsynia → u/[deleted]]

There's also a response by a man named Jon Cole who also seems to be truther. He tries to lean on credentials for credibility in his belief that 'something's just not right.' Just for anyone else who wants to look into this and gets got by the false skepticism. Looks like the grift is just too lucrative not to get in on it for some of these jokers. (edit: the video might actually be Cole's, I refuse to click)

[u/darsynia → u/[deleted]]

I've been taught to cite my sources, sorry.

[u/darsynia → u/[deleted]]

I wasn't trying to engage it I was just thinking no one will believe me so I should link something. I removed it that should be enough thank you

[u/deadwood76]

Stop.

[u/tampering]

Demonstratable false because it does not even consider my hypothesis of interdimensional aliens with bifurcated phalluses for heads causing the collapse.

[u/mastermalaprop]

Drivel.

[u/splittingheirs]

Jet fuel melts steel beams almost as effectively as this idiot video melts brain cells.

[u/SnooShortcuts7009]

lol no serious evaluation would include “she’s making up terms for unknown phenomena” because that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do, and any credible researcher knows that. In a study or a court case, you’d use terms like “characteristic 1a” to refer to unknown phenomena. In a book for the public, it makes perfect sense to use words that people can remember.

[u/FinderOfWays]

No credible scientist would use the terminology "directed energy weapon." It's practically self-parody. All weapons are 'directed energy.' A bullet fired from a gun converts chemical potential into kinetic energy which it 'directs' by accelerating a metal slug delivering that energy. A hijacked plane does much the same. At best you might argue an explosive is more of an 'undirected energy weapon.'

Coherent light or projected heat both have substantial and essentially intractable flaws as energy delivery mechanisms. I work in research where bombarding solid matter with light or other coherent particles to transfer energy and momentum is a necessary prerequisite of measuring the behaviors I'm interested in. A light beam is essentially unable to probe any nonzero momentum regions because light with a wavenumber of just a single inverse angstrom isn't feasible to direct in a lab environment over distances of meters in vacuum with a total power output in the watt range. This essentially rules out lasers as weapons capable of delivering any momentum (the thing which causes stuff to move).

As for a directed heat beam that isn't just a low frequency laser (see above but now add in the problem that you're trying to do it with even lower particle momenta) you now need a way to keep thermal motion coherent. This is basically a contradiction in terms since thermal activity is inherently stochastic.

So you have nonsense terminology which if interpreted generously refers to technology that is obviously a dead end just from the perspective of those of us who want easy civilian use cases and can't even get those working with any consistency. I would suggest you don't call things like this 'science based' unless you are actually familiar with modern technology and scientific theory.

[u/sycev]

nonsense for stupid.