Reply to 9/11 Revisionist

Introduction

In his article titled "No, but, Dr David A. Hughes," 9/11 revisionist offers a lengthy response to three short paragraphs that I included in my Guide to Identifying Camp 2:

It surfaced again recently in Andrew Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist's attack on me for not accepting absolutely every element of Where Did The Towers Go? I was outrageously likened to Jim Fetzer and described as “silly” and perhaps “not a good guy.” Johnson wrongly claimed that I refuse to challenge all three of climate change, global energy, and terrorism narratives. I was bizarrely blamed for being “prolific” and for having a Powerpoint presentation ready for an interview that was agreed nine months in advance.

Because I dare to challenge the Hurricane Erin hypothesis and the significance of Wood’s magnetometer data, while remaining agnostic on the Hutchison effect, I appear to be persona non grata in the Wood camp — despite having published multiple overt defences of her work.

I first presented my counter-evidence in an article that was proof-read by Johnson himself (see the acknowledgement at the end). I did the intellectually honest thing by running my doubts past him first before publishing. But instead of rebutting my specific, evidence-based concerns point by point, Johnson and 9/11 Revisionist resorted to smears, innuendo, and ad hominem. Such behaviour is not conducive to the pursuit of the truth.

In his response, 9/11 Revisionist draws on some recent comments by Andrew Johnson about my remarks.

Though ostensibly framed in the spirit of open dialogue and evidence-based discussion, the 9/11 Revisionist article proves to be anything but. As we will see, it represents a malicious attack that draws on a familiar range of Camp 2 tactics.

Camps vs. Evidence

Referring to my article which he proof-read, Andrew Johnson (28:50) states "What you had was fine, but what you have now is not fine, relegating me and Dr. Wood to camps. It's about evidence, not camps."

I take his point. I think we all would agree that it is about evidence, not personalities, and in that respect my use of the phrase "the Wood camp" was perhaps unhelpful. It is also easy to confuse with the "three camps" framework. I am happy to retract it.

Nevertheless, despite his insistence on remaining evidence-focused, Johnson still has not addressed my specific, evidence-based concerns regarding Hurricane Erin and the magnetometer data (see Appendices A and B at the end of this article).

Straw Manning the Three Camps of Awareness

The "camps vs. evidence" theme becomes something rather more malign in the hands of 9/11 Revisionist.

Despite claiming that the basic idea behind the "three camps of awareness" framework has been around for a long time – which I have openly admitted in interviews – he makes a hash of trying to apply it:

Dr Hughes refers to "the Judy Wood Camp", for being angry for his criticism of Dr Wood's book. But at the same time, are we not allowed to disagree with what Hughes is saying?

So, we are not allowed to disagree with "the David Hughes Camp"?

It seems that for Dr Hughes, it’s about camps, not evidence – and that is how he seems to “debunk” evidence.... which could be seen as part of a cover up.

Apparently, "It’s manipulative to put people in camps" and I am "like an orchestra director – over everyone."

What 9/11 Revisionist seems to be implying here is that I manipulatively use the "three camps of awareness" framework as a device to discredit anyone who disagrees with me.

I have explained that framework so many times now – including the need for intellectual humility on the part of those in Camp 3 – that I see no need to go any further in replying to this self-evident straw man and ad hominem attack (both the hallmarks of Camp 2).

DARVO Tactics

9/11 Revisionist claims that it is "false" that he attacked me in the interview with Andrew Johnson and that he "basically tried to DEFEND" me.

In fairness, he brought up my challenge to Richard Gage on the Freon tanks as well as my critique of Francis O'Neill.

But he also insinuated that I might be "not a good guy" and played along with the absurd analogy with Fetzer.

His most recent piece on me, however, leaves no doubt that his motivations are hostile. Furthermore, the tactics he deploys are disturbing.

DARVO tactics are commonly employed by psychological abusers. DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Essentially, the perpetrator blames the victim for the very abuse which they are meting out.

For example, 9/11 Revisionist accuses me of insults and of bullying:

By insulting you for “defending Judy Wood” (not standing up for evidence), he tries to bully people away from certain pieces of evidence.... lest they be insulted, for blindly by supporting Dr Judy Wood.

Why would I insult anyone for "defending Judy Wood"? I wrote a long piece titled "In Defence of Judy Wood." Where is the evidence that I have tried to insult or "bully" anyone?

But, in classic DARVO fashion, we find that it is 9/11 Revisionist who resorts to insults and bullying in his diatribe against me.

"Does Dr Hughes have a multiple-personality disorder? Did multiple people write this article?," he asks. It is textbook gaslighting.

Despite feigning respect in places, he lumps me together with "all the other limited hangout traitors." I am described as "manipulative" and a "peddler" of "disinformation."

In my Guide to Camp 2, I explain how terms such as "controlled opposition" and "shill" are no different in kind to the Camp 1 use of terms such as "anti-Semite" and "anti-vaxxer" to close down debate and discussion.

9/11 Revisionist does not use those exact terms, but he nevertheless insinuates that I am controlled opposition. For example, my work "really gives you a feeling that this could [be] a psyop that he’s running," and my approach "could be seen as part of a cover up." I am unapologetically smeared by both him and Johnson as the new Jim Fetzer.

The Fetzer Analogy

9/11 Revisionist asserts that "This is NOT an attack on Dr Hughes, but an open dialogue, in the search for 9/11 truth and accountability."

Clearly that is not the case. Had there been a dialogue, he might have heard my objection that the comparison of me to Jim Fetzer is insulting and let it slide.

Instead, his latest criticisms of me begin by likening me again to Fetzer: "Am I now part of a cult? Like Fetzer always talks about?"

And he does it again, noting that Fetzer was "a talking head that was positioning himself as an ally of Dr Wood, that ended up turning into a foe of Dr Wood."

Despite claiming that he is "NOT implying that Dr Hughes is a foe," it is obvious that I am repeatedly being painted in the same treacherous light as Fetzer.

Johnson adds that I am "playing the victim," as Fetzer did.

We are looking at a one-way form of communication here, not dialogue. Instead of pausing to reflect whether their offensive comparison of me to Fetzer is warranted, or conducive to fruitful dialogue, both 9/11 Revisionist and Johnson chose to double down on it.

Cult Thinking

Is 9/11 Revisionist part of a cult with a sacred text, as Fetzer claims?

No, he is not part of an organised cult with a malign leader.

The point I was making in my Guide to Camp 2, however, is that certain thought processes resemble cult thinking, insofar as they demand that one agree completely with a particular position/theory/commentator and/or make a particular doctrine central to one's worldview – or else risk attack.

Remember, I did not attack 9/11 Revisionist or Andrew Johnson. I expressed an evidence-based difference of opinion on a few specific issues – fertile ground for a genuine open discussion. Nevertheless, I was attacked, not debated.

9/11 Revisionist finds it "troubling" that I did not reply to his email about Patricia Casazza or help him to get more eyes on her open letter. He interprets my inaction as "a death blow and expose of the limited hangouts in the 9/11 truth movement."

The level of introspection and projection here is amazing. Again consistent with cult thinking, all that matters is his cause. Every decent person should be immediately promoting Patricia Casazza, or else they are a limited hangout.

It does not occur to him that I may have marked his email as one to read later, but that I did not have time to do so because of other commitments. Had he shown the same level of attention towards me as he expects I show towards him, he may have noticed that I spent most of January arduously migrating paid subscribers from Substack to my new website and that I fell behind on emails as a result.

The friend/foe language in which he engages is also consistent with cult thinking. There is a small group of Guardians of the Truth; everyone else is against them.

The tribalism this engenders is profoundly unhelpful when it comes to a genuine pursuit of the truth and genuine open dialogue. I am neither friend nor foe of Dr. Judy Wood. I have never had any dealings with her, and even if I had, it would make no difference. I value her contribution in Where Did The Towers Go?, but that does not mean that I am a "traitor" and "limited hangout" if I question a few sections of it.

Straw Manning

9/11 Revisionist accuses me of "misrepresenting what Dr Wood presents in her book" and of not having read her book properly.

In reality, it is he who is guilty of straw-manning me, again and again – which, as I argue in my Guide, is a hallmark of Camp 2 thinking.

For example, "Another sign that he hasn't read her book fully, is that he seems to be promoting 'squibs.'" Nowhere have I ever promoted "squibs." Nevertheless, the suggestion that I have ("seems to") is intended to discredit me.

Astonishingly, despite my detailed critique of the nanothermite hypothesis across multiple articles, most notably this one, 9/11 Revisionist has the gall to assert that "Dr Hughes’ suggestion in his article that nanothermite destroyed the towers should be pointed out."

As "evidence" for this straw man, he cites the following section of my Guide:

Self-evidently here, as was my intention, and as I have made clear across countless interviews, it is Camp 2 that believes in nanothermite and Camp 3 that looks towards classified military technology.

Yet, 9/11 Revisionist twists this into its opposite with the aid of a loaded AI prompt ("referring to nanothermite as being a position of Camp 3"). His tactics are astonishingly dishonest.

He writes:

"He also implies that Dr Wood says the buildings were “struck.” NOPE. She most often referred to when the buildings got their (airplane-shaped) holes" (4 minute clip)

Where do I "imply" that, exactly? No evidence is provided.

In my Defence of Judy Wood, I offer the following image and comment:

In the above image, the first two coloured vertical lines correspond to WTC1 and WTC2 being struck, respectively. 

"Struck" here is my term, not Wood's.

Getting to the Truth

"Either you are interested in the truth or you are not," 9/11 Revisionist writes. "So where does that put Dr Hughes?"

My "Three Camps of Awareness" framework is specifically designed as a means of helping people get closer to the truth.

"Either you are seeking the truth to expose it, or you re trying to cover it up."

Or, you become so convinced that you have found the truth that your thought processes ossify and you become unable to challenge your own assumptions when counter-evidence is presented.

Because I present such counter-evidence, I am deemed part of the "cover up." I am, allegedly, "trying to muddle up and cover up the FACTS, albeit inadvertently."

The idea of inadvertently trying to do something is of course nonsensical, but note here how the "FACTS" (all caps) have been 100% established. As with cult beliefs, they are beyond challenge, and anyone who does challenge them must be trying to muddy the waters. They cannot possibly be seeking the truth, for the truth is already known.

Inability to Forgive

9/11 Revisionist quotes my reflection on the May 2025 interview I did with Elze van Hamelen, which I should have postponed owing to the tiredness and stress induced by replying to Sabrina Wallace's nasty attack on me the week before:

I stumbled towards the end when referring to a “cold fusion mini-nuke.” Andrew Johnson rightly picked me up on the conceptual imprecision.”

Surely one cannot say fairer than that. I made a mistake, and I owned up to it. End of story.

Not so in the eyes of 9/11 Revisionist. Apparently, I am still "speculating in several directions" and "pedaling [peddling] mini-micro-nano-mini-nukes or thermite." No forgiveness there.

"Peddling" implies something illicit – further insinuation on his part. Yet, I have never proposed that conventional nuclear weapons on any scale destroyed the Twin Towers. On the contrary, as with nanothermite, I have explicitly argued that no extreme temperatures were involved. So why put words in my mouth? The tactics are dishonest through and through.

Ignoring of Evidence

9/11 Revisionist claims that my "position of wanting to dismiss the evidence presented by Dr Wood is concerning, to say the least."

More DARVO tactics. I do not dismiss Wood's evidence. On the contrary, I engage with it carefully and provide counter-evidence where appropriate.

I indicated clearly in my Guide to Identifying Camp 2 that 9/11 Revisionist and Andrew Johnson need to engage with the counter-evidence that I have presented. Yet, both continue to fail to do so.

Instead, 9/11 Revisionist finds it inconsistent of me that I admitted to "conceptual imprecision" in one case, but not in the cases of

hurricane Erin, the anomalies with the earth’s magnetic field, the Hutchison Effect and the damage to the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building on 9/11?

There is nothing to admit.

As I had already mentioned, my positions on Hurricane Erin and Wood's magnetometer data are spelled out thoroughly, in an evidence-based manner, at the end of my Defence of Judy Wood (see Appendices A and B at the end of this article). If there something wrong with those positions, then they need to be engaged with, point by point, rather than simply repeating that they are wrong (repetition being a hallmark of Camp 2).

For example, Andrew Johnson (21m) simply repeats that there was a significant shift in the magnetometer data around 08:46 on September 11, 2001. He does not address my evidence-based objection that a similar shift happened on a random day in 2019 when I first looked into the magnetometer data. For all we know, similar shifts happen every day for whatever reason.

9/11 Revisionist swerves the key points I raised in my article. In fact, he does not even bring up the magnetometer data, despite apparently having read my section on it and wrongly interpreting my use of the term "struck" (see above).

In terms of the Hutchison effect, I have said very little, because I am agnostic on it. I am not ruling it out, but I do not find the evidence presented very convincing.

For example, as I have already argued, below is Wood's evidence of metal smoothly bending at room temperatures in Hutchison's experiments vs. the "horseshoe beam" recovered from the debris at "Ground Zero":

Yet, the "horseshoe beam" did not bend smoothly, other than in the very middle. Rather, it fractured:

Given that this celebrated comparison turns out not to hold, there is good reason to reserve judgment on the other alleged aspects of the Hutchison effect at work on "9/11." So far, this objection has not been rebutted.

In terms of the Bankers' Trust building, I have not expressed disagreement with Wood's analysis. That just leaves...

The "9/11 Orphans"

"What about the cult that cannot count past three?," asks 9/11 Revisionist. "No mention of them?"

This refers to his correction observation that more than three towers (WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) were destroyed on September 11, 2001. Rather, the entire WTC complex was destroyed, also including WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. Obviously the damage to the other buildings also needs to be scientifically explained.

Amidst the known "FACTS," for him, is that

The damage to the 9/11 Orphans is NOT from known technology like explosives, fire 🔥, or falling debris or mini nukes

The damage at WTC6 is from a publicly unknown technology / weapon and undeniable and NOT falling debris, as Dr Hughes implies in his article, Reflections on my Visit to the World Trade Centre Site, May 2025

Again, this is mere repetition of a position, and not substantive engagement with the evidence. It is not an argument as such, or an attempt to persuade, but mere "suasion" (i.e., one-way communication).

For me to take an interest in the idea that falling debris had nothing to do with the damage to the "orphans," I would need to see a convincing refutation of the case I made in May 2025:

If we imagine the Twin Towers peeling apart [like a banana, as Wood said] and crudely plot (using red rectangles) where the main damage to other buildings would have been, we find that it corresponds fairly closely to the actual damage caused (marked by lightning symbols on the diagram below).

The main lesson of WTC3 and WTC4 for me is that, even if those buildings were, potentially, affected by the exotic weaponry used to destroy the Twin Towers, not everything to do with the WTC destruction requires recourse to such weaponry. Sometimes, falling steel offers a powerful enough explanation.

WTC5 was further away from the Twin Towers than the other buildings, and the damage to its roof was, accordingly, far less extensive. In particular, the northeast section suffered no damage.

One only has to fan the red rectangles out slightly (for not all material was ejected at 90 degrees) to account for the damaged areas of WTC5.

Admittedly, the survival of "The Sphere" by Fritz Koenig (situated roughly where the word "Center" is in the above diagram) also requires explanation, given that it was directly in the line of debris ejected from both WTC1 and WTC2.

Having said that, The Sphere was very low to the ground, and given that material was ejected upwards and outwards with enormous energy, it is possible that large sections went over the top of it while the rest turned to dust.

As for WTC6, there was certainly some debris from the adjacent WTC1 visible inside WTC6, with the main hole predictably falling in line with the WTC1 outer wall.

We can see part of the outer wall of WTC1 visible almost like a waterfall as I have highlighted it.

9/11 Revisionist ignores all of this evidence and asserts that only classified technology could have caused the damage to the "orphans."

I never denied that the classified military technology used to destroy the Twin Towers almost certainly had effects elsewhere (as we see from the "toasted cars"). I am also familiar with the comparisons of the Murrah Building to WTC6 and am open to the possibility that similar weapons were used.

However, to claim that it is "undeniable" that the cause of the damage was "NOT falling debris" runs contrary to the evidence. The general damage pattern to adjacent buildings is consistent with falling debris from the Twin Towers, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

I am still awaiting a substantive engagement with the above evidence.

Hurricane Erin

Two and a half years ago, I offered a detailed critique of Wood's position on Hurricane Erin, recognising both its strengths and its weaknesses, and bringing new evidence to the table such as the visibility of the hurricane on weather forecasts, the trajectory of Hurricane Erin towards Cape Cod, and the normal behaviour of hurricanes near to the East Coast.

9/11 Revisionist ignores nearly all of that evidence and instead claims that I am "disseminating disinformation" by referring to Erin as a "theory" or "hypothesis." Doing so supposedly "disqualifies" me as "someone seeking the truth" and is a further indicator that I have not "carefully read Dr Wood’s book." What next? Will I refer to “Wood’s missing debris theory”?

This is splitting hairs. Yes, the missing debris is evidence, but from it Wood draws certain conclusions, such as that the Twin Towers did not "collapse." In that sense, a theory is embedded within the evidence.

Similarly with Hurricane Erin: there is evidence of a hurricane just off Cape Cod at the exact time the Twin Towers were being destroyed. As Wood (2011, pp. 397-398) observes, “For the 24 hours surrounding the events of 9/11, Hurricane Erin maintained the same wind speed, the same pressure, and approximately the same distance from New York City."

To the extent that a commentator stresses the importance of Hurricane Erin, it follows that they are claiming that the hurricane had something to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers. Otherwise, the evidence would be worthless. Therefore, a theory about Erin's influence must inevitably be embedded within the evidence, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Ignoring my key evidence about Erin, e.g., that weather forecasters did report on it on the morning in question, contrary to Wood's claims that it was covered up (see Appendix A), 9/11 Revisionist makes only the flimsiest of arguments: "I don't think Dr Wood has ever referred to the events of 9/11 as an 'attack.'" This is in response to my claim that "Wood suggests that Hurricane Erin, sitting just off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks [...]." Who cares about trivial terminological quibbles when it is the alleged influence of the hurricane that is at stake?

According to 9/11 Revisionist,

Dr Hughes actually made the case for Dr Wood! Why did he use a hurricane image from 20 years AFTER the event? The media had to start putting Hurricane Erin info out there, so that Dr Wood’s work wouldn’t shock people so much.

This is clutching at straws. Is it that the above image was intended to "cover up" the existence of Hurricane Erin 20 years later? Or is it that hurricanes routinely get close to the East Coast and sharply turn away?

Conclusion

9/11 Revisionist appears to have been triggered by my three-paragraph defence against the attack that he and Andrew Johnson made against me. The length of his response is indicative of the extent of the triggering.

He ends by claiming "I am NOT Dr Hughes enemy, and I hope he sees this article as positive criticism." Moreover, "I look forward to discussing these points, if he’s open to a discussion."

Unfortunately for him, his response is easily recognisable for the range of Camp 2 techniques it deploys, including smears, ad hominem, straw manning, repetition, one-way forms of communication, suppression of evidence, cult thinking, and DARVO tactics. It is anything but "positive criticism" or an "open discussion."

Incidences like this are precisely why I developed the "Three Camps of Awareness" framework. It provides a clear and objective means of distinguishing between Camp 2 and Camp 3. Camp 2 works to block the truth, Camp 3 to advance it.

9/11 Revisionist has gone so far in his journey. He has recognised the value of Wood's work and seen through many of the lies propagated by Camp 2. However, in order to advance further, he needs to cultivate a critical self-awareness that will allow him to think critically about even Wood's work, rather than simply ignoring counter-evidence and using a range of Camp 2 tactics to attack those asking critical questions.

Appendix A - Hurricane Erin (source)

Wood suggests that Hurricane Erin, sitting just off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks, could, like a massive Tesla coil, have produced “vast energies and field effects” drawn on during the destruction of the Twin Towers before suddenly making a 90 degree turn and moving away again (2011, Ch. 18).

Based on data from the National Hurricane Centre, Wood (2011, pp. 397-398) claims that “For the 24 hours surrounding the events of 9/11, Hurricane Erin maintained the same wind speed, the same pressure, and approximately the same distance from New York City” (pp. 397-398, Figure 413). The data are visualized below:

Wood suggests that these conditions were “like a very controlled environment” and asks: “Was Erin somehow steered away from New York City?” (2011, p. 397).

The odds of a major hurricane pausing at its closest point to New York City at exactly the time of the 9/11 attacks before changing direction and moving away again seem remote. On this basis, we must keep an open mind regarding the significance of Hurricane Erin to the attacks. The wind speed and barometric pressure levelling off during the key 24 hours only adds to the number of coincidences.

Still, if Erin did have something to do with the WTC destruction and were “steered” through weather modification, it would be interesting to know why it made a beeline, not for Lower Manhattan, but, rather, Cape Cod:

Indeed, judging by the satellite imagery Wood presents, Cape Cod was more affected by Erin than Lower Manhattan:

Wood (2011, p. 411) is careful not to draw any firm conclusions regarding Erin, but her suspicions are roused by “the fact of Erin’s having been treated as a carefully kept secret, much like a state secret.” As evidence of this alleged secrecy, she shows weather maps broadcast on ABC 7, NBC 4, FOX 5, and CBS 9 between 8:31am and 8:36am on September 11, 2001 (see the corresponding video footage here); none show any sign of Hurricane Erin (2011, p. 400). 

However, Wood does not include the following four weather maps:

The above weather maps indicate that there was no TV blackout regarding Hurricane Erin, as one would expect for a state secret. The CNN image is from 8:39am: a few minutes later than the images Wood shows and a few minutes before the North Tower was hit at 8:46am. The NBC News screenshot is from 8:04am. So, it does not appear that the hurricane was removed from weather reports as the attacks drew closer.

A common theme in the weather forecasts that do mention Erin is the eastwards-moving cold front that would push the hurricane away from the coast. Wood (2011, p. 399) herself notes: “There was a cold front moving from the Midwest towards New York City that would have slowed the hurricane and turned it northward, but how sure could meteorologists have been about the timing of the turn?”

By 5:47am on September 11, 2001, it appears that the cold front had already reached the East Coast. ABC 7, for instance, shows the temperature difference compared to 24 hours earlier:

Meteorologists could, it seems, have been confident that the cold front would meet the hurricane in time — and indeed they were, as their above comments show.

The weather maps shown by Wood are not satellite/radar composites, but rather the kind that use computer-generated icons to indicate the weather in simple terms so that viewers can see what the weather will be like where they live. There would be no point in including a hurricane that would not affect them; in fact, there is a case that including a large hurricane icon off just off the East Coast could have caused unnecessary panic.

Erin’s sharp turn away from the East Coast may seem surprising, however, hurricanes do generally turn up and away from the East Coast:

Hurricanes affecting the state of New York are most common in the month of September. Such hurricanes occurred, for instance, in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009. Their impact mostly involved property damage and disruption to power; there were a handful of deaths involving rip currents. It is easy to see why meteorologists were not alarmed about Hurricane Erin. As Wood (2011, p. 403) notes, they issued Erin advisories from September 7 through September 12 warning of rip currents and heavy surf along the East Coast – but nothing more serious than that.

Wood (2011, p. 396) seems surprised that “the public was not widely alerted to [Erin],” given that Erin was similar in size to Hurricane Katrina (2005) and with a greater Accumulated Cyclone Energy. However, Katrina achieved Category 5 status, whereas Erin peaked at Category 3 for 24 hours on September 9-10 and was Category 1 by the morning of September 11, as data cited by Wood shows. More importantly, Katrina made landfall and caused widespread damage. The two hurricanes simply did not pose the same level of threat.

On September 3, 2010, Fox News’ veteran hurricane reporter, Geraldo Rivera, reflected: “If only a hurricane had come on 9/11 […] history would have been rewritten.” Either he did not know about Erin (which seems unlikely, given his job), or he was trying to cover up the presence of Erin (if so, why then?), or — as seems most likely — he simply meant that no flights were grounded as a result of a hurricane on 9/11.  

Below is a weather image from 2021, which illustrates that it is not exceptional for a hurricane to be stationed not far from New York on September 11. Again, the impact is worse on Cape Cod than Lower Manhattan:

While hurricanes may get within a couple of hundred miles of New York, the eye of a hurricane only passes within 75 miles of New York once a decade on average. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy got close enough to impact the 9/11 memorial site: 

In sum, although it is an extraordinary coincidence that Hurricane Erin reached its closest point to New York and changed direction while the WTC attacks were taking place, the evidence of a cover-up seems weak, and Erin’s presence and behaviour are not otherwise suspicious. It is also unclear how exactly the field effects from the Hurricane could be involved in the destruction of the WTC, but that is beyond the scope of Wood’s inquiry.

Appendix B - Magnetometer Data (source)

Magnetometer Data

Wood (2011, Ch. 19) claims that there were major changes to the Earth’s magnetic field during the 9/11 attacks, evidenced by data from the Geophysical Institute Magnetometer Array of the University of Alaska :

In the above image, the first two coloured vertical lines correspond to WTC1 and WTC2 being struck, respectively. The next two vertical lines, just to their right, correspond to those buildings being destroyed. The green vertical shows when WTC7 was destroyed. The highest reading occurs ca. 2am on September 12 and the lowest reading is around 4am on September 12. The scale on the y-axis goes from -700 to 300.

Zooming in to between 6am and 8:24 pm on September 11, 2001, the data appears as follows:

To be sure, judging by this evidence, there was considerably more magnetometer activity on 9/11 than on the preceding two days (2011, p. 414). However, the Geophysical Institute Magnetometer Array of the University of Alaska appears to show a big increase in activity in the hours leading up to midday quite often. For example, here is a reading I randomly captured on October 26, 2019:

The deviations here occur during roughly the same time period as on 9/11 and are even larger, suggesting that the magnetometer data presented by Wood may be independent of the WTC destruction.

It is also unclear why the largest readings on the four-day chart above occur, not as the Twin Towers are being destroyed, but, rather, between 2am and 4am on September 12.

This is not to dismiss the importance of investigations into magnetic effects on 9/11. For example, there seems to have been electromagnetic inference with video camera footage during the dust cloud rollout (see 26:20) and helicopter footage just before each tower was destroyed (see 42:26).