9/11 theory in essays lacks credibility

I was amused by the appearance of Judy Wood's and Jeff Besant's essays (Jan. 29) presenting what they claim is the “truth” about 9/11. Setting their voluminous contentions and claimed credentials aside, Wood argues that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, was accomplished by some kind of “directed-energy” weapon that disintegrated both towers, using a physical property called “Hutchison's Effect.”

Strip away the pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, and we are presented with the following: Somehow, using a physical force that has only been documented by the Canadian whose name it bears, John Hutchison, the towers were destroyed by a weapon no one has seen. Using only photographic and video analysis, along with interpretations of eyewitness accounts, Wood claims to have the only explanation that accounts for a number of what she claims are “anomalies.”

Neither Wood nor her acolytes has produced one shred of physical evidence, walked ground zero to perform a physical investigation, nor produced one article that has appeared in a juried professional journal.

The Gazette's rules for online posting include no commercial ads. Yet commentary on both essays is studded with pitches for Wood's book. Users are not supposed to “spam,” or dominate the conversation with repeated, long posts.

I'd like Gazette's Lyle Muller or Jeff Tecklenburg to explain what happened. Why give space to Wood? Why let users on these essays run riot? How credible is The Gazette when it gives space to such preposterous pseudoscience and conspiracy theory?

Jeff Klinzman

Coralville