People who look into the physics of the collapses of the twin towers will soon run across the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, that the towers were brought down by some kind of secret beam weapon from an orbiting satellite. They base this claim on the presence of incinerated cars nearby and handwaving arguments about the seismic signature, the shape of the dust clouds and overhead photos of damaged buildings in the vicinity. The cooked cars can be easily explained by the thermite hypothesis: the radiant energy of tons of molten iron would be contained by the shell of the building until the moment of collapse, at which point it would suddenly engulf the surroundings. In any case, a more direct approach would be to consider the geometry of the situation. The collapses were obviously axially symmetric. The buildings didn’t first start crumbling on one side and then another, all sides were involved simultaneously, at least until being obscured by dust. So assuming the beam hypothesis, either the towers were destroyed by multiple beam weapons in surrounding buildings, all triggered at once and somehow kept from destroying objects behind the crumbling towers, or a beam weapon or weapons pretty close to directly overhead.
Assuming the latter, what does this say about the location of a satellite carrying such a weapon? (I’m going to ignore the major problem that the collapses didn’t start at the tops of the buildings as would be expected from an overhead beam emanating from a source of small angular size). It would have to stay pretty close to directly overhead for the duration of the collapse, and it would have to pass overhead again when the second tower collapsed. But these two statements are contradictory. An orbital period of 30 minutes (the time between the collapse of the buildings) would require unrealistically low altitudes and high speeds. Even a satellite in a circular orbit of zero miles (e.g. orbiting a neutron star of one earth mass at an altitude of one earth radius) would take 84 minutes to complete and be travelling at nearly 5 miles per second. Obviously such an object would come and go in the blink of an eye and burn up in the atmosphere in no time at all. A geosynchronous satellite can be ruled out because NYC is nowhere near the equator. The only other alternatives would be 2 satellites at high inclined orbits, or a spacecraft which isn’t in orbit at all and using something other than inertial propulsion (i.e. antigravity) but at that point why not bring in the easter bunny while you’re at it?
The presence of thermite in the WTC dust, videos of molten metal at many thousands of degrees (judging from the color spectrum) flowing from the south tower just before collapse, eyewitnesses to “rivers” of molten metal in the ruins and the freefall acceleration of WTC7 are sufficient evidence of demolition. In terms of falsifying the official explanation, we can already prove the 9/11 investigation was a farce. Judy Wood does nothing but draw ridicule to a very reasonable demand that, at minimum, official lies and propaganda about the “war on terror” be worthy of a high school physics curriculum.