Judy Wood, the best-known advocate of this idea, argued that the towers did not collapse so much as disintegrate, and that the pattern of damage, the dust and the small debris piles fit a directed-energy weapon better than fire. In 2007 she asked NIST, under the Information Quality Act, to retract its report. She also accused one of NIST’s contractors, Applied Research Associates, of a conflict of interest, calling it “a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons.” [1]
NIST answered on 27 July 2007. It said it had “examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons,” and that its analysis satisfied the conservation of momentum and energy she said it violated. [1] NIST’s full account of the collapses is in why the towers fell. [2]
Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.