Wood continues to evade the main question here: did the debris from the buildings fall in an area larger than their footprint in contrast to her analysis of the Kingdome.
Instead of answering this question she debates the term "collapse":
Misleading Argument #14:
Dr. Wood boldly asserts that "The Towers did not collapse". She states that the use of such terminology is "false, deceptive, and misleading." One might agree only if the word was even slightly misused. The definition of a 'collapse' is given by the American Heritage English Dictionary, Third Edition as:
Collapse (n.) 1. The act of falling down or inward, as from a loss of supports 2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health.
The WTC towers fell down from a sudden loss of its supports suffering an abrupt failure of function and strength. In the common vernacular, no mechanism need be specified in order to correctly utilize the word. The collapse mechanism is precisely the topic currently being debated both within the 9/11 Truth movement and with NIST.
Perhaps the reason why Judy Wood argues that the building did not "collapse" is because she argues that debris was sent into the 'upper atmosphere' during collapse. If the "anti-collapse" hypothesis is proven false (which is easily shown), then it is necessarily proven true that the WTC towers did indeed collapse.