Sunday, April 7, 2013

9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood- Part 1 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to regular scientific methodology displayed by Dr. Judy Wood and all  other accredited "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

[The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go",  is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not  in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event. For 2 more examples of fraudulent photos being used as  "genuine" "evidence" by Dr. Wood and others, in order to "prove" their own 9/11 hypothesis,  see Part 4 of this report].

N.B. This 4 part report is a re-post/ re-edit of a badly written and badly presented article I originally posted here in 2008, that examined Professor Judy Wood's hypothesis that Hurricane Erin had some sort of direct involvement  in the events of 9/11.

Introduction [and Report Overview]

My Intentions/Goals

This article is not intended as a character assassination of either Prof. Wood or her associates, but rather as an expose of the almost complete lack of utilization of a consistent, everyday, "run of the mill" scientific methodology for any of her "research" to date concerning the events of 9/11. 

However, for the discerning reader, this to be demonstrated, consistent, almost total lack of utilization of the scientific methodology by Prof. Wood might, by itself act as a "character assassination" of both her and her various "professional" associates, as it points directly to an complete lack of professionalism on her/their part. But this is unavoidable, in my estimation. Sorry, but that's just "the way the cookie crumbles" in the real world.  

Why Pick On 9/11 Research"Scientists"?

Because they are supposed to know better, that's why! [which makes it fun to do!].

If I raised the same criticisms about a non formally trained 9/11 researcher, they have an easy "out" : they simply don't know any better. 

On the other hand, all scientists are "supposed" to be trained in a very exact methodology which must be adhered to at all times if their "scientific" conclusions are to be at all  credible to you and I,  in the final analysis.

Pure Bunk?

Therefor, if it can be easily demonstrated that Prof. Wood, [or any other "trained scientist"] has steadfastly refused to comply with some of the simple but exacting rules of their very own profession, then it stands to reason that their 9/11 hypothesis is most likely pure "bunk".

I am by no means singling out Prof. Wood here.[Full disclosure: I used to be a "fan" of her work].

 I have previously tried to draw attention to  the exact same lack of application of the scientific methodology to the hypothesis of Richard Hall, another individual involved in 9/11 research who supposedly has a formal, scientific, educational background, but who consistently demonstrates that he has entirely forgotten most of it- assuming he was ever actually taught the fundamental principles of his "trade" in the first place!   

My overall goal is to draw attention to the fact that any/all of the accredited 9/11 researchers with some sort of "official" designation that denotes them as being formally trained in the the scientific methodology are either deliberately , or out of sheer ignorance, entirely ignoring their own training in order to reach their conclusions [or hypothesis, if you prefer] about exactly what happened on 9/11. 

Naming Names

Let me name names, to get this issue of the almost complete lack of employment of a consistent scientific  methodology in their published conclusions about 9/11 out in the open. 

It reads like a  virtual "whose who", or "big 3" of 9/11 researchers, in fact : 

[1] Prof. Judy Wood [+ all associates/promoters of her hypothesis], 

[2] Richard Hall [ + all associates/promoters of his hypothesis],

[3] Prof. Steven Jones,  [ +all associates/promoters of his hypothesis]. 

My Claim: Every one of these three, formally [i.e. University] trained, "scientists" involved in 9/11 "research" is studiously avoiding the application of the scientific methodology in at least one crucial area  of their own research. 

I Said: "At Least One Crucial Area"?, But For Prof. Judy Woods, It Is Not One "Crime" Against Science, But Three!

In the case of Prof. Wood, to be expanded on in this article, [and just as with Richard Hall], I demonstrate that Prof. Wood has not only , like her "scientific" associates, consistently ignored  the required scientific methodology in the exact same way as those associates in that one crucial area  [briefly explored in part 4 of this report], she has also apparently deliberately "misinterpreted" official data in order to push her own agenda, even subsequently altering a particular graph plot at her own site in order to try and hide what the original graph/data showed, and she has, all to conveniently, also entirely ignored  one entire crucial area of meteorological research in order to conveniently reach her conclusion that a hurricane [Erin] was directly involved in the events of 9/11. 

Article Guide/Overview: 

This article is in four separate parts 

 Part [1]: Introduction article guide /overview[you are here!] .

 Part [2]: Dr. Judy Wood  Crime #1":  

Dr. Wood's deliberate [or extremely sloppy- take your pick], entirely unscientific, total misrepresentations  of official data on Hurricane Erin's actual position and movements relative to New York City [NYC] on 9/11, in order  to support her  hypothesis [i.e. that Erin was an artificially controlled event whose energy was in some way being utilized to facilitate the demolition of the WTC complex via something called "Direct Energy Weapon {you know, "D.E.W."}, technology".] 

Part [3]:  Dr. Judy Wood Crime #2":

Dr. Wood's complete [and very convenient] entirely unscientific ignoring of a far larger [than Hurricane Erin] natural phenomena that was present on 9/11 that has a proven, historical, meteorological record for deflecting hurricanes away from the U.S coastline. 

 Part [4]: Dr. Judy Wood Crime #3 [A far more egregious "scientific methodology crime" than either of the first two listed. ] 

Dr. Woods [and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and others] total non -compliance with standard scientific protocol that alway requires the verification of the authenticity of any all "evidence" to be used to formulate a theory of what happened on 9/11. 

In this case, Wood and Reynolds have consistently [to this day, and just like other 9/11 research"scientists"Richard Hall, and Steven Jones, previously mentioned],  completely ignored the standard scientific procedural requirement  to fully verify the authenticity of any and all video and/or still photographic imagery  that they have studied/used to reach their so-called "scientific" conclusions to date. 


9/11 Scams: The Junk- Science of Dr. Judy Wood -Part 2 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to the traditional scientific methodology displayed by any and all of the "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

9/11, Professor Judy Wood, Directed Energy Weapons, and Hurricane Erin

Professor Judy Woods is a scientist somewhat famous  in 9/11 research circles for her claims that some type of Direct Energy Weapon [D.E.W] was responsible for the deliberate destruction of both of the WTC1 and WTC 2 towers and for the destruction of  other buildings within the 9 building World Trade Center. 

As such, she maintains her own website to publicize her research/claims, and has also recently published her book "Where Did The Towers Go".

One interesting facet her research has uncovered is the mostly uncontested fact that on the morning of 9/11 a very large hurricane named "Erin" was bearing down on New York City, only to seemingly inexplicably  turn sharply away to the right, further out to sea that morning. 

A Personal Admission - It's a Great Idea! 

If truth be told, I would have to admit that the idea of a large Hurricane having a direct involvement in the events of 9/11 had a lot of attraction for me personally- I often like unusual, counterintuitive ideas. 

So initially, Prof. Wood's claim was very attractive to me- it was, at the very least, an original idea that deserved consideration , I thought.

20  year + Inhabitant of The S.E., Coastal U.S.

I initially considered Dr Wood's claim that Hurricane Erin was directly involved in the events of 9/11 from the viewpoint of a 20 + year inhabitant of the S.E. coast of the U.S.[ i.e myself]. 

Hurricanes pass close by almost annually and so one naturally becomes hyper-aware of both the storms themselves, and of the types of natural conditions that are needed to prevent them from endangering my approximate area.

So in considering Dr Wood's claims, I was very interested to see if she had considered/allowed for the one natural event which both myself and any other experienced hurricane watcher knows will stop a hurricane dead in its tracks every time, and that would cause  significant changes in direction.  [She did not, and has not, to date- this is what I call attention to in part 3 of this article]. 

Busted! Judy Wood Crime # 1:  Professor Judy Wood's  Apparently Deliberate, 6 Hour Misrepresentation of Hurricane Erin's Official N.O.A.A. Time and Position Data.

Professor Judy Wood Radio Interviews:

 Regarding Erin's alleged position and movements on 9/11 according to Prof. Wood, I came across 2 archived radio interviews at Prof. Wood's site [both with Andrew Johnson on Jim Fetzer's "Dynamic duo" show.]

In These Radio Interviews, Dr. Wood Claims That  Erin Was Closest at Around 8am EDT on 9/11

In the first of those 2 interviews Dr Woods said that Erin was :

"....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. And then it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out"

Dr Wood made other, related comments/claims regarding Erin's position and behavior , including claims that Erin's behavior on 911, as revealed by her own graph [ fig 7 here ] exhibited classic signs of it being an artificially controlled environment.

Those radio interviews [ with Mr Andrew Johnson] can be heard here:

N.B. update 06/01/13]  Dr Wood's Two Distinct Claims About Hurricane Erin: 

Dr Wood's statement that Erin was "....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. And then it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out", contains two distinct claims:

Wood Claim [1]: Erin was  "....closest to NYC on the morning of 911, around 8am. "

Wood Claim [2]: "around 8am..... it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out".

N.B. The Purpose of Part Two of This Report Is To Directly Refute Those Two Claims.

Wood Claim [1]: 

FACT: Dr Wood's Own Site-Published N.O.A.A. Data Refutes Her  Claim That Erin's Eye Was Closest To NYC at around 8am on 9/11 :

Here below is a graph plot of Erin's track , taken from :

Fig.1 :  screen-shot of graphic plot from J. Wood's site, of Erin's path made from official N.O.A.A. data,  [N.B. This image was originally screen-grabbed from J. Wood's website in 2008.]

The bottom , blue line in  Fig. 1  above indicates the distance for Erin's eye from NYC, based on NOAA data. The lighter blue points along that line indicate times for those distance readings given in Eastern Daylight Time[ EDT] , taken every 6 hours.

Here is a close up of the relevant part of the bottom, blue line that represents position of Erin's eye relative to NYC on 9/11:

                    Fig.2 :Detail of fig. 1 [Click on illustration to enlarge]
[N.B. This image was originally screen-grabbed from J. Wood's website in 2008.]

Notice how the purple line above the blue plot line gives a 2am EDT 09/11/01 reading , that lines up with the 2nd. from farthest left, unlabeled light blue plot point on the blue line directly below it, making that 2nd. farthest left blue plot point below it also a 2 am EDT plot point. Directly to the right of it on the same blue line is the labelled, 8am EDT plot point.
[Readings were taken every 6 hours, as per standard N.O.A.A. storm protocol] :
Fig. 3 : [unlabelled blue plot point corresponds with 2am plot point on purple line directly above it. Question: why wasn't the 2am plot point ever labelled as such?]

Also notice the 2 upward steps in the blue line [look closely now!] between the unlabeled [i.e2am] light blue plot point and the 8am EDT plot point directly to its right:
                            Fig 4: Closeup/detail of fig. 3

Notice also how the 8am plot point itself is slightly higher than the [unlabeled] 2am plot point to its left, [indicating that Erin's eye was closer to NYC at 2am than at 8am], and how this blue plot line continues at an increasing upward angle as it moves to the right of the graph and as Erin's eye continued to move further away from NYC.

Obviously, the unlabelled 2am EDT  light blue data point on that blue line depicting Erin's eye's path is in actual fact the official closest point to NYC for Erin, as per N.O.A.A. data,  and not the 8 am EDT point claimed by Prof. Wood.

N.B.  Attention, FRAUD ! Dr. Woods 2012 [?] Image Update Deliberately Eliminates Those 2 Upward Steps In the Bottom Blue Plot Line, Replacing Them With One Single Downward Step!:

The above images [figs.3 + 4]  showing the slightly ascending ["2 step"] blue line showing Erin's position from 2am EDT to 8am EDT on 9/11 were "screen grabbed" by me in 2008 for the original article I posted 

For clarification here is the latest [March 2013] screen grab of the same image in question from the same page and illustration :

             [Fig 5 above: a 2013 screen grab/update of the same page from Prof. Woods site]

                                  Fig.6[a] above: 2008 screen-shot


                          Fig. 6[b] above: 2013 screen-shot

Fig.6 a&b : a close-up/comparison of the original 2008 screen-shot vs. the March 2013 screen-shot 

Notice how now, the original [circa 2008] in Fig. 6[a], above left, shows 2 upward steps depicting a movement away from NYC  for Erin that commenced around 2am EDT, while in the new [2013?] screen-shot, Fig. 6[b], those 2 upward steps in the blue line are no longer present, but have been replaced by a single downward step shortly after the unlabeled 2 am data point.  :-) 

However, even in this 2013 version of the  same graph, the exact same, unlabelled 2am EDT blue plot point [directly to the left of the 8am EDT blue plot point] as is present in the 2008 graphic [Fig.3] still appears to be closer to the bottom of the page than the labelled 8 am EDT plot point , meaning that Erin's eye was still, as per Dr. Wood's displayed NOAA data, closest to NYC at around 2 am EDT, [and not 8am as she claims].

"A Minor Point- An Insignificant Difference", You Say?

If you believe that what I show above is an insignificant [ a couple of millimeters ?] difference between the height above the baseline of 2am plot point versus the 8am one, all I can tell you is that it is inevitable that it looks this way, given the format within which the data is presented.

Regardless, my Fig. 6[b] shows a clear difference in height above the graph baseline.

Next Up, A Refutation of Wood Claim [2]: 

[Reminder of Wood claim [2]:"around 8am..... it just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out".]

A  Far Better View of Erin's Actual Path : An Overhead [Satellite] Depiction

In order to check Dr. Wood's claim [2], the best view for actual position would be shown in a pictorial that plots NOAA data for actual times and positions looking down on Erin's path, as if from a satellite, or high-flying aircraft directly above it.

Best Overhead Plot For Hurricane Erin Movement's?

I found that the best, clearest  plot of Erin's actual path,  based on the official NOAA data,  is here.

Breaking! :The Animated Java Plot/ Screen Shot Below From That Site [linked above] Shows That Erin Actually Started It's Move Away From NYC  at Around 2am On 09/11/01, Not At 8am, As Wood Claims ! 

         Fig. 7 , above: Hurricane Erin position 2am EDT 09/11/01

Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

Fig.7[a] above: [cropped enlargement of Fig. 5]: Hurricane Erin position 2am EDT 09/11/01

Fig. 8 above:Hurricane Erin position 8 am 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right, away from NYC, has already happened ].

Animated Hurricane Erin Java  plot here.

Fig. 8[a] above:enlarged crop of Fig. 8: Hurricane Erin position 8 am EDT 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right , away from NYC, has already happened ] 

Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

              Fig. 8[b] above: cropped enlargement of Fig. 8[a]: Hurricane Erin position 8 am 09/11/01 [N.B. Erin's curve to right , away from NYC, has already happened] 
             Fig 9: Erin's position as of 2pm , 09/11/01

Fig. 9[a] [cropped enlargement of Fig.9Hurricane Erin position 2pm EDT 09/11/01  

             Animated Hurricane Erin Java plot here. 

Q: Was Erin "Still": "A Controlled Environment" As Prof. Wood Claims?

  "Well O.K." you  might say, "Professor Wood was off on her claim about Erin's position by 6 hours according to the official data, but that does not mean that she is wrong about it being an artificially controlled environment". 
Well first of all, I would advise you to be extremely wary of the claims of someone [anyone, even a "Professor", with "credentials" no less!], who has already been shown to have blatantly misrepresented the official  data regarding this hurricanes position on 9/11, in order for it to bolster/fit their grand 9/11 theory. [Not that I'm a big fan of "official" data, however, in this case its all we have to go on].   

But if that's not enough "evidence" for you, or sufficient grounds for suspicion of her claim that Erin was an "artificially controlled environment", then part three of this analysis may be of interest to you, as it shows how, in order to formulate her grand "hypothesis",  this particular "Dr.", or "Professor" with society's formal "credentials"has also entirely ignored consideration of  the on-record 9/11 presence of a far larger [than Hurricane Erin]  natural phenomena in the continental US; a natural phenomena which, furthermore, has a proven historical record for deflecting hurricanes away from the US coast line. 


9/11 Scams: The Junk- Science of Dr. Judy Wood - Part 3 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to the traditional scientific methodology displayed by any and all of the "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

Was There A Natural Phenomenon Present On 9/11 That Fully Explains Hurricane Erin's Movements on 9/11? 

So enough of Prof. Wood's 6 hour "misrepresentation" of Erin's official time/position data. 

I believe that there is a far more serious omission of information regarding Dr Wood's claim that Erin was artificially controlled on 9/11.

As I said in my introduction, Dr Woods' claims about Erin originally interested me because I live on the SE coast of the US where hurricanes hit or pass by fairly frequently, and have lived here for 20+ years, and so have a fair amount of experience with and interest in the need to track hurricanes accurately.

Another,  Directly Related Natural Phenomena Occurrence on 9/11?

I was fairly sure [from memory] of one very important [for hurricane trackers] natural occurrence influencing the weather on the East coast that day , and was interested to see whether or not Dr Wood had considered it/ included it or accounted for it in her research. To date, it seems she has completely ignored it, out of ignorance of the natural phenomena itself, or with deliberate intent.

What Important Naturally Occurring Phenomena Was Omitted From Dr Wood's Research on Erin's Movements?

Five words: "eastward traveling, humongous cold front"!

That is, a large mass of very cold [arctic], dry air [i.e. a high pressure system] moving in the opposite direction to the hurricane[ i.e. West to East].

Historically, A Regular, Fall U.S. Weather Pattern

In the US in the fall, these large masses of high pressure, cold dry air typically originate over the North Pole and Western Canada, and then spill down East of the Rocky mountains and usually move West to East across the US, often traversing the entire continent in a few days as they typically reach further and further South while traveling Eastward.

This pattern of cold air movement is a regular part of the annual fall weather scenario for the continental US.

Check For Yourself

You can review the regularity of this September through October weather pattern for yourself for any year 2001- through '13 here. 

These very large masses of cold air are also common in the spring as well. Here, for example, is a recent [April 1st, 2013- as I revise this article], weather chart of  a very large West to East moving U.S. cold front [n.b. no hurricane present at this time] : 
Fig. 1 A screen shot from the National Weather archives showing an April 1st 2013 cold front that has been traveling from West to East across the U.S.

Fact: Any Experienced Hurricane Watcher Knows About The Effect on Hurricane Systems of Large, Fast Moving Masses of Very Cold Air!

The plain truth is  that any fairly intelligent , experienced weather watcher [e.g. coastal inhabitants of SE US and the gulf regions], knows just through prior personal experience that a large, steadily moving mass of high pressure, cooler dry air traveling West to East in the US will start to influence the  speed and direction of any hurricane approaching the Eastern US seaboard from the East [i.e. traveling approximately East to West towards the East coast of the US] sooner or later - and in fact , that the hurricane will always be deflected away from the cold front as long as it [the cold dry air] continues to advance Eastward.

Was a Large Mass of West To East - Moving, Very Cold Air Present on 9/11?

As a matter of fact, yes. And there was even another one that immediately preceded it:
Fig. 2 Archive For 09/04/01 [click on image to enlarge]

If you take a look at the national weather archives starting 09/04/01 above, you will see a large mass of cold air starting to form in Western Canada. This is the mass we will be following [ direction, development ] over the next few days, through am 09/11/01. Also notice 2 other high pressure areas and cold fronts to the East of the most westerly one we will be mostly watching.

Fig.3 Archive For 09/05/01 [click on image to enlarge]

Now take a look at the map for the next day 09/05/01 above, and you see that the most Westerly cold air mass over Canada has straightened out a little and now runs at an approximate 20 degree angle upwards across Canada. Meanwhile, another large mass of cold air is pushing South down the East coast. [but its the most Westerly cold front you need to watch!].

                Fig.4 Archive For 09/06/01[click on image to enlarge]
Next, above is the archive map for 09/06/01. You can see that the cold front that started high up and to the West has now spilled down East of the rockies into the US and has started to move Eastward, pushing a large mass of moist, warm air [outlined in yellow] ahead of it. Meanwhile the other mass of cold air already over the East coast has pushed down and offshore. [This other front would probably have already been influencing Erin's speed and direction to some degree.]
         Fig 5 Archive For 09/07/01[click on image to enlarge]

Above is the archive for 09/07/01. Here we see the huge mass of cold air has extended both Eastwards and further South, and that the warmer moist air [low pressure,large yellow outline + smaller red outline for severe thunderstorms] being pushed ahead of it is has increased in size as well .
N.B. Archives For the Next Two Days [09/08/01 and 09/09/01] Are Missing From Source Site.

Unfortunately the archives for the next 2 days [8th and 9th] are missing from the archives and so we must now skip ahead to the archive for 09/10/01.
[you can check availability for yourself at: ]

                       Fig. 6  Archive For 09/10/01[click on image to enlarge]

This one [above] dramatically shows how far, and how fast this HUGE air mass had traveled over the previous two days, and how deep [i.e how far South], it had penetrated by the 10th . As you can see, on the morning of 09/10/01[i.e.about 24 hours prior to the events of 911] it extended all the way up the Eastern seaboard into Canada , and all the way down into the Gulf of Mexico and beyond, and that it at this point covered most of the US , East to West.

Two Important Questions For You

At this point , I have 2 questions for you :

Q. [1]:  Based on prior performance as seen in the illustrations above, approximately where do you think this huge mass of cold dry, high pressure air was going to be the very next day, on the morning of 911? Please consider both its prior observed speed, and prior direction.

Q.[2] : What do you think such a vast mass of cold dry air will do to a hurricane trying to move in almost the exact opposite direction, when "push comes to shove" given how it [i.e the huge cold front] is already seen to be treating the warm, moist air just in front of it?.

As I said before, any reasonably intelligent hurricane watcher knows for a fact that given a continuation of the cold air mass' direction , that in this scenario it is hurricane Erin that would have to give way, as other hurricanes preceding it always have done under similar circumstances, and as other hurricanes in the future always will. It is inevitable.

And Don't Forget The Other, Previous Large Cold Air Mass- a Natural "Double Whammy"

And , don't forget that Erin more than likely had already been somewhat influenced [i.e. slowed, changed direction] by the cold air mass that immediately preceded the even larger cold air mass that followed,and which we have mostly concentrated on here.[Nature's equivalent of a left jab followed by a knockout, right cross?]

                        Fig. 7  09/11/01 Archive[click on image to enlarge]

So here we are on the morning of 911. notice that the cold air mass has now moved entirely offshore from North Carolina on up. {My only problem with this archive is that it does not show the blue line extending southwards into South Carolina and Georgia [where I live] when I know for a fact that we experienced exactly the same conditions, that morning as the majority of the East coast i.e. cold dry air, crystal clear blue skies].

My Conclusion: Erin's Directional Change Was an Entirely  Natural Occurrence -Not an Artificially Controlled Event

It seems logical to me that Erin's directional change is very easy to explain - it was changed via a very powerful natural phenomena, that is, an extremely large mass of cold dry air steadily moving from West to East, and not by any mysterious, artificial means that were somehow directly related to the deliberate demolition of WTC 1 and 2, as Dr Wood has claimed.

For myself, and others who watch hurricanes closely merely because of survival instincts, there is absolutely no mystery about Erin's change in direction from predominantly NNE to NNW during the early morning [around 2am] of 09/11/01; any intelligent east coast inhabitant, and more importantly, any weather professional or even a lowly weather bureaucrat could reasonably conclude well ahead of time, and with almost no shadow of a doubt, exactly how Erin would perform on the morning of 9/11.

Conclusion: Erin - An Assured Fate 

As Dr Wood's own data shows [fig.7, in part 2 above], and as the NOAA data displayed in this java plot reveals at around 2 am on the morning of 09/11/01 Erin's  assured fate was confirmed as, after coming to an almost complete stop in the cooler waters of the NE, and after also being slowed/ affected by  previous, successive cold fronts,  it was forced/bounced/deflected away from NYC in a new NNE direction [a 45 degree change in direction ], by a much larger, still steadily advancing, much colder, much dryer naturally-occurring, high pressure air system, which had over the 6 previous days, made its way across almost the entire continental US from West to East.

End of part 3 .  Part 4 of"9/11 Scams: The Junk- Science of Dr. Judy Wood"

N.B. Update Commentary 06/01/13: In the comments section [below], Anon. said :

"You stated that, “To date, it seems she [Wood] has completely ignored it, [the cold front] out of ignorance of the natural phenomena itself, or with deliberate intent.”

"I refer you to her book, page 399. Here’s what Wood had to say about the cold front:"

“At the same time, 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? How sure could they have been that the storm wouldn’t pose a serious threat to “Cape Cod? If Erin had stalled a little bit longer where it was, storm surges would have flooded JFK and LaGuardia airports as well as Cape Cod. Not only is New York City near sea level, but so is most of Long Island. Evacuation from these areas would be a mammoth undertaking and could not be organized at a moment’s notice – and yet the public remained uninformed.” ". 

So Prof. Wood has now devoted one whole paragraph to the consideration of this cold front in her book :-) . Whoop de do!  

But still, no serious examination/consideration of the phenomena as a possible explanation for Erin's movements has ever been entertained by Wood, either in her book, nor in the 10 web pages devoted to Erin at her website [I just checked today] - and, as I understand it,[I have not read the book], certainly no graphics in the book illustrating the progression of this truly massive front from West to East, as I have laid out above. 

 An Afterthought

Obviously, this mention of the cold front in the book is merely an afterthought on her part, possibly induced by my original 2008 article, nothing more. She has never to date considered the front as a possible explanation before she reached her "scientific conclusions" regarding Erin's movement on 9/11, nor seriously explored the possibility. Some scientist!

Regards, onebornfree.

9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood -Part 4 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to the traditional scientific methodology displayed by any and all of the "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

In Retrospect, I Was Far Too Kind to Professor Wood

On re-reviewing my original 2008 article,  it is abundantly clear to me that at the time I had been far too kind to Professor Wood.

Forgetting, for the moment, the "crimes" previously exposed in parts 2 and 3 of this current report, these days it sticks out  to me "like a sore thumb" that she has, at the same time, shown a complete disregard for basic, run-of-the-mill,  "par for the course" scientific methodology with regard to the requirement for the verification of the authenticity of any/all photographic "evidence" used to support her D.E.W. / Erin hypothesis to date. 

No Concerted Photographic or Video Authentication Procedure Was Ever Attempted by Prof. Wood -[Nor by any other 9/11 researcher with "scientific" credentials.]

As well as the misrepresentations  and blatant omissions that I have drawn attention to in parts 2 and 3 of this report, and no differently from the other  "scientific" 9/11 researchers with an apparent formal scientific education and resulting credentials [e.g. Steven Jones  and Richard Hall ] , Prof. Wood has never made any serious, concerted effort  to  verify the authenticity of any of the videos or photos she has used as evidentiary proofs for her hypothesis, either on her website , or in her latest book .

The only step she apparently took was some sort of name-check verification procedure she reportedly took with regard  to certain alleged authors of  photographs she uses as "evidence" to support her hypothesis in her book .

Dr. Judy Wood- Bad Scientist, or Charlatan?

The question of the authenticity of any photographs or videos she has used to "prove" her hypothesis is, as far as I can see, and very conveniently, never seriously raised, making Ms Wood either a very bad "scientist" or a charlatan - as with Prof. S. Jones and R. Hall, I'm not sure which - nor do I really care which it in fact  is.

"Cloud-Cuckoo Land"? You? Anybody?
 And if you are a non scientist yourself who happens to agree with Prof. Woods "research" "findings" to date, or  with those of esteemed "scientist" Steven Jones, or  perhaps esteemed "scientist"  Richard Hall, for example, and you think that its perfectly "O.K."  for these persons to  entirely ignore standard scientific methodology [in this case involving the verification of any/all imagery used as a "proof", in order to formulate some sort of alleged hypothesis of theirs], then you, my friend, are simply living in "Cloud-Cuckoo Land"! [Just like the "scientists" themselves.] 

Two More Small Examples of The Use of Non-Authenticated Imagery by Dr. Wood [To add to the image displayed  at the top of part 1 of this report]: 

At her website Prof. Wood has the following section [co-authored by her "aider and abettor" Dr. Morgan Reynolds - another guy with credentials that are somehow supposed to make him  more knowledgeable/trustworthy]: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?,  which displays these two famous 9/11  tower collapse photographs and supporting text as shown, as definitive "proof" positive that Prof. Steven Jones is incorrect in his conclusion that the demolition of the WTC complex was achieved via thermite or via thermate  [I forget which:-)], and that "therefor" Direct Energy Weapons [D.E.W.] "must" have been used instead :

However, neither Wood or Reynolds  have ever  seriously tried to definitively verify the actual authenticity of either of these two photographs [nor of any others they use, nor of any of the videos depicting tower collapses etc.] 

The Ultimate Irony
Ironically enough, [but also very predictably], Prof. Jones himself has never questioned the authenticity of those two photos either, nor of any other similar photos, nor of any of the collapse videos he uses to justify his own equally unprovable hypothesis of tower demolition methodology [i.e. thermite/thermate or whatever].

My Point [Dear Reader] Is : It Does Not Even Matter If You Believe These Two Photos Are Real, or Fake!
Full disclosure: For numerous reasons, I believe they are both provable fakes [i.e. 100% digitally created computer fabrications], but I am not going to try to demonstrate, or "prove" that  to you here within this report. Whether they are fake or not is besides the point; my point here in this report  is simply that regardless of whether you or I currently think that these photos are real or fake, it is in no way a part of the genuine, truth-seeking scientists methodology to automatically assume that they are in fact genuine, and to then use them as "evidence" to bolster one's position, which is exactly what Prof. Wood and Dr. Reynolds have done here [and do repeatedly, elsewhere with regard to all other 9/11 photos and videos]. 

Furthermore, and as I have previously tried to make clear/draw attention to, this is just one tiny example of  exactly the same behaviour consistently exhibited by every single one of the other [previously named]"scientists" involved in  "serious" 9/11 "research", with regard to absolutely every single video/and or photograph that they have used to date as "proof" of their own particular hypothesis, time after time, day after day, over and over and over again,  for  years!

Conclusion: Hogwash!

None of the [listed] name scientists involved in "serious" 9/11 research are utilizing anything close to standard, "run of the mill" "boiler-plate" scientific methodology with regards to imagery verification for any of the imagery they have to date used to support their own theory of what happened on 9/11.

 Which most likely makes all of their purported proven theories to date pure HOGWASH!

In fact, very few people have ever bothered with a standard scientific methodology of evidence verification regarding any/all 9/11 images, one I know of is actually a non-scientist [or at least non formally trained]; a Mr Simon Shack, whose short film series "September Clues" examines the imagery issue in detail, and whose website, goes into far more detailed analysis [than does his movie] of both  the official mainstream media 9/11archives, and of the thousands of amateur and professional videos and still photographs  purporting to be genuine photographic accounts of events that day.

[Another researcher that I am aware of who has also bothered to very closely analyze at least some of the original 9/11 media footage plus the 100's of post 9/11 additions to that imagery pool both "amateur" and "professional"[unlike Wood, Hall or Jones] and who, interestingly enough, appears to have an actual scientific [or at least engineering], background, is "Stilldiggin", but he/she appears to have gotten out of the research spotlight since  around 2007 or so.] 

There may be others who have also been honest enough to go back and closely review all of the original imagery before trying to advance any theory of what did or did not happen on 9/11that I have not mentioned- my apologies if you are reading this and feel left out.

Afterword: My "Official" Retraction of Prof. Wood's Hypothesis:

In 2008 I wrote :"However, disregarding her conclusions about Erin, to this day I remain very open to the idea that direct energy weapons [D.E.W.] may well have brought down the 2 towers. Based on my limited knowledge, and given all of the many strange anomalies, her proposal _still_ makes the most sense to date." 

Because All of The Collapse Imagery Was Faked, We Don't/ Cannot Know For Certain What Was Used To Demolish The WTC Complex [and trying to establish what did or did not is an irrelevant distraction in any case.]

Therefor, it is impossible to know exactly what was used to demolish the towers and the rest of the WTC complex -all we can know for certain is that they were there on 9/10, but by close of day on 9/11 all buildings had apparently been flattened. Obviously they were demolished deliberately; just as obviously fires from planes, or even missiles [if either actually hit the towers in real life], are/were incapable of bringing 500,000 ton 1300 ft tall buildings made of steel and concrete down- we just cannot be sure exactly how.[ For myself , standard, bottom-up demolition off camera, possibly behind standard military smoke screens makes the most logical sense at the present time, although I have no proof of that actually being the case.] 

Besides, It's  All Incidental- My Main "Thrust" In This Report Is : 
1] a refutation [in parts 2 and 3 of this report], via her own published data, [a part of which which she has apparently deliberately altered at some point in time between late 2008 and April 2013 in order to try to bolster her hypothesis], of her specific proposal of the direct involvement of Hurricane Erin in the events of 9/11;  a tactic which besides displaying intellectual dishonesty on her part in order to "prove" her unsubstantiated claim,  also exhibits a complete ignorance of both hurricanes, and of the related weather systems that are fully capable of naturally deflecting them away from a coastline they would otherwise endanger; meteorological knowledge which, furthermore, is just standard everyday knowledge for any halfway intelligent person who has lived for any length of time on a hurricane-prone coastline, such as the S.E. coast of the U.S.

2] Far more importantly: Prof. Wood's and others almost complete lack of adherence to standard scientific methodology/protocol regarding video/photographic authentication procedures which were [and are to this day] then used as "proof" of whatever takes their fancy. [Addressed in part 4 of this report]

Prof. Judy Wood- Bad Scientist, or Charlatan? Your Verdict? 

If you have read, and agree with my assessment of  the science [ or lack thereof] of Prof. Judy Wood, as outlined  here, then [maybe] you have to consider making a decision regarding hers [and the other named "scientists" who have consistently acted in the exact same way as Prof. Wood, at least with regard to their similar, complete lack of sustained imagery verification procedures ], real motivations in all of this: is she [and those other named "scientists"], merely a terrible scientist who is unfamiliar with the basic scientific methodology and the absolute necessity and importance of closely adhering to it, if any subsequently developed hypothesis is to be of any credibility whatsoever, or, on the other hand, is something more nefarious going down here; is she another 9/11 charlatan; that is, a person whose paid job is to deliberately obfuscate and lead people away from the truth about what really did and did not happen on September 11th. 2001 ? 

It's your mind, therefor its your call. Choose wisely, my friend.

Regards, obf.
Onebornfree's other blogs: 

The Freedom NetworkAn International, non-political, leaderless informational exchange network of individuals who seek more personal freedom in an unfree world.]