In Retrospect, I Was 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.
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.]
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!
Which most likely makes all of their purported proven theories to date pure HOGWASH!
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.]
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]