[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
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?
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!
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 septemberclues.info, 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."
To clarify, [for what it's worth], I no longer believe that Prof. Wood's Direct Energy Weapon [D.E.W.] theory "makes the most sense", simply because her hypothesis is based almost 100% on the analysis of what is, as Simon Shack has relentlessly demonstrated, in the final analysis, fake, pre-fabricated , 100% computer generated imagery of the twin towers collapsing, plus photographic "stills" taken either from the exact same faked footage, or by an alleged government [i.e. F.E.M.A.] or "amateur" photographer.
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.]
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]
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 Network[ An International, non-political, leaderless informational exchange
network of individuals who seek more personal freedom in an unfree
world.]
I am an expert in ", if i see it ,i might believe it . All this scientific stuff is very interesting ,; i appreciate all the work anyone does in this field , so you have my congratulations your challenge to anyone and everyone . You m,ay have to employ a group of scientists ,architects ? to demonstrate all the different Logical ? means that individuals present . Sounds like a one week seminar or something . My point is 9-11-2001 is soon to be 12 years behind us .No one is even close to getting thru to the 99% of those who still believe the Gov. version . Thank you again for your work , Seems like everyone is just critical of everyone's personal view . Checkmate ?
ReplyDeleteYou make the statement:
ReplyDelete“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 .”
You obviously cannot make that statement based on first hand experience or knowledge. You are not a part of Dr. Wood’s research efforts, and therefore do not know what she actually did or did not do with regards to photographic selection. There are 500 figures in her book. Many of them are photographs. The source for each one is cited directly under the photo or referenced by a footnote that identifies the source. To me, Wood seems to have conducted and presented her research with integrity and a good deal of courage. I personally believe that she would not use a photograph or any source of data if she had a question as to its authenticity.
Since you have no direct knowledge, I assume then that you make such a claim based on your statement:
“…I no longer believe that Prof. Wood’s Direct Energy Weapon theory makes the most sense, simply because her hypothesis is based almost 100% on the analysis of what is, as Simon Shack has relentlessly demonstrated, in the final analysis, fake, prefabricated, 100% computer generated imagery of the twin towers collapsing, plus photographic”stills” taken either from the exact same faked footage, or by an alleged government [i.e.F.E.M.A.] or “amateur” photographer”.
I will address your statement shortly, but I first want to say that I am familiar with Simon Shack’s work. I agree with him that there was extensive video fakery, media manipulation and complicity on 9/11. There were no planes. EVERY video or still photo of a “plane” crashing into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or the field in Shanksville is a fabrication. Shack does a good job of presenting the many anomalies and mistakes that show these videos to be CGI.
However, the main reason I know that all videos/stills of planes crashing into any of the 4 locations are fakes is not because Shack showed them to be. It is rather that every scenario where “planes” are supposedly used is physically impossible. There are many reasons why this is so – the laws of physics being the most significant. Any type of “evidence” that would appear to indicate otherwise is simply incorrect - either through innocent mistake, as in some eye witness accounts (well known to be some of the most unreliable type of evidence), poor thinking (for any number of reasons) or willful fabrication with intent to deceive (which again, Shack has done a good job of exposing).
In addition, there is a total lack of any authentic, genuine physical evidence that proves beyond a doubt that passenger planes were used (which if fact, has to be the case since the plane videos are hoaxes). All of the reasons why this is the truth have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and are readily accessible to anyone who is willing to take the time to look. It seems that you would agree with this, yes?
Therefore, I discount any part of a 9/11 theory of what happened that includes the use of passenger jets. That’s not to say that some other parts of a particular theory may have merit. It is clear to me that something else made holes in the towers and the Pentagon – almost certainly missiles and preset explosives, as Shack proposes. And obviously something else was responsible for completely or partially destroying all seven, WTC buildings. More on that later.
I believe that you must be using thinking similar to mine regarding videos of “planes”. You dismiss any 9/11 explanation that relies on videos of the event because you believe them all to be fake. Therefore, you believe that whoever is espousing that theory cannot be authenticating their evidence, thus being unscientific at best – criminal at worst. Is this about right? - TEL
To be continued. I have maxed out the word limit.
1st Continuation from previous entry by TEL
ReplyDeleteRegarding the “destruction” videos – I think Shack accurately points out some problems with some of the tower destruction photography. However, unlike the “plane” photography, I don’t find Shack’s evidence compelling enough to conclude that ALL of the video and still photos depicting the destruction of the towers is as you say, “fake, prefabricated, 100% computer generated imagery.”
One of the main reasons I say this is because, unlike the “plane” videos, which are physically impossible, it is physically possible for the twin towers to “go away”. They in fact did go away. And unlike the plane hoaxes, which can’t by definition leave any hard, physical evidence, the destruction of the Twin Towers left plenty of hard, physical evidence. Therefore, if there are any authentic videos/still photos of the destruction they should show destruction that results in the physical evidence. At a minimum that physical evidence includes, but is certainly not limited to:
- Seismological data that shows a complete destruction time of 8-10 seconds for each tower.
- Seismological data that shows a magnitude dramatically smaller than one would expect when a 500,000 ton, quarter-mile tall building slams into the ground
- The basement under the towers and the bathtub that are virtually intact.
- A debris pile that is dramatically smaller than one would expect when a 500,000 ton, quarter-mile tall building falls to the ground
- An absence of any office furniture, file cabinets, equipment, toilets, etc.
- A thick layer of extremely fine dust coating all of lower Manhattan.
For a destruction event to conform to that physical evidence, the majority of the material in the tower must have been turned to dust in mid-air. There is no other explanation that fits the evidence. This is precisely what the video of the destruction of the towers shows – the vast majority of building material was “dustified”, to use Wood’s verb, before it hit the ground.
To be continued: I maxed out the word limit again. - TEL
Second continuation from previous entry by TEL
ReplyDeleteObviously, this is the first time that the world has ever seen this type of destruction. What is the mechanism? Any form of conventional demolition does not result in the physical evidence. I believe that Wood supplies the only logical answer – some form of directed energy weapon combined with missiles and preset, precisely timed.
There is no question that DEW weapons have been under development for a long time – probably on the order of 60 years and funded by trillions of top-secret, black budget dollars. The effects of directed energy and various field effects have been demonstrated on a laboratory scale by John Hutchinson. Wood devotes many pages in her book to this subject. Virtually all of the physical evidence of the destruction of the WTC complex, including, all of the unusual anomalies –dustification of materials, fuming, light without heat, radical bending of steel, toasted cars and so forth, can be produced using directed energy/field effects technology.
In conclusion, the truth is that Dr. Wood:
- Did not alter the NOAA graph as you allege.
- Was accurate in her statement that Hurricane Erin was closest to NYC around 8:00am
- Was aware of the cold front, and did acknowledge that it would effect the direction of Hurricane Erin.
- Does thoroughly document the sources of her photographs/videos and I believe uses them in good faith. I have seen nothing to think otherwise.
- Uses “destruction” videos that show a destructive event that would produce the physical evidence that was in fact left by that destruction and are therefore most likely authentic.
- Has shown how DEW can cause all of the highly unusual results of the destruction.
I think in all fairness, that if you are going to hold Wood’s feet to the fire on her research and theories, that you should make your case on why you think the building destruction videos are fabrications. In addition, I would be interested in hearing why you believe that as you say, “standard, bottom-up demolition off camera possibly behind standard military smoke screens” makes the most sense to you. You say you have no proof. Then, what leads you to this conclusion? I am open to other possibilities, but it has to fit ALL of the evidence. After researching as many other possibilities as I can find, at his point, I find Wood’s research and explanation the most valid.
Thanks for reading my comments. Again, I hope you will leave them up. - TEL
actually Dr. Judy woods did Alter the NOAA data. She withdrew it from her website because of a failed discussion via skype where she was presented with the data and hers was inconsistent with physical evidence collected by multiple qualified meteorologist. A feild that Dr. Judy Woods dose not hold any expertise. Her photos of Vehicles lack a chain of handling that means time and date, where they were taken at physically, She acknowledged in court that the cars had been moved to the locations where they were photographed and it was in her speculation/observation she was reporting in her book
ReplyDeletealso since she could not prove her case in court and has been proven to use speculative fiction as fact and you assume she has expertise in the areas she claims to have when in fact most of the research she claims to is in fact a friend of hers so she is not even the primary researcher but a talking head utilized for false appeal to authority In talking to her and to Dr. James Feltzer Neither are qualified to make the statements they do. They lack the basic understanding of EMP or EMF propagation in the use of high energy weaponry nor do they look at the physical cause of the WTC1 and 2 collapse after being impacted by the hijacked jets. The no plane theory was started by webfairy and by dick Eastman all of which have admitted that no plane hoax is exactly that a scam Dick Eastman created it to generate money for his daughter's schooling. Ther is enough physical evidence planes hit the towers and were a causation of secondary initiators that caused the collapses in both towers. WTC 1 and 2 both exterior may be similar but Physically are different when it comes to floor lay out and interior structure physical layout. They reacted some what differently to the impacts of Aircraft that were outside of the technical specifications of what the impact study that the buildings were designed to resist. Each collapse is an individual event. Therefore they have different initiators although the primary is floor failure and that leads to connections between impact floors and supports. This failure also was Present in other structures damaged then repaired. The Marriott hotel was a primary example of this reinforcement after the failed 93 attack
ReplyDeleteDr. Judy woods mentions websites she took the photos from that is secondary not primary source meaning well her search was Google based not actutally her data.
ReplyDeleteSo she not only does not follow academic standards in her reporting of data she fails in forensics of chain of handling of evidence and of the photos to link back to physical source. She removed Infowars and Alex Jones as he actually came out and stated the cars she was making speculations about had been moved along with an ambulance displayed that had been moved out of an underground parking structure. Theses inconsistancies are common place in all 911truth research and render their findings speculative fiction.