Sunday, April 7, 2013

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 : http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html

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. 

END OF PART 2








28 comments:

  1. The book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph. D., is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page book about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood's book has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of "9/11 Truthers" verses "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.

    It wasn't poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.

    The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or "belief". Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood's research and collection of evidence as compiled in her book the truth is known, so there is no need to "Re-investigate 9/11". If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her book. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people? This isn't about beliefs, it is about evidence.

    Now those that have read her book know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up?

    On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining 'why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,' the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood's disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.

    Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Im sorry Mr Goldstein, but you appear to b so infatuated with Ms Wood's "research" that you have managed to completely miss the point of my article, which is: this particular "scientists" complete disregard for basic, run of the mill scientific methodology, which always requires the pre-verification of the authenticity of any and all evidence used to formulate a hypothesis _ before_ it can be safely used to formulate that hypothesis.

    With regard to all videos /photographs she has used, either at her website, or in her book, this has clearly not been done.

    Furthermore, she has misrepresented the official N.O.A.A. data to "prove" her contention that hurricane Erin was closest to NYC at 8am EDT on 9/11, when the data and supporting Java plots showing Erin's movements clearly show that Erin was closet to NYC at 2am.

    Regards , obf

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wood has a 16-page chapter on Hurricane Erin. On page 409-410 she concludes:

    “Unquestionably, more data is needed before a conclusion could be made that magnetic activity caused course-change, or that both course-change and magnetic activity are both the result of something else, or that it is all just a coincidence. On the other hand, the use of directed energy technology on the huge scale of its use during 9/11 might very well have had weather-altering effects. Such technology might have been able to draw upon the vast energies and field effects of the enormous Tesla Coil known as Hurricane Erin. Thoughts of this kind are justified, even necessitated, by the fact of Erin’s having been treated as a carefully kept secret, much like a state secret.”

    To state that Wood has claimed anything other than the above with regard to Hurricane Erin misrepresents her work. I’m afraid you have done so a number of times. Honestly now, wouldn’t you agree?

    I believe her last sentence is critical. I was not aware of Hurricane Erin until I read it in her book. On the ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX morning weather reports of 9/11, the presence of Hurricane Erin was not even shown on any of their green-screen weather maps. The space where it should have been indicated was blank. See pages 400 and 401 WDTTG. FOX and CBS briefly mentioned a hurricane and only FOX mentioned in by name. You obviously believe that the media was complicit it perpetrating the 9/11 hoax and has been anything but forthright. This is another good example, don’t you think? Their omission is very suspect.

    Regarding when Hurricane Erin was closest to NYC – I listened to the 2 interviews between Johnson and Wood that you cited. You quoted Wood exactly in the first interview. She did say that the hurricane was closest to NYC “around 8:00”. In the second interview she did not mention anything at all about time.

    You are correct. On the NOAA graph that displays relative distance from the hurricane to NYC, the two, blue, data points in question – the one representing the relative distance from NYC at 2:00AM on 9/11 and the one representing the distance at 8:00AM – are in the same location on the graph the screen shot you took in 2008 and the one you took in 2013. The NOAA graph is included as Figure 413, page 398, and the data point locations are unchanged. However, in her book the connecting line between the dots is continuous and smooth instead of segmented. This is simply a matter of better graphics being used in the book. Therefore, to claim that Wood has deliberately altered this graph is untrue. She did not. The data points remain in identical locations in all three publications of the graph.

    However, I do agree with you that the format of the NOAA graph is unsatisfactory for determining the distance of the hurricane from NYC at a given time. The definitive way to determine this is with geographical coordinates. Fortunately, these coordinates are supplied on the satellite tracking view you provided:

    On 9/11 at 2:00AM the hurricane was located 36.9N, 65.9W
    On 9/11 at 8:00AM the hurricane was located 37.4N, 65.6W

    The question is, how far are each of these locations from NYC? This is easy to determine. The coordinates for NYC are 40.7N, 74.0W. I went to: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gccalc.shtml, a distance calculator that calculates the distance between any two geographical points on earth. You just have to type in the coordinates of each location. It turns out that at 2:00AM on 9/11 the hurricane was 442 nautical miles from NYC. At 8:00 AM on 9/11 the hurricane was 438 miles from NYC – 4 miles closer. Therefore, to state that Wood willfully misrepresented the time and location of Hurricane Erin by 6 hours is untrue. Hurricane Erin was, in fact, 4 hours closer at 8:00am than 2:00am. But, is that even important? I don’t think so. – TEL

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry - On second to last line I obviously meant to write 4 "miles" closer - not "4 hours".
    TEL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It makes no difference. My enlargement of Dr. Wood's graph [i.e.Fig. 6 [b]] clearly shows that the [unlabeled by Wood] 2am NOAA data point is closer to the bottom of the graph than the 8am plot point to its right, meaning that according to the NOAA data she used, Erin was closer to NYC at 2 am, _not_ 8 am as Wood claims.

      And my fig. 8[a] shows that Erin had turned away to the right well before 8 am, and so must have slowed to an almost complete stop then [at around 2am in fact]; when Wood claims it came to an [almost ]complete stop at around 8am and _then_ turned away from NYC.

      Regards,onebornfree.

      Delete
  5. Thank you for your thoughtful comments Anon., I will respond time permitting.

    You say" However, I do agree with you that the format of the NOAA graph is unsatisfactory for determining the distance of the hurricane from NYC at a given time. The definitive way to determine this is with geographical coordinates."

    You seem to misunderstand. My point about the graph [fig.1 being unsatisfactory was in reference to the fact that the distances of Erin from NYC, although discernible, are not as dramatically displayed as they are in the overhead satellite view, thats all.

    However the relative distance is still clear and apparent in the graph [Fig 1].

    In reference to the light blue line at the bottom of the graph, it says [on its left side] :

    " Relative distance from NYC [unitless]" - meaning, the closer a data point is to the bottom of the graph, the closer that Erins eye was to NYC at that time, relative to other data points shown.

    The blue points along that lower blue line denote times for the NOAA readings.

    If you look closely it will be seen that the graph shows that at 2am on 9/11, the blue data point is slightly _lower_ [i.e. closer to the bottom of the graph] than is the next data point to its right for 8 am- meaning that according to the official NOAA readings displayed in the graph [fig.1] used by Wood herself, the eye of the hurricane was closest to NYC at 2 am, _not_ 8am.

    The overhead view I display merely is to clearly demonstrate that Erin had already turned to the right by 8 am.

    You say: "However, in her book the connecting line between the dots is continuous and smooth instead of segmented. This is simply a matter of better graphics being used in the book. Therefore, to claim that Wood has deliberately altered this graph is untrue. She did not. The data points remain in identical locations in all three publications of the graph. "

    My point is that _on_her_website_, [I am not going to read her book!] , in the 2008 version, the blue line passes through the exact center of the blue dots in a clear upward path from left to right[fig.4] in two distinct, small upward steps , while in the latest version on her site, the same graph in 2013 [fig 5] shows a blue line that has obviously been altered, as it does not now pass through the center of the 8 am data point but now grazes the bottom of that point, and also that of the next to right [2pm] point, which achieves the convenient visual effect of flattening out the previously discernible upward curve [in fig.4] , from left to right, of the line drawn between the 2am and 8am.

    This , in my opinion was done to visually try to reinforce Prof. Wood's erroneous claim that Erin was closest to NYC at 8 am, despite the fact that the NOAA data points themselves [and that she uses!] remain unaltered and still show that Erin was in fact closer to NYC at 2am than it was at 8am.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some clarification on the NOAA data graph and the precise path of Hurricane Erin per NOAA’s National Weather Service location data.

    I have researched this further. Just to be clear, this graph was not created by NOAA. It was created by Wood to display NOAA’s National Weather Service Data that she sourced from www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001erin.html in a way that aligns all of it on one visual by date and time. I notice that she no longer uses this graph on her website. I would have removed it, too because the blue data points do not accurately reflect the actual National Weather Service data regarding the location of Hurricane Erin relative to NYC on 9/11. The latitude and longitude data, both on the NOAA site mentioned above and on the hurricane tracking map that you display from www.weather.terapin.com (which gets its data from NOAA’s National Weather Service) place Erin closer to NYC at 8:00am than it does at 2:00 am. If the data points had been correctly graphed, the 8am point would be slightly lower than the 2AM point. Dr. Wood’s site now has an animated overhead-tracking graphic of the hurricane that shows this (although not as clearly as the weather.terapin.com animation which displays precise coordinates).

    If I understand you correctly, it is your opinion that Wood re-drew the line in the graph to deceive readers into thinking that Hurricane Erin was closer to NYC than it actually was at 8:00AM and that it remained at about that distance for most of the morning instead of being on its way out of town by 8:00AM. I disagree. I don’t think she is being deceptive with either the line connecting the dots, or with her claim. Here’s why according to NOAA’s National Weather Service location data.

    At midnight on 9/1, per noaa.gov site, Erin was at 36.4N, 65.7W = 467 miles from NYC. YOU ARE CORRECT in saying that at 2:00AM, Erin had just started to turn right. Per the terrapin.com data, at that point Erin was at 36.9N and 65.9W = 442 miles from NYC. (This is what I had written in my earlier post.) Erin then continued to make a hard right, but YOUR ARE MISTAKEN when you say that this hard right moved Erin AWAY from NYC. This dramatic turn in fact placed Erin four miles CLOSER to NYC so that by 8:00A she was at 37.4N, 65.6W = 438 miles from NYC. (Also what I had written earlier). Erin is now fully into the right turn moving extremely slowly and essentially parallel to NYC. Erin then continues the hard right and by 2PM she is at 37.8N, 65.1W = 448 miles from NYC – 10 miles away from NYC. By 8:00PM she is at 38.0N, 64.3W = 478 miles from NYC – another 30 miles east. So the location data points that define the track of Erin that you show in your article clearly prove that Wood is correct – Erin was closest to NYC around 8:00am and remained at roughly that distance for most of the morning before moving away from NCY in the early afternoon.

    BTW, the use of the term “relative distance” refers to how the National Meteorological Service describes the location of a hurricane – “relative distance from a prominent place”. Go to: www.cdera.org/doccentre/fs_tropsys.php to confirm this if you like. In our case, the prominent location was obviously NYC. – TEL

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon. said :" this graph was not created by NOAA. It was created by Wood to display NOAA’s National Weather Service Data"

    I never claimed the graph originated with NOAA, only the data points represented by the blue dots on the Wood graph.

    Anon. said : "I notice that she no longer uses this graph on her website."

    The fact that she might have removed the graph from her site is neither here nor there as far as what I allege- it was up from 2008 through April 2013 ,and, I assume, is still in her book.

    Up until now [May 2013] she has consistently claimed that the blue [NOAA sourced] data points on her graph show Erin was closer to NYC at 8am, when my enlargement in Part 2 [ Fig. 6[b] 2013 screen-shot], clearly reveals that according to her very own graph, the NOAA data point for 2 am shows that Erin was closer to NYC at 2am than at 8am .

    Please stop making excuses for Wood .Whether or not the data you have now gleaned from, as I understand it, the Terrapin site depictions of Erin's path that I posted here contradicts Woods previously posted graph is irrelevant, [or something you need to take up with her, or with NOAA.] She apparently never even knew about the Terrapin info, fer cryin out loud.

    FACT : the NOAA data _she_ took and then published in graph form at _her_ site and in _her_ book actually shows Erin to be closest at 2am, _not_ the 8 am she has repeatedly claimed .

    _She_ collected this data from the NOAA. _She_ presented it in graph form. _She_ then made the specific claims about Erins relative position to NYC based on her graph and NOAA data, not me.

    It makes no difference if the NOAA data is reliable or not, nor if the NOAA data contradicts other data, the fact remains that Wood took that data, presented it/used it in graph form and made certain claims about what the data shows and which were _false_ ACCORDING TO THE VERY NOAA DATA POINTS SHE PUBLISHED [again see enlargement 6[b] in part 2 of this report] .

    If she cannot even read her own published data then I would suggest that both herself and yourself [if you continue to view her as being an accurate and painstaking person who follows the scientific methodology :-)] , have some serious problems.

    Personally I rule out incompetence. The 2013 version [fig. 6[b] of her graph has added a yellow bracket, as well as changed the line between the 2am and 8am data points so that her new blue line, instead of showing two original [2008] small up-steps left to right [and therefor indicating movement of Erin away from NYC], now has one down-step and instead of passing through the center of the 8am data point now grazes the bottom of it, to conveniently remove the slight upwards direction of the original.

    The core of Wood's claim, [actually 2 claims, and the entire point of my part 2 refutation here], as stated in the 1st of the two radio interviews I link to, is her statement that: Erin was :

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

    [Wood claim [2]]: "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"

    As I demonstrate, the data she used at her own site and in her book refutes her claim[1] of Erin's being closest to NYC at 8am- [again, regardless of whether or not the NOAA data is actually reliable or not. ]

    Regarding her second claim : "around 8am." Erin " just stopped, it didn't keep going East, or West, it just stopped and then it turned around and started heading back out"; the Terrapin screen shots I posted in Part 2 [figs 7 thru 9[a]] also refute _that_ claim [which is the reason I used them- to illustrate the earlier than Wood claimed turn; _not_ to demonstrate Erin's closest position relative to NYC].

    They [Part 2,figs figs 7 thru 9[a]], clearly show that Erin actually "turned around and started heading back out" at around 2am, _not_ at 8 am ,as she claims.

    Regards onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continuation - TEL

    Dr. Wood’s book is an exhaustive, complete presentation of her research and conclusions. It contains considerably more information, data and proof than does her website. To claim that her work is junk science, a scam and that she has committed “crimes” without reading her work (or at least the 16-page chapter on Hurricane Erin!) is unconscionable and as far from “scientific” as one can possibly get. It is beyond absurd to characterize her work in this fashion based on:
    1. Your incorrect statement that Wood altered NOAA data.
    2. Your incorrect statement that she essentially lied when saying that Hurricane Erin was closest to NYC “around 8:00.
    3. Your false claim that she neglected to mention the cold front and its effect on Hurricane Erin.
    4. Your belief stated, but NO proof given, that her work is a sham because she utilizes numerous videos and still photographs that she made no attempt to verify as authentic – that in fact they can't be authentic as they are ALL fraudulent.

    Although your motive for writing this piece seems clear, and after reading a number of your other posts, even clearer, I cannot know for certain. However, based on what you have written so far, I do know for certain that an objective search for the truth about what happened on 9/11 and how it happened is not your motive. Therefore, it is an exercise in futility and a waste of my time to continue with this exchange. If there is anyone else out there, feel free to chime it. I’m done. –TEL

    ReplyDelete
  10. Onebornfree said: "The fact that she might have removed the graph from her site is neither here nor there as far as what I allege- it was up from 2008 through April 2013 ,and, I assume, is still in her book. "

    I just checked the page:http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html

    and it appears the graph is still there, contrary to Anon.s claim that it was removed. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right you are. My mistake. Wasn’t intentional I assure you. Should have looked through ALL the pages in that section. But like I said in my response to you on 5-31, the graph is incorrect per the data. You are nit picking it to death to the exclusion of the plethora of all other graphs, photos and videos on this particular issue. Why? Because you have no intention of writing the truth. I dare you to post my comments that I made on your Part 2, 3 and 4 on 5-31. Not a chance in hell that you will. However, I would not be surprised if you respond with some nonsense to my comments that I originally left on your Part 4. If you do, I’m not writing back, I assure you.

    The fact that you made this response instead of posting my 5-31 responses, just confirms that I have spent lots of hours attempting to talk sense to a troll! Onebornfree is actually onebornfake. It was my first time though, so I’m chalking it up to incredible naiveté. You sucked me in for sure. Great job!

    I am trying to imagine what you are really like. You might in fact be an ill-informed, blatantly ignorant, woefully horrendous writer. If so, that makes your job a snap. If you are not, then you must be beyond brilliant to be able to fake it so masterfully! Either way, you can collect your payment and chuckle all the way to the bank. But, really, how can you sleep at night? I suppose if you are the former, then it’s not a problem. If it is a problem, then I’m confident that you can fix it – you being a Professional, Problem Solver – and for 20 years no less!

    As for me, I’ve learned a valuable lesson of where NOT to put my time. But, I have to say that in this process, I’ve learned a lot more about Hurricane Erin and have become even more convinced that Dr. Wood has it right – and not just about the hurricane. I will now become much more active in promoting her work. In that sense, you have failed miserably. Great job! I dare you to post this as well –TEL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wonders never cease. I commend you on meeting dare #2. But you have fallen far sort on meeting dare #1. If you are going to play fair, you will not pick and choose the PORTIONS of my responses that you want to post, as you have done by posting just the “continuation” part of my 5-31 response to your Part 2, you will post my ENTIRE response. In addition, you will not continue, as you have just done, to insert my response, after the fact, above yours to make it appear that you have responded to my comments in the chronological order in which they were submitted.

    The first part of my 5-31 response to Part 2, that you did not post, is only one more screen. However, it does fully show the hypocrisy of your series in that it is YOU who have not followed, in your words, “consistent, everyday, "run of the mill" scientific methodology.” Yes, it is fairly damning, but if you have any integrity, you will post it, too. In addition, you HAVE NOT posted my 5-31 response to your Parts 3 and 4. Both are very short. Again, I dare you. I hope you will surprise me again.
    --TEL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon. said : "But like I said in my response to you on 5-31, the graph is incorrect per the data. You are nit picking it to death to the exclusion of the plethora of all other graphs, photos and videos on this particular issue. Why?"


    I have deliberately focussed on the Wood graph in my response to you for 2 reasons, neither of which have anything to do with you having "got me" regarding the other points you tried to make [unsuccessfully, in my opinion].

    Reason [1]: I'm a very busy man. As you have noticed, as well as this 9/11 blog, I have a Problem Solving service: http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/

    I also run a Financial Safety consulting blog and service:
    http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/

    I also have a frequently updated "Mythbusters" blog:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

    I also run an organization called "The Freedom Network" : http://freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com/

    On top of all that I'm also a musician with my own frequently updated YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/onebornfree?feature=results_main ,

    my own music blog: http://fake-eye-d.blogspot.com/ ,

    and my own studio recordings to write: http://soundcloud.com/onebornfree/

    Which means that most of my time will be devoted to clients who are willing to pay me for my time, _not_ to persons who write endless posts and demand instant, free replies [ and have the nerve to call me a troll on my own site , to boot :-) ].

    Of course, non paying clients such as yourself are free to read my blog posts and accept or reject them at their leisure.

    Reason [2] I can see no point in attempting further dialogue with a person who is, as far as I can see, unable to read/has issues with reading comprehension.

    You appear unable to see/admit that I have never claimed that Wood changed the NOAA data, only that she misrepresents it[ to this day] in her own graph .

    So even if I _did_ have the free time to give you [which I don't], there would be no point in discussing these issues beyond that 1st. one with the type of person who appears intent on misreading almost everything I have written.

    Some of your comments have been useful to me. I have updated part 2 of this report to try to make my observation /accusations regarding Wood's "research" a little clearer. Please re-read.[or not].

    In Summary:

    I have updated and added comments to the main body of part 2 [and part 3 regarding Erin and the cold front], but I refuse to do any more than make updates to the main body of my post[s] in answer to any of your other observations [if I believe them relevant], instead of engaging you here in the comments section.

    Just to be clear : I HAVE NO INTEREST IN "CONVERTING" YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO THE VIEWS I EXPRESS IN THIS BLOG- [ at least, not for free :-) ] .

    I really don't care what you believe about 9/11- its your choice- your responsibility.

    If you wish to continue to believe in the professional integrity of a "scientist" who has , as I have demonstrated, deliberately misrepresented collected data, and made 2 , distinct false claims regarding Erin's behavior on 9/11 [both claims addressed in this part 2], that is your problem, not mine.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Indeed, you seem to be quite a busy man! However, it takes a couple of keystrokes to post my full comments of 5-31. But then you would have to defend yourself and that would take time. Or you could just write “Not worthy of response” which again, would take no time at all. Then your reader can decide for themselves which one of us is completely “out to lunch”.

    Out of curiosity, I visited your websites last week. Have to say I was not impressed. Sorry. I do have to ask though – Seriously? People actually PAY YOU to SOLVE their problems?? If this is truly the case, I attribute it to what P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” I also noticed that on every one of your sites that I visited there were NO comments. Yes, some sites required that you be a member in order to submit a comment, and that would limit the number of potential comments since you had between 1-3 members. It must have taken a while to build up your following to that level. But NO comments?? Do people not visit your sites? Do they not make comments? I would imagine that there would be someone out there that agrees with your point of view and that would leave a supportive comment – one that you would be delighted to post. Very strange, unless you consider what I have learned after starting this exchange with you –that all “accomplished” trolls maintain a number of bogus websites and blogs. That makes sense to me – so way to go! You are right up there with the best of them!

    Your “updates” to Parts 2 and 3 are laughable. If you are not a troll, here is the most the fundamental question that, if you completed 2nd grade, you should be able to answer:

    At 2:00AM on 9/11 Hurricane Erin was 442 miles from NYC. At 8:00AM Hurricane Erin was 338 miles from NYC. Dr. Wood has said on MULTIPLE OCCATIONS, some of which you cite, that Erin was closer at 8:00AM. What do you say – 2AM at 442miles, or 8:00AM at 338 miles?

    If you need to use a calculator, that’s perfectly understandable. Go for it.

    Furthermore, if you are not a troll, then play fair. I refer you to my message of earlier this morning. Post ALL of my 5-31 responses to you. Again, I dare you. There is absolutely no way that you will post them – much too truthful and way too embarrassing! However, if you do post them, feel free to write ANYTHING you want after my comments. I promise not to make any further responses to you. Wouldn’t want to embarrass you further but it is sure tempting given that I believe you are a troll doing your best to obfuscate the truth about 9/11. I find that despicable, as I assume you have gathered given my change in tone.

    Then again, you may actually not be a paid troll. You may just be, as I described before, an ill-informed, blatantly ignorant, woefully horrendous writer that is blowing his own horn and blabbing pretentions nonsense with absolutely no intent to engage in a serious dialog with anyone who disagrees with your point of view. --TEL

    ReplyDelete
  15. Way to go! Good job. If you will now post the first part of my 5-31 comment to you and not just the “continuation” as you have, I’m going to have to rethink. You may not be a troll after all. It’s only one message block. Come on. You can do it. Like I said, once you post it, I won’t write back. I will have said all I want to say. You can have the last word. It’s your blob, after all. ---TEL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know I have published all of your comments. There are currently no more waiting my approval this end.

      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete
  16. You have surprised me once again! Seriously, I commend you. I have attached the first part of my 5-31 comment that you have not posted to date. Hope you will surprise me again.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    I have made no excuses for Dr. Wood. I am doing my best to present the facts, and the factual data completely support what Wood has claimed. The fact is that the graph was drawn incorrectly. It’s that simple. As I noted, Wood has removed the graph from her website. Contrary to your statement, this is relevant. She has replaced the graph with an animated graphic that accurately reflects the NOAA data. Wouldn’t you agree that people have the right to update, clarify, correct any mistakes and make efforts to improve the way their work is presented? This is exactly what you did with this 4-Part series. You lead it off with this statement:

    “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 events of 9/11.”

    I imagine that you would prefer that people listen to your current view that Dr. Wood’s work is junk science, and that they would not hold you to your prior support of Dr. Wood – just because it had been publically posted since 2008.

    Then you laid out your Intensions/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.”

    You failed to achieve your first goal and, in fact, made no effort whatsoever to do otherwise. You did not even attempt to achieve your second goal. You simply made statements of belief, accusations and condemnations without presenting one shred of evidence regarding fabricated destruction videos and stills. In fact you come right out and admitted it:

    “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].”

    However, you did an admirable job of exposing your own inability to follow the MOST BASIC scientific protocols including, but certainly not limited to:

    - Thoroughly gather, read and understand the available literature on the subject.
    - Be objective, unemotional and exacting in your research.
    - When representing another researcher’s work, do it fairly and accurately. Make no claims that the researcher does not make.
    - If you disagree with a particular researcher’s work then provide sound, logical reasons as to why you disagree. Obtain rigorous proof that demonstrates why your theory is the correct one and present it in an understandable way. Your theory must satisfy ALL of the evidence.
    - If your theory is not supported by all the evidence, change your theory.
    - Welcome peer review of your work as a critical part of establishing its veracity, or lack thereof.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    I’m sorry that I got personal and sarcastic in my latter messages. I still have no doubt that you are trying to discredit Wood with false, inaccurate and irrelevant statements. I should have just ignored you and moved on. That's what I’m going to do now. Thanks for posting this, if you do.
    --TEL

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon. said: " ..She has replaced the graph with an animated graphic that accurately reflects the NOAA data..."

    Just to be clear, for anyone other than the original Anon. who posted this comment, and who happens to read this comments section [i.e. possibly, an entirely different "anon."], to this date [ 06/04/13], Wood has _not_ removed her self-constructed [and inaccurate regarding the NOAA data], graph from her website.

    It is still there, just where it has always been for at least 4 years: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin10.html

    regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The graph is STILL up! OMG! Gonna send this note to JW right now:

    PULL THAT GRAPH IMMEDIATELY. IT IS NOT ACCURATE! It shows the hurricane closer to NY at 2 than it was at 8, and YOU KNOW THAT’S NOT TRUE! You say so yourself that is was closer at 8!! Shame on you. Do the right thing and change this graph to reflect the truth or remove it altogether. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Onebornfreenowgrownderisory –
    You do realize that the above comment is facetious…no, really more sardonic, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you for such clear repeated demonstrations of the "thinking" of the atypical J. Woods acolyte. No surprises here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Onebornfree" seems to be trapped in his own debunking excercise... submit a Qui Tam case - or something similar. Then we'd all know you're intent. So, if Wood is wrong, what happened on 9/11? What caused the demise of the towers? You don't say here, do you? Sorry if I missed it... For those that want to know more, please read my free ebook http://tinyurl.com/911ftb - it may help you understand - at least to some extent - why blogs like this keep on appearing...

    ReplyDelete
  23. this looks to me to be a person who was hired to debunk judy.
    look at what is going on here, he takes a tiny piece of what she said and puts a powerful magnifying glass on it. then we are suppose to believe all the time frames that also can be jimmied and cooked a little here and there, and this yoyo doesnt have any other goods on any of the other hundreds of points she made that are very logical ?. just like lawyer, pick apart something to the n'th degree but ignore the rest.the fact is the hurricane turned, and guess what ,if there is electro technology that we dont know about, who's to say that the timing needs to be that close anyway. could it be that the device loads the electro fields well before which could affect the surrounding natural fields i.e. hurricane . these are things we have no way of knowing...

    i think it is clear this guy is a hired hoser.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Someone help me out here... how essential is the hurricane to the existence of a directed energy weapon? Is this just a case of (at worse) reaching for too much in terms of Woods trying to explain everything? Seems like the baby is being thrown out with the bath water....but I haven't read everything carefully enough to say for sure.

    ReplyDelete