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. 



  1. I urge you to read Dr. Wood’s book, “Where Did The Towers Go?”. You mention it a number of times in your 4 Part series, but it is clear from many of your comments that you have not read it. If you don’t have another agenda for writing your piece, I think you will find that reading all of her book will answer some of the questions you pose and will rebut all of your comments. I’m going to do the same. You will find my comments after each of the parts in your series. I sincerely hope you leave my comments up. I am very interested in your response and that of others. Thanks, much.

  2. I have a feeling that Dr. Wood posted the comment below. Unfortunately the lady is out to make a dollar and that is it or she would do more interviews and answer more of her bullshit!

    1. it's idiots like you that sit there spewing lies and rhetoric and guilty of that which you accuse others

  3. Dr. Wood, the dust came from concrete and drywall being pulverized, not from a magic beam that dustifies steel.

    1. sure , that simple ! moron , quit yapping nonsense , get mental help

    2. The dust particles were reported to be in the nm diameter range if I recall correctly. That precludes any effect produced by pancaking. You can see from many pictures that 'dust' is floating everywhere and staying in the air. Normal pulverized material would settle out much faster than the evidence suggests.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. I agree that Judy Wood is a disinformation agent. It's not just here though. It seems that all the leaders of 9/11 truth are telling us half truths & lies. Some evidence is made very easy to find while other evidence is actually being covered up. I post harder to find info & evidence on my youtube & G+ channels.

    1. gordon liddy ? funnyguy blabbering about someone elses lack of integrity , you phoney

  7. This Site is the direct result of the interference of the American Central Intelligence Agency, whose aim is to make sure that the People of the World do not wake up from the Hypnosis they have been and are being subjected to!

  8. 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 ie hurricane . these are
    things we have no way of knowing...

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

  9. One must say that all the EVIDENCE provided by the excellent presentation by DR Judy Wood does clearly prove the existence of High Frequency Electromagnetic Radio Waves being used to De-materialize the materials that constituted the World Trade Center Complex.

  10. I clicked on Onebornfree's "about me" and I find that there was one description of him(them) that was not listed - 'CIA Plant'. This article has the CIA's(Deep States) fingerprints all over it.

  11. On the day of the event while watching it live on TV I noticed that the materials were becoming dust. The building were not falling down, they were disintegrating. This was many years before I had heard of Dr Judy Woods. I assumed that there were explosives placed throughout the building to cause the pulverisation of the concrete, glass and steel.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.