a directed answer to the 911truth movement scam pt1

This post has been placed as a response to most of the junk science presented by the 911truth movement and the supporters of their scam theses are nearly social engineering theologians using an national tragedy for political and financial gains by writing speculative fiction and using social media to push agendas rather than real evidence or science.  The claims that Dr Judy woods makes are from recovered vehicles that were moved from their position at the time of incident to holding areas for transfer to Satan Island and fresh kills land fill most of her photos of such vehicles beyond 14 days after incident.  She also negates NYPW movement of vehicles during the incident to provide seraph and rescue access to the site.  Most of those directly involved in search and rescue and eyewitnesses whom lived through the incident are better at explaining then theses groups that use speculative fiction and false appeal to authority talking heads whom have no real background in the physical subject or level of expertise to state their opinion as physical facts when they are creating a lie for profit. this is theology not science or investigation.

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

[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 apparentlydeliberately "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 always 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, 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. 

From what I understand, Professor Woods has theorized that Hurricane Erin was in fact used as some type of energy source to power the D.E.W. weapon that she theorizes was used to destroy the WTC buildings. She  claims that the sharp turn that Erin made on the morning of 9/11 is proof of its direct involvement in the destructive event of 9/11. 

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:

[1] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080730_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3

[2] http://www.drjudywood.com/media/080731_Wood_Johnson_Erin_DD.mp3

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.9] Hurricane 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

continued in part 2