Debunking Judy Wood

Be the 1st to vote.

Judy Wood seems to have been revived in 2015, mainly by flat-earth investigators David Weiss and all those that come into contact with him (Jeran, Bob, Morgile).

I first heard her on Fetzer, and could never understand her point of view or theory (she apparently didn’t have a theory). I was as confused as Fetzer purportedly was.

Upon discovering on that occam’s razr, as applied to , indicates all the imagery was created in Hollywool, like any other movie, I immediately dismissed any non-theory that Judy proposed – since it was based on fabricated footage. No need to dig into mythical weapons if all the destruction was created in a studio.

Upon investigation, there doesn’t seem to be a central place explaining or discrediting Dr. Wood anywhere on the ‘net. Only old guest OBF has a few pages on her. Therefore I’ll open this post for anyone who wishes to provide links to help develop a place for those stuck on Judy to become unstuck – and move on from the 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 0;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 .

Source: Onebornfree’s 9/11 Research Review: 9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood -Part 4 of 4

No tags for this post.

27 thoughts on “Debunking Judy Wood

    1. Tom Dalpra

      So she analyses fake collapse footage and says it’s secret weapon dustification and that’s ‘right on’ is it Bobby Bittman ?

      That does make me smile and you may have indeed meant it as dry humour. In that case, we’re all happy.

      1. ab Post author

        Sarcasm is not allowed here – simply because interlopers who don’t know dry wit will be completely misled and confused. Isn’t this subject confusing enough? So Bobby if you’re a Judy Wood fan, I suggest you go elsewhere.

      1. Bobby Bittman

        Yes, of manufactured images. Of the “official story,” if you will. There, I said it. Yes I’m a Judy Wood fan, you want me to leave, So she is playing “Their Game” and not your game. You want to get mad at me about that? Who is making more progress you or her? At least by using the Governments evidence against them she is doing better them everybody yelling from the cheap seats “it fake its fake!: I’ve said I don’t like the conclusions so Mr Dalpra can be quite. You want me out of here I don’t post often and I’m a fan of Judy just say the word.

  1. Tom Dalpra

    Judy Wood…gotta admit, I was there for a week or two, at least.
    It seems like such a long time ago in my path to understanding 9/11, but that was only about 6 years ago, or so.

    To keep it simple, she’s there as an explanation for and to validate official imagery.
    She analyses footage and images which, regardless of their exact nature, CANNOT be trusted.

    Wood’s promotion in the mainstream alternative of 9 /11 research is absolutely crystal clear.
    Jesse Ventura was promoting her expensive tome on Alex Jones’ show and around 2011 she was over in the UK doing a tour and appearing, her evidence referenced in glowing terms, on what could effectively be called Spook TV here in the UK.

    Here she appears on Edge media in a special two hour show, where she can barely stop smiling as she chats with Theo Chalmers about death threats and the hardships she’s encountered.
    29-36 here for a good example of explaining fake footage, I would say.

    1. ab Post author

      Can’t exif data be forged? Surely it can. I’m sure some debris was there and staged like any other public pageant for the pols to parade around. I just cannot be sure of what is what, so why bother?

      1. xileffilex

        Ab I really don’t know what you’re trying to show – if any of all this is CGI, for what purpose? I recall you saying the Boston Marathon was CGI, when it was photographed from every conceivable angle with perfect continuity of all the well known actors by numerous operatives. So are you saying there as no rubble/steel wreckage? You seem to be supporting the Judy Wood theory. So just tell a simple person like myself what you think was in the WTC towers, what you think they were made of and what happened to it all?

        “some debris was staged”

        PS all this exchange ought to be under Hare Brain’s comment. I am not interested in Judy Wood’s theories. Why don’t you just answer Hare Brain?

        1. ab Post author

          I didn’t say it was all CGI. I never said once Boston was all CGI. CGI is a labor intensive use of computers to make up people and places, so therefore I have always said and thought all the methods of making movies are being employed. Have you not listened and read my opinions over the many years I’ve been doing this blog Xile? Of course there was wreckage of some sort, since it was a classic demolition of hollowed out prepared towers, none of which was filmed and shown to the public. You saw a Hollywool version. Witnesses and newstoads may have been on the scene that was “propped” up as Psy described earlier, or it may also have been prepared in advance in front of blue or green screens. Again, all the elements used to make movies were used here. Why are you saying I support the Judy Wood theory? Are you being provocative or activating Xile?

          1. xileffilex

            Ab. you told me in a chat that Boston was CGI rather than a one-take staged film event on [many of them] camera. No matter.
            You also avoid the question why they would fake images of wreckage when they alrerady must have had wreckage. Why not show it to the public? I can’t understand what is being covered up. It’s not like CGI planes going into the towers. Are you saying that they had to get images of rubble and debris pre-recorded out there quickly? Because there was only “flat earth” at ground zero? Hardly seems likely. Sure nobody was allowed near.

            Yes there was something very odd about the reporting. Here’s the key video to set up Judy Wood and the pulverisation to dust video… I wonder if you have seen it.

            See the talking head quote a Robert Galinsky , a “volunteer” who said there was no wreckage to be seen. “fell down into the ground.. was pulverised”ABC ,12:44 pm, 9/12

            Galinsky was a very early pioneer in digital media
            Robert Galinsky, co-founder of the defunct entertainment site, outlined in his dispatchhow he dressed in a hard hat and workman’s clothes the morning after the terrorist attack and lied to get through nine police checkpoints to reach the rescue operation.
            See the start of this video by pseudo…

            Is that just a coincidence they pan to the WTC towers on August 22?
            Another key figure in this field was Josh Harris. There’s a view tube video online showing a fake physical attack by Galinsky on Harris at some event.

            If you watch the ABC video you see a man hovering around 0.46 and 2.30 in blue shirt with microphone = that’s Jason McCabe Calcanis another of that group of digital pioneers.
            Youo can seen them here together talking about the early digital days

            You can read more here
            The burned out hulls of police cars are totally fake, staged events.

            LOL at the police car props at 8.00 in the rubble field.

            OK, it’s a NIST film being made, but is the set in the wreckage of the WTC?
            The shoe

            Veeeerye eenteristing….but stooopid…

            1. ab Post author

              Find the chat about Boston. Boston was yet another reality / fakery hybrid that I call #HRDPAR, using modern movie making techniques. I don’t avoid any questions deliberately Xile. They stage the debris pile for maximum effect, as Psy says. He wrote well on that subject. I am getting a hostile vibe from you Xile. Is that your intent? Let’s clear it up on an audiochat.

          2. Zalian

            I have always struggeled with some parts of 9/11 myself.

            Planes hitting and the explosions being cheap composites i can get behind 100% no issue.

            The problem is the skyshots, and the smoke shots (or the ones you use as backround on this site that is both).

            From a Pure CGI angle, simulated 100% fake smoke dont look like that (still doesnt), could be composites of real smoke on real footage, but with moving cameras and animated smoke the tracking would be a nightmare (maybe impossible)

            It could be done with miniature models i guess, but i doubt it would look that good (the smoke is very detailed and looks the right scale)

            Ab brought up “military grade smoke machines” and this coupled with the actual demolition could provide an explanation on the aerial shots since its hard to tell where all the smoke really came from.
            If the aerial shots are indeed real with real smoke effects, it would stand to reason they would give indicators of the peninsula being closed off, like no people running around in the street etc (someone should start analysing that footage independant of the others and look for theese things)

            The street level shots though could be isolated sets, but easier to shoot on the ground with smoke machines and actors far from the “centre” of the action, greenscrening it would be Hell (and in 2001 probably not achivable).

            Basically my position is the same as always, screaming CGI everywhere is for the most part not true, CGI looks the most real when used sparingly and overlaid real footage.

            Simulated Pure CGI smoke is pretty simulation intensive (takes ages to sim even simple stuff, and is hard to “direct” properly even in hollywood movies)

            Link, making simple smoke in Houdini (leading sim software in hollywood, outside theire propriatary scripts that usually work in tandem with the application) :…

            Link, the showreel of a industry professional i found on youtube that works for axis animation (big game cinematic company) of his simulations in Houdini :…

            “Real fakery” is often the best way to go about things and mix and match so much when it comes to real and enchanced pictures that people just give up trying to make a case for anything but the official images (like Judy Wood)

            So in conclusion, there is a few ways to fake these things, CGI is not one of them (for planes and explosions sure, massive smoke no)
            And by occams razor alone, keeping it in the mliitary makes alot of sense instead of 10-20 CGI studios, like hollywood would have done, and instead just hire a few compositors to do small tampering, and add confusion about whats real and what isn’t, and do the rest with good old practical effects, smoke and mirrors (more smoke than mirrors in this case).


        2. Tom Dalpra

          One thought I had was that if the buildings had collapsed from a fire we might expect to have seen large portions of building crashing to the ground.

          With a controlled demolition, of course, you aim to leave yourself a neat pile. A load of it gets pulverised by the explosives as it collapses neatly into itself. Then you ship out the debris in trucks.

          Perhaps this ‘lack of debris’ question, was brought up early on, to answer that obvious question ?
          ”How come it just disappeared into itself?”

          The answer could be as simple as ”Because it came down by controlled demolition”.

          ”To dust” at 2-33mins

          1. Hare Brain

            re: everglades hotel demolition

            I count 13 very loud bangs, then a pause, then some more very loud bangs as the building comes down. And it does leave behind some substantial rubble. And the explosions (with some that can be seen) occur in a timed fashion. If this is typical of controlled demolitions, how could they get away with such a thing in downtown New York with so many onlookers?

            1. ab Post author

              I’ve explained this many times. The area was evacuated. The area was a peninsula. The area was controlled by the military. The area was isolated and occulted by military grade smoke machines. The media is controlled by the military. Even if Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were floating around the towers, there message would not get to the masses by the controlled message. Even if there were hundreds of bangs and explosions, who would these witnesses report them to and via what media?

    2. psyopticon

      The first image by “Hiro-Oshima” (duplicated below) looks likes a composite fake.…

      A real pile of debris – perhaps at ground zero, perhaps not – but greatly elaborated and embellished digitally for various reasons.

      The gothic-like steel facade appears to be added on top. It’s critical for the image; that unusual outline. Ensuring we immediately recognise it as the iconic outer structure of the tower. Defining the image.

      Those intentionally-cut girders look pasted in, with those perfect cuts pointing directly towards the camera. Glaring at us. Presumably to set the tongues wagging of the 9/11 rabbit-trailers.

      The emergency crew / ground workers all look pasted on top, too. Look at that gathering of peeps in the centre distance; two guys in white hard-hats. Seriously?! Who, in their right mind, would stand – or be allowed to stand – right underneath that perilous pile of steel junk, about to collapse on top of them?

      And who supposedly tagged that large steel joist with orange paint? How would you get up there to tag it, and why bother?

      The whole depth of field to the image is also dodgy. Way too sharp over very wide focal lengths.

      Everything perfectly focussed. From the peeps in red hats in the immediate foreground, the writing on the vehicles; (incidentally curious ‘rectangular blocking’ to the N.Y. Crane logo, suggesting clumsy cut-and-paste); and a couple of righteous cops in pristine black with a soldier. Very patriotic. Again, that person group nicely focused to the middle distant right. With focus, of course, critically maintained on those iconic “gothic” arches.

      To the centre middle, another group – of brave ground-workers in their brilliant white hats (nice contrast of colours); and again, precise focus with ideal framing; elevated (conveniently) on their ‘makeshift’ platform.

      Perfectly set against a dusty urban backdrop with a couple of distant tower blocks just visible through the New York haze, to geolocate us.

      The four-way lights on that yellow standard on the right look pasted-in too. Slightly wrong compression level to surrounding area of image. Other problems with compression levels to suggest compositing; evident under Error Level Analysis. In particular note the orange rope(?) dropping vertically in front of the gothic arches; to the right. Under ELA it has “issues”.

      As for the photographer/artist himself, he stinks, as does his narrative. Reckons he lived in “one of the buildings closer to the WTC”. Why not name his exact apartment? On the morning of 911, claims he was evacuated by tugboat – how very romantic – snapping away with his camera as he was hurried along.


      On the day of the World Trade Center attack, I was living inside what is now known as “Ground Zero”. My apartment, in this picture, is one of the buildings closer to the WTC on the left side.

      I found myself shooting these photographs as the entire event unfolded. Running from the falling tower, I was evacuated to New Jersey on a tugboat from Battery Park.

      This photo journal is my way of sharing my experience with other people. Please feel free to share it with others. If it makes a difference, if it reaches one more person who may take away something from it, I am grateful. If you feel so inclined, I would be happy to hear from you (whether it be your experience, or otherwise – and many thanks to those who have sent me kind thoughts and wishes through this ordeal).

      I revisited the whole ordeal a year later. I will try to link the comparison images along the way, but you can see the entire set here.

      See this very location in a blizzard, just 9 months prior, “WTC in the Snow”.

      My photo journal was turned into a “featured story” for the National 9/11 Memorial Museum’s online collection. You can see what they did with it, here.

      The 10 year mark. I retraced my footsteps, in a follow-up, here.

      Course you did, mate. Went back a year later, and then left it ’til the tenth anniversary, as you do. How sentimental.

      Funny how he was there at Ground Zero on 911, but missed the second plane wham-bam into the tower. Like everyone else.

      Look at the rest of his supposed portfolio on flickr. Very weird. A confusion of unrelated photographic styles, subjects, inspirations, and skill levels. Some of it not so good; a sense of being photographic ‘apprentice pieces’. Imvho, not the work of one man, either.

      Though his photograph – probably real – showing NYC in a snow blizzard, is interesting. Contrasting the visibility of the Manhattan skyline in the snow. That’s possibly how the 9/11 technicians gauged things, if they did use smoke obscurants as Simon/Cluesforum has reckoned – by checking out old pictures of the towers in the snow.

  2. xileffilex

    There are some estimates of the amount of matierial in the WTC site…
    I think we can safely assume no people and minimum fixtures and fittings in WTC1/2 for starters.

    Some aerial views here shortly after the demolition……
    the doors on that “crushed” firetruck #204 at 0.17 seem to be working OK

    Perhaps the “not much rubble” TV interview [seen from about 4.00 onwards in this second Fubar video –

    was just another rabbit hole to set up Judy Wood?

    The Gil Baker story, from 7.35 in Fubar [2] again, is very fishy. The hard hat in the studio is ridiculous theatre. He appears on TV again later ** to explain his Ground zero footage [where there is a complete absence of bodies or body parts]:…
    and that heart wrenching doggy footage#…

    Film maker Gil Bakeris so, so plausible that you know he’s a key perp

    Someone called Joe Casaliggi chimes in towards the end of Fubar2 to reiterate the dustification theme…

    1. xileffilex

      And while we are on the subject of the absence of bodies, see this response from about 5.23

      yet at 9.20, the talking head puts it to “volunteer nurse John Steele” “so many victims here….”
      They don’t exist although Steele,says on camera earlier on that he pulled out two “victims” or, of one “what was remining of them”

  3. Hare Brain

    I’m stuck on Wood. He/She has one good argument, which is what happened to all the rubble? I’ve seen the videos you posted of controlled demolition, and it does leave behind a pile of rubble, but in 9/11 there is essentially no rubble. You can say that those pictures of no rubble are fake, but you should have a ton of real witnesses who would be able to point out that the actual site looks different from the media pictures. Or are you saying the no rubble pictures are real, and that’s the magic of controlled demolition – but the other videos of smaller buildings collapsing does leave behind a pile of rubble.

    1. ab Post author

      How can you witness an evacuated area? How long would it take hundreds of dump trucks (if you believe that story) to ferry the hollowed out buildings away)?

      1. Hare Brain

        There are the people in the buildings around the site that could see the rubble. And that area could be massive – beyond any evac area. I wonder how long it was before the employees in that area could go back to work. And they could take pictures and videos. Maybe a New Yorker could answer that question.

        If the buildings were hollowed out (what exactly does that mean), there’s still the facade and the girders and?? The idea of hollowed out skyscrapers is well…is there a precedent?

        I agree with everything in the September Clues movie, but the new theory that everything was CGI? is that really the clues forum theory? Someone needs to make a video making that claim.

        1. ab Post author

          Wrong. Have you ever worked in a high rise? There was nothing to see except another building, and the immediate buildings were closed for “safety and inspection”. The WTC was chosen for its isolation. Any real witnesses would be ignored and voiceless in the controlled media.

  4. rickpotvin

    What a creepy sounding and looking humanoid “Judy” is! I tolerated “her” during the few years that I was looking at her theory and her pretty pictures but this seemingly transvestite figure is now a poster “boy” for the photogrpahic hoaxes of 9/11.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.