Home arrow 9-11 and Fake Terror arrow Articles arrow Wikipedia Censorship of 9/11 Evidence and Related Legal Action Continues
Wikipedia Censorship of 9/11 Evidence and Related Legal Action Continues PDF Print E-mail

UPDATED: 02 Apr 2014 - See bottom

Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them.

~François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Maxims, 1665

On Apr 8th/9th 2010, Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez posted a Wikipedia Page describing the research of Dr Judy Wood. A screen snapshot of most of the page is shown here:

As can be seen, he included references to Dr Judy Wood’s Qui Tam case against NIST’s contractors and he referenced her qualifications. It was originally posted here:

The page was then moved to this:

but it was later deleted (as can be seen at the link above). Another  page was created (as can be seen above) in 2007, but this was also deleted.

Mr Rodriguez appealed the deletion (as detailed below), but he was finally blocked from discussing the matter:

The Article text and appeals against deletion are shown below.

However, this really shows the true colours behind Wikipedia’s agenda – they will not accept articles on certain subjects and data – even when they are truthful and accurate – and of great importance. The result is that vital information is kept hidden – and a false view of reality is created.

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, the poster of the article comments:

The thing about Wikipedia is that monopolies form very quickly between the administrators. Meaning, if one administrator opposes the article I post, he can easily convince and recruit other Wikipedia moderators to join in the censorship, regardless of how they feel about it. They simply will agree with him, because they have formed a relationship.

So, it only took 1 or 2 closed-minded administrators to convince roughly 5-10 to go along with the censorship, and any time I tried to appeal, it was shot down by the same group.

Other 9/11 Researchers and Wikipedia

Kevin Barrett, Steven E Jones and David Ray Griffin have their own Wikipedia Pages – they have not been deleted. Clearly, Wikipedia defends the official story of 9/11, so these pages will likely not be entirely complementary. But why have their pages not been deleted, in the same way as Dr Judy Wood’s page has? Readers can draw their own conclusions.

An Example of Other Wikipedia Censorship

Wikipedia has a proven track record of censoring or mis-representing many of the most important topics which threaten to overturn the current scientific, economic or social paradigm, such as those relating to the Starchild and the person who has done the most to promote understanding of it, Lloyd Pye:


Partial Text of Original Article

(Wikipedia Deleted it before any of us saved the exact posting).

 Dr. Judy D. Wood, Ph.D Dr. Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM). co- founded SEM's Biological Systems and Materials Division, and served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.Dr. Judy Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering. 1981) (Structural Engineering). M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics). 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science. 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints.'1'

Dr. Judy Wood has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics. Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood was an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson. South Carolina.

Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech.

One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry. or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moire interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization and other types of interference. In recent years, Dr. Wood and her students have developed optical systems with various wavelengths and waveguides. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Judy Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not…


Invalid reasons given for deletion. Deleting user: Zscout370 Reasons given for deletion: User said Dr. Judy Wood is not a notable person and that my page had Copyright violations. Reasons I am appealing: Dr. Judy Wood is a notable person, because she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to file her evidence in a court of law. One of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court! No other 9/11 researcher has accomplished so much in the pursuit of truth and justice, yet many other 9/11 researchers have their own Wikipedia pages. This is not fair. In addition, the material on her website is not only fair use since it is a public website (, but also, I have personally contacted Dr. Judy Wood via email, and she has given me permission to use any and all of the information on her website. She has pledged to email the Wikipedia Permissions staff within 48 hours to inform them that I do indeed have permission to use the information on her webpage. Therefore, the two reasons given for deletion are invalid, and my attempts to discuss this deletion at the Talk:Judy Wood page, were also deleted! This is censorship, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk  contribs)

  • Endorse. Clear and unambiguous copyvio. Nancy talk 09:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment there was also an AFD in 2007 Nancy talk 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - as far as I can, regardless of what is done in the future, it was a copyvio when deleted. Moreover, I see an article on this individual has already been deleted a number of times and also has subject to an AFD. I would salt the article space and tell anyone who wishes to make an article on this individual to do so in a sandbox and then get other people to assess the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Even ignoring the possible copyright problems, the article had no reliable independent sources about Judy Wood, which is a basic requirement (see e.g. WP:BIOfor more info on this). Fram (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: Notability: Considering Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009, she is MORE notable than many 9/11 researchers that have their own pages, yet only hers seems to be deleted. When I try to input her name into the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page, someone keeps deleting her name and any links to her research or court cases! This is UNFAIR, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Censorship and Unfairness are NOT what Wikipedia is about. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: References: In addition, 3 of the 5 references used are from EXTERNAL SOURCES. 1 is from a government website, and 2 are from Academic Universities. The only 2 sources used from her website are links to the legal documents she has scanned in. Please help Wikipedia, people are trying to censor Dr. Wood, and administrators have deleted the Wikipedia page that I created! This is unfair! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: Copyright Violation: I am also NOT in Copyright violation, because her information and photos are FAIR USE and are posted Publicly, but in addition to that, she has also given me permission personally, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also have donated to Wikipedia in the past, and plan on donating a lot more, once I get done with medical school (I am broke right now).

Thanks for your time and help,

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

M1 Medical Student

B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens in the future, the page you want to use says © 2006-2008 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.. Leaving that aside, the individual is simply not notable with the sources you have presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse - text taken from "public websites" is still considered to be copyrighted, fair use does not apply here. The page even has a copyright symbol on it (but note that copyright applies whether that symbol is present on the webpage or not, unless the site clearly states that its text is free for use under applicable policies.) That the copyright holder is going to email Wikipedia does not mean that copyright is invalidated. The permission must be there first. So that reason for deleting the article is valid. Concerning the other reason, notability, the AfD from 2007 ended in a consensus that the individual did not meet WP:PROF at the time, and the article that was deleted today did in fact not include sources that showed that notability is present now. You need sources that meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: Notability based on Sources: Here are the sources used, showing that she has accomplished far more than many 9/11 researchers and scientists that have their own Wikipedia pages, since she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to ever file her evidence in a court of law, and one of her cases made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT:






and I planned on adding more references but the page was deleted within 24 hours, and I am a very busy medical student. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Response: Emailed Permission: Dr. Wood has personally given me permission to use the content of her website via email, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours.Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The three external sources were [1] (nothing about her, just a link to her Ph D dissertation), [2] (a page listing faculty, verifying that she was an assistant professor) and [3], which shows that her requests for correction have been denied. These aren't sources about her, but links to things she has done but which have not received any attention. The sources are reliable, but are not independent reports about her. No sources have been provided to show that she has been the focus of significant attention in newspapers, books from reputable publishers, (truly) scientific journals, TV documentaries, ... She has written a dissertation, had a job that no one apart from her employee has remarked on, and has made an unsuccessful "request for correction" which is publicly available but which again has not received any outside attention. Solving the copyright problem will not help you at all, any article about here with those or similar sources will be deleted again and again. Fram (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed - the sources are worthless in determining notability and leaving the copyright problems aside, the article would be deleted anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Response: NOTABILITY: Other 9/11 researchers have also filed RFC's which were denied, yet they have Wikipedia pages! Heck, David Ray Griffin who is studies THEOLOGY has a Wikipedia page, just because he has gotten some media attention, even though he isn't even qualified to research 9/11! I had not gotten the chance to post more sources because the page was deleted so rapidly!
  • Response: Legal Efforts: More important than the RFC filing is Dr. Wood's Qui-Tam whistleblower case, because it made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT. Of course it has not received mainstream media coverage, we are talking about 9/11 here!

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Response: Media Coverage: Recent media coverage from March 2010 shows that Dr. Wood's research and legal efforts are finally starting to be recognized by the media. I cannot post the link because The Examiner is blacklisted by Wikipedia for some reason. The article is by TheExaminer and is titled 'Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11'

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Response: More Media Coverage:

1. Dr. Wood has given many presentations of her research. In 2007 she gave a presentation at a conference in Madison, WI. Here is a link to that presentation:

2. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: I planned on posting these things later on, but the page was deleted so rapidly!

3. Dr. Wood recently appeared on the Republic Broadcasting Network radio network:

4. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on a very popular radio and TV show known as "Edge Media TV" See the interview here:

5. Dr. Wood recently was presented her research on 'The Power Hour' radio show hosted by Genesis Communications Network. This is a very large radio show. The interview happened just a few weeks ago.

6. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on 'The Veritas Show' with Mel Fabregas. Here is a recording of some of the interview:

7. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research at a huge conference in Seattle that discusses topics such as Free Energy and Military Energy Weapons. You can see the presentation here:

8. There are lots more, I just haven't had time, because the article was deleted in under 24 hours!

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OVERTURN this please. Dr. Wood should be sending you an email giving me permission to use the content of her website within 24-48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

it's all worthless as far as reliable sources go - unless you have some sources from mainstream reliable sources, you will never be able to create an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse- no problems here. Reyk YO! 10:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: Mainstream Sources:

Look up the recent article written by Here is the url:

Also, The radio station is WPFW 89.3 in Washington, D.C is rather mainstream.

EdgeMediaTV is rather mainstream in the UK.

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


    • The Examiner is not a reliable source. It is not a website with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; if it was it would not have people like Alfred Lambremont Webre writing for it. Glorified blog, basically. Reyk YO!10:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What about the other Mainstream sources I mentioned?
  • Question: Why are so many people that have done so much less for our country able to have Wikipedia pages but Dr. Wood isn't? She is the ONLY person to have filed her 9/11 evidence with a court-of-law. She is the only person to create a law suit to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court! She is fighting for all of us here in America, and she deserves a Wikipedia page, don't you agree?

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


9/11 Truth Movement page & Dr. Judy Wood

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [16] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [17], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [18] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,


'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC).


So, what you have read, is my attempt to create a valid, credible, well-resourced page to present Dr. Judy Wood and her research. The page was deleted within 24 hours, for 2 reasons. I was told I did not have copyright permission to use her information, even though Dr. Wood has given me permission via email, and had offered to email Wikipedia’s permissions department to alert them to the fact that I did have permission. The other reason that was given is that she was not notable, even though Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 researcher ever to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of the truth, and one case even made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

As a result of this, I tried to appeal the deletion of the page, by creating a Deletion Review / Appeal request in the appropriate section of the Wikipedia help boards. There was no success, as I was repeatedly told that Dr. Wood was not “notable”, and that I was violating copyright laws by posting her information, even though I had her permission.

Next, I attempted to add some quick and important information about Dr. Wood to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page, because her name was not mentioned even mentioned, not one single time. As predicted, her name was deleted off the page within 24 hours, and any attempts to re-add the information to the page were always met with re-deletion. They would not even allow her name to be mentioned, let alone her very important Supreme Court case. A moderator told me to start a discussion about it if I wanted to convince others why I thought her name and her research should be mentioned on that page, so I did.

My attempt to start a discussion to find out why Dr. Judy Wood, her research, or her Supreme Court case, were not mentioned one single time on the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page, was also blocked within 24 hours of creating it. Even though I was told to create a discussion about it, but surprisingly, even my discussion was deleted, and instead, I was referred to my original ‘Judy Wood’ page Deletion Review / Appeal discussion. Basically, not only were several Wikipedia moderators blocking me from creating a credible, well-sourced ‘Judy Wood’ Wikipedia page, but they were also blocking me from even adding her NAME to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ Wikipedia page. Then, when I was told to start a discussion about what I felt should be added to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ page, my discussion was ALSO blocked, and I was told to refer to the discussion regarding the deletion of the ‘Judy Wood’ page for reasons as to why her name was ‘not notable enough’ to be added to the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ page.

This bothers me.


Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

M1 Medical Student

B.S. Biology / Neurobiology


Here is an additional comment from one of the moderators that I tried to discuss this with on a more individual basis:

“I would give Judy Woods a rest, seriously. Your own credibility over the topic has put her and you on the radar of a number of people and even if you came up with really good references from the NYTimes or Bloomberg you wouldn't be able to create the article anyways - the name is has been blocked for a while. If you really want to pursue it then I'd suggest creating a private page of your own to develop it. Nobody would fiddle with it and you can craft it until its acceptable. I could help you there. But the comments of the others are still very valid.--Hooperbloob (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)”


02 Apr 2014  - Someone Writes to Wikipedia To Ask About the Exclusion of Dr Judy Wood's research

Despite ongoing sales of Dr Judy Wood's book, increasing awareness of her research and a number of interviews, Wikipedia continues to censor discussion of all these topics:

On 05/01/2014 16:18 - JF wrote:

 Dear Sirs,

 As a frequent reader and sometime donor to Wikipedia I wanted to ask why there is nothing to be found in wikipedia about the author Dr. Judy Wood and her book* Where Did The Towers Go*?

For reference please see the link from the website:

As Dr. Wood is a respected scientist and her book is highly rated, a response or comments from Wikipedia on this omission would be appreciated.

Bonne soirée de Genève,


+41 76 xxxxx

From: Wikipedia information team < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Date: Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2014050110008697] Article not found
To: JF

Dear JF,

Thank you for sharing your concerns. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. A corollary to that is that is that we try to avoid giving content undue weight <> to topics. We only report what is covered by reliable secondary sources. Dr. Wood's book would be considered a primary source for a discussion of her theory, so discussing it in an article would require other sources not written by Wood as evidence that is a significant theory worthy of inclusion.
If you know of such sources and would like to propose it be added, you can create a free account and propose it on a discussion page such as <>. Article content is not controlled by a central authority, so we can take only limited action on requests via email. The discussion pages are where most decisions about article content are made.

Yours sincerely,
Alexander Zaddach

Wikipedia -
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on



*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC!Facebook!StumbleUpon!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
< Prev   Next >