Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 Requests for Corrections - to NISTGovernment Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research “Worthy”

The Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico says Dr. Judy Wood‘s 9/11 directed energy weapon evidence is “interesting and worthy of further consideration.”

Dr. Judy Wood (with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science), widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, has filed a Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, MD.

Dr. Wood is represented in this effort by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken and/or other legal action may then follow.
WTC7Leaphart further states that Dr. Wood knows that the implications of her theory that DEW were used to destroy the WTC complex shatter certain key beliefs that Americans as a whole cherish and hold dear. Her theory has generated a lot of interest and commentary within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relies primarily upon the Internet as its media source. Mainstream print and broadcast media do not cover the 9/11 Truth Movement, but may need to take heed of this administrative action filed by Dr. Wood, according to Attorney Leaphart.

Leaphart said that to his knowledge, only three RFCs concerning NIST’s WTC report have been filed to date. One by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, another by Edward F. Haas and the one filed by Dr. Wood. All three are currently pending.

The 43 page RFC filed by Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.

SouthTowerCollapseNCSTAR 1 admits:

“The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13]

E.1 Genesis of this investigation

p. xxxv-xxxvi (pp. 37-38): “The specific objectives were:

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; …”

WTC2_explosion_timingE.2 Approach

p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote2 “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

WTCTo this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards.

In contrast, Dr. Wood’s RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the twin towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of the twin towers.

CARS DESTROYEDThat fact is assessed on the basis of the two other laws of physics in Wood’s RFC, thus confirming its scientific rigor. Wood also points to other compelling evidence that NIST ignored. Wood’s RFC shows visual evidence of unusual and unexplained blast effects on vehicles parked blocks away from the complex. Wood also demonstrates unexplained visual damage in the form of perpendicular gouges in WTC 3, and WTC 4,5,6 and the near disappearance of WTC 3, all of which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. Wood goes further and points out that the incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes all point to the use of directed energy weapons. One other element of Wood’s proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. Wood asks: Where did it go?

911wtc6craterwestairAdded to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all.

Dr. Wood’s RFC demonstrates all of the above mentioned effects in its 43 pages of text and pictorial proof. The combined effects of gravity, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) and plane damage could not possibly have caused the massive destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, according to Dr. Wood. The wonder of it all is that more engineers and scientists have not come forward to challenge the woeful, scientific inadequacies of the official explanation.

Dr. Wood invites her peers and colleagues to set aside their emotional attachments and to view the evidence objectively. Then and only then can America come to grips with what happened on 9/11/01, according to Dr. Wood.

911wtc6Hole_03March 16, 2007: Former Clemson University Professor of Mechanical Engineering Dr Judy Wood files a Request for Correction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the 9/11 NIST Report. Dr Wood cites fraud and deception, and shows clear evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weaponry.

Dr Judy Wood is represented by attorney Jerry V. Leaphart.

Dr Wood’s Request for Correction (RFC) is archived on the US Government’s Department of Commerce website in PDF format:

WTC

DR. JUDY WOOD – Office of Chief Information Officer

RFC (March 16, 2007):

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_002667

Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier – Dr. Judy Wood (March 29, 2007):

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_002722

Supplement#2 to RFC (April 20, 2007):

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_002899

April 7, 2007: Dr Wood sends letter to:

* The Head of U.S. Air Force Directed Energy Directorate
* The Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director for Management
* The Board of Directors of Directed Energy Professional Society

WTC
The main question of this letter:
“Are the effects set forth in RFC filed with NIST consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of directed energy weapons?”

See here for full letter with additional comments by Jerry Leaphart:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html

April 27, 2007: Wood and Leaphart are contacted and have telephone conversation with

* The Director of Public Affairs
* Directed Energy Directorate
* Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA
* Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

May 3 2007: Leaphart sends letter to the Director of Public Affairs:
http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070503_letterGarcia.pdf

May 4, 2007: Leaphart receives the following FAX from the Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base (emphasis added):

===================================
MESSAGE: I received your fax yesterday and your FedEx package today, and had a chance to review the materials you sent. During our telephone conversation I outlined a variety of directed energies that might have future weapons applications but I’m not aware of any that are mature enough to cause the damage at the World Trade Center. Lasers are the most likely candidates for nearer-term weapons use and, to that enc, we have conducted laboratory tests to evaluate the effects of laser energy on different materials. For the most part, those materials have been metals, not concrete structures. Effects on metals are from the heat generated by an intense beam of coherent light, which cause the metals to weaken and split. Given sufficient heat, metals would melt (become liquids) and, given significantly more heat, could turn to gases. Since we haven’t tested concrete I don’t know if the effect would be dust. You report phenomena that we cannot explain here, either because we don’t have enough data or because the phenomena are not within our area of expertise. While on a personal level I may find Dr Wood’s investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration, on a professional level we are unable to devote our limited resources to activities outside of our charter, I wish you success in your endeavor and am available to answer whatever directed energy questions may arise.

911 Directed Energy Weapon Research
===================================

Garcia Responds – Dr. Judy Wood:

See here for a scan of the original FAX document:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Garcia_letter.html

Dr Wood’s 9/11 directed energy weapon evidence is “interesting and worthy of further consideration!”

————————–

where did the towers goJune 29, 2007: The Chief of the Management and Organization division at NIST replies to Dr Wood, and states they need more time to respond to her RFC:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html

NIST needs **more time** ??

070822_APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated July 27, 2007 (7.9 MB pdf)
22 August 2007, by Dr. Judy Wood

Attachments:
Judy WoodLegal documents related to 9/11 filed by and on behalf of Dr. Judy Wood:
Challenges to NIST’s 9/11 Investigations.
16 March 2007, Judy Wood

Qui Tam case
25 April 2007, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam case Affirmations and Affidavits
in response to motions to dismiss (ARA and others)
29 February 2008, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam case Affirmations and Affidavits
in response to motions to dismiss (SAIC and others)
21 March 2008, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

RFC: What Happened was Not Inevitable (6.5 Mb)
16 March 2007, Judy Wood
(Other pdf resolutions available here.)

Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (28 kb)
29 March 2007, Judy Wood

Supplement#2 to RFC submitted earlier (320 kb)
20 April 2007, Judy Wood

Qui Tam case
25 April 2007, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

070822_APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated July 27, 2007 (7.9 MB pdf)
22 August 2007, by Dr. Judy Wood

Dr. Judy Wood’s Qui Tam Law Suit Unsealed 
12 September 2007, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

————————–

See Dr. Judy Wood‘s 9/11 directed energy weapon research here:
http://drjudywood.com

Related:

Requests for Corrections – to NIST – Dr. Judy Wood

An Interview with 9/11 Counselor Jerry V. Leaphart

Press Release — NIST-RFC – Dr. Judy Wood

Star Wars Energy Weapons 1 – Dr. Judy Wood

Future Weapons Systems. Star Wars ain’t got Angelfire

WTC Disaster Study

The Vatic Project: 9/11 Right is Radical

Advertisements