Prof Wood gets her Letters Published in Steve Jones' Journal

[Andrew Johnson]

This should really be in the news or general section.
==================
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response1.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response2.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html

===================
_____________
______________________________________________________________________ ____
______________________________________________________________________ ____
______________________________________________________________________ ____
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response1.html


Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Response 1



Email1 from Steven E. Jones to Judy Wood:

Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:01:47 -0600
From: Steve Jones
To: Judy Wood
Subject: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Wood,

Attached is a Letter submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies; it is now undergoing peer review.
Since the Letter quotes you directly (in an interview with Dr. Jenkins), you are invited to write a response-Letter for simultaneous publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. You may request that your response be peer-reviewed or published without peer-review and we will honor your request. If your response is received by May 15 (eight days from now), then it can be co-published with the attached. Of course, Letters for the Journal of 9/11 Studies are welcomed at any time.

Thank you,

Steven Jones

Attachment converted:Wood-Jenkins Interview.pdf


______________________________________________________________________ ____
Email1 from Judy Wood to Steven E. Jones:

Dr. JUDY WOOD


Date: Tues, 8 May 2007 17:30:00 -0400
From: Judy Wood
To: Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Jones,

This acknowledges your many courtesies in letting me know of your intention to publish yet another version of the January 10, 2007, interview between myself and Dr. Greg Jenkins. The original transcript was already posted on my website. I respectfully decline to comment in detail, but would ask that you post this letter, as you have stated you would do, as a 'simultaneous letter.' http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html

The many criticisms of my interview replies serve little useful purpose at this time as the causal theory that I espouse has moved well beyond where it was in January. It is fair to say that much has happened since January that would render the criticism of the critical interview (a form of double-dipping, perhaps?) rather out of date, in my opinion. That said, I do not here claim that you should not publish the criticism if that is what you think is best for your journal.

The DEW causal theory is now pending as an official Request for Correction (RFC) within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that I filed on March 16, 2007, some two months after the January 10th interview. More recently, I have supplemented the RFC on two separate occasions wherein I have specifically called attention to fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 USC @ 1329 et seg., that enables me to file law suits against certain parties, which law suits must be filed under seal and kept confidential until permission is received to say more about them.

My RFCs further reveal that NIST was assisted in the preparation of a false and fraudulent report on what caused the destruction of World Trade Center 1 and 2 (WTC1,2) by major developers of directed energy weapons; namely: Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Inc. (SAIC), among other contractors who should have known that fraud was being committed.

In the case of ARA and SAIC, the extent of their knowledge is derived, in part, from having developed directed energy weapons. Between the two of them, ARA and SAIC had some 25 persons assigned to work on the NIST project, leading to the publication of NCSTAR1, the report on what caused the destruction of WTC1,2.

I can tell you that the response to my RFCs and to the revelations of fraud that they contain and the identification of major DEW contractors, that they also contain, has resulted in a new interest in and emphasis upon DEW theory that did not exist as at January 10th.

I can also reveal that the DEW theory has been presented to numerous responsible governmental officials whose work on directed energy weapons would put them in a position of knowing what effects would result from use of such weapons.

Finally, I can reveal that the queries I have caused to be submitted are being taken seriously. As this letter is being written, Dr. Jones, I can tell you that evidence of support of the correctness of DEW theory and corresponding correctness of assertions of fraud in the official reporting is accumulating rapidly with respect to both causation and fraud.


I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.

Please post this letter in its entirety. If you do not, I will reveal that you invited this reply and promised simultaneous posting, then reneged.


With sincere good wishes, I am


Very truly yours,

Dr. Judy Wood
______________________________________________________________________ ____
______________________________________________________________________ ____
______________________________________________________________________ ____
______________________________________________________________________ ____
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response2.html
Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Response 2


Email2 from Steven E. Jones to Judy Wood:

Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:01:47 -0600
From: Steve Jones
To: Judy Wood
Subject: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN
Dear Dr. Wood,

Attached is a Letter submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies; it is now undergoing peer review.
Since the Letter quotes directly from the RFC bearing your name, you are invited to write a response-Letter for simultaneous publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

You may request that your response be peer-reviewed or published without peer-review and we will honor your request. If your response is received by May 15 (eight days from now), then it can be co-published with the attached.

Of course, Letters submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies are welcomed at any time.

Thank you,

Steven Jones


Attachment converted:NIST RFC Wood Rebuttal.pdf

______________________________________________________________________ ____
Email2 from Judy Wood to Steven E. Jones:


Dr. JUDY WOOD


Date: Tues, 8 May 2007 17:30:00 -0400
From: Judy Wood
To: Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you, once again, for alerting me of the pendency of a second publication that will appear in your journal. You have indicated that "A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood's RFC to NIST: the good, the bad and the ugly" by Dr Greg Jenkins and Arabesque will appear and that I should provide you with my reply by May 15th.

I do so as follows:

I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would.

The article, which I will henceforth refer to by the second part of its title "the good, the bad & the ugly" helps to advance interest in the subject of directed energy weaponry as a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, and, in particular, WTC 1 and 2 (WTC1,2). It does so by way of criticism, but criticism is fair. That said, criticism is not self-validating and much of the content of the forthcoming good,bad,ugly article have been articulated elsewhere. One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm of these authors. That said, please know that I respect the right of Dr. Jenkins and of Arabesque to disagree with me.

I here assert that any further commentary from me would be inappropriate at this time and should, instead, be reserved until such time as NIST provides its officially mandated reply to my RFC, together with other procedures applicable to the official RFC process.

I do not want to prejudice NIST's review. I will reiterate, however, that I stand by the validity of the assertions contained in the RFC that is the topic of "the good, the bad & the ugly" in full.

Thank you in advance for publishing this letter in its entirety.

Very truly yours,

Dr. Judy Wood