NIST Responds again to Dr Judy Wood-Jerry Leaphart Comments

[Andrew Johnson]

The text of the response is given below, as is a link to a PDF. No response has been issued to Reynolds or HAAS as yet.

Jerry Leaphart discusses these matters here (32 minutes and worth a listen):

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Jerry%20Leaphart%20-%20NIST% 20RFC%20Response%20for%20Dr%20Wood%20-%20Total%20Info%20Radio%20-%2013 %20Aug%202007.mp3

or link from here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=date&ord er=desc

PDF: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NistWoodRfcResponse.pdf



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National institute of Standards and Technology Godithersburg, Maryland 20899-

JUL 2 7 2007
Dr. Judy Wood
202 Mulberry Avenue
Clemson, SC 29631

Dear Dr. Wood:

This letter is in response to your March 16, 2007 request for correction, and your March 29, 2007 and April 20, 2007 supplements, which included witness statements from first responders interviewed by the World Trade Center Task Force, pursuant to Section 515 of P.L. 106-544 (the Information Quality Act) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received on March 16, 2007, March 29, 2007, and April 20, 2007, respectively. In your letters you challenge the premises and the "probable collapse sequence" proposed by NIST in NCSTAR 1 explaining the sequence of events leading up to the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. As an alternative, you assert in your letters that "the evidence confirms that the World Trade Center towers were felled by use of Directed Energy Weaponry." In addition, you assert that Applied Research Associates (ARA), a NIST WTC Investigation contractor, had a conflict of interest in performing work for the WTC Investigation because ARA is a "significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof." For the reasons presented below, NIST is denying your request for correction and does not plan to retract the NCSTAR 1 report as you have requested.. To facilitate communication, the term "collapse" as used in this letter and in NCSTAR 1 means a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure. As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.

Your request for correction asserts that ".. .NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1," namely to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed. Your request for correction further asserts that NIST's findings violate the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy. NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons. The NIST analysis satisfied both the momentum and energy conservation principles and, in fact, appropriately accounted for the energy absorbed through inelastic ductile behavior of components and fractures, failures, and buckling of components. NIST fully documented its technical approach to the analysis of the aircraft impacts and the resulting damage to the WTC towers (refer to NCSTAR 1-2 and associated technical topic reports NCSTAR 1-2A and 1-2B). The analysis results were verified by using extensive photographic and video evidence. Similarly, NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 (and the associated technical topic reports) document the analysis of the fire growth and spread, the thermal analysis, and the response of the damaged structures to fire loads up to the point of collapse initiation. The progression of the fires through the building and the structural response was again validated using the extensive visual evidence available. The rigorous technical approach employed by NIST resulted in findings consistent with all of the available evidence. NIST has analyzed the evidence you provided, and the totality of the evidence still supports NIST's conclusions.

In your supplement of March 29,2007 you also assert that Applied Research Associates, one of the contractors involved in the investigation, has a "significant, clear and palpable conflict of interest that adversely affects the quality and the integrity of the work done by ARA for NIST." Prior to award, each NIST WTC Investigation Contractor underwent a rigorous organizational conflict of interest analysis. As a result of the analysis, ARA was determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest. In addition, each contract contained a provision requiring the contractor to notify NIST immediately should any organizational conflict of interest arise during the course of the contract, and no such conflicts of interest were reported. You further claim that ARA is a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof. Since there is no factual evidence to support this claim, NIST has no basis for accepting your proposed corrections to NCSTAR 1.

In conclusion, NIST is denying your request for correction because the NIST analysis of the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers was thorough and based on all of the available evidence, and NIST continues to believe that the report is not fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of the date of the initial decision. Such an appeal must be made in writing and addressed to:

Deputy Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1000

An appeal of an initial denial must include:

a. the requester's name, current home or business address, and telephone number or

electronic mail address;

b. a copy of the original request and any correspondence regarding the initial denial;

and

c. a statement of the reasons why the requester believes the initial denial was in error.

Thank you for your interest. If you have questions or concerns, you may contact me at

. Please refer to for additional information.

Sincerely,

Catherine S. Fletcher

Chief Management and Organization Division

[Easy Rider]

These people at NIST are professional foggers have they been having lessons from some of the stalwarts on this site.

To cut to the chase I guess NIST are standing by the Pancake Theory?

[andyb]

This should really be in the right section.

Easy Rider, if you don't even know what the NIST report says then I really don't think your backing of the Beam Theory holds much weight.

[John White]

What I don't understand is:

What exactly does Wood hope to gain from this process?

NIST are never going to put their hands up and go "yeah gee Judy your spot on space beams did it", she's not gaining any additional information to support her case

How exactly is getting NISt to deny a theory that is hard to comprehend as credible scientifically, let alone campaign on or consider the strongest probability based on available evidence, moving forward 9/11 Truth

I'm feeling cynical about thi: I have to say i can't really help that:

Becuase my intuition is telling me this is mostly about making woods and her theory seem important with a reflected credibility from being "officially denied"

Can you offer me any POV or assurances to disuade me from that?

And if this is a woods PR exercise, well nice one Judy!

You've just poisoned the well for a more serious attempt to confront NIST on the facts

[John White]

[andyb]

SO he can post anything anywhere withut it being moved. And I'm not picking on it because it's Judy wood's, the same would apply to Steven Jones.

I also find it strange that you need to include any alternative theories when challenging NIST. Surely jsut challenge their own data. Simple. Wood's and Jones both agree that NIST are incorrect. Let's use that common ground to win!!!

[Easy Rider]

[Easy Rider]

[gareth]

NIST are responding to Wood to promote her and her theory?

I recommend anyone who hasn't seen DC911Truth's Greg Jenkins interviewing her that they do: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

and

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf

[Andrew Johnson]

Move it if it bothers you that much - I am past caring. I provide this information for review - it is a bona fide legal challenge from a qualified lawyer and scientist.

For some reason, AndyB and John White - neither of whom have a science or legal background wish to denigrate and "hide" these efforts, which they have no direct involvement in.

So why not just leave it here, rather than move it as all the documentation is publically available and if it were a PR stunt, what is there to be gained from it?

How many of you listened to Jerry Leaphart's discussion?

Did any of you ask why NIST haven't responded to Ed Haas (let alone Morgan Reynolds)?

Ed Haas simply talks about WTC7 and, as such, this is his own action which can be considered entirely separate from Wood and Reynolds - yet you still want to get "upset" over this.

[Andrew Johnson]

[John White]

[mason-free party]

i find it odd that some posts are moved to the 911 controversies section and any reply to them therefore does not show up on the homepage yet allowing the Manchurian candidate thread is causing more controversy and is there for all to see on the homepage....seems Chalky and co have double standards..

[John White]

[marky 54]

please stop with the comments about people not having scientific backgrounds to be worthy of an opinon.

i don't need a scientific background to work out 9/11 dos'nt add up, so why would i need one to decide if judy woods theory holds water.

besides its just a piece of paper that was taught in a system controlled by the PTB, the more brainwashed you are the higher the grade you get.

but if having a scientific background is so important then is it the same for questioning 9/11?

should nobody be questioning 9/11 unless they have scientific papers?

is my opinon that 9/11 dos'nt add up void simply because i don't hold papers with qualifications.

besides who's to say people have not educated themselves of scientific facts etc, you can learn anything on the internet and most of the people here are more educated in the events of 9/11 than the vast majority of people, so if the people here cannot question theorys who can?

[gareth]

[andyb]

Andrew,

I said Steven Jones’s stuff should go in there too, and am not being specific to Judy Woods. No I don’t have a scientific background but I know a whole lot more about physics and engineering as a result of examining the collapses in great detail. Like I said, there is no need to fight, we don’t need to prove anything other than the absurdity of the NIST report. If ANY particular theory is pushed too much and is wrong it is detrimental to the whole movement. There are areas in both theories re the collapse that are impossible to prove without a new investigation. Let’s stick to what we know.

Bob Marley spoke some sense.

“If you get down and you quarrel everyday,
You're saying prayers to the devils, I say. Wo-oh-ooh!
Why not help one another on the way?
Make it much easier. (Just a little bit easier)”

[Rowan Berkeley]

(1) The sloth of this server is grotesque. If the site owners cannot afford sufficient bandwidth to serve the users they should say so and appeal for funds to pay for adequate bandwidth.

(2) I think that Judy Wood's "Request for Corrections" from NIST on the grounds that it didn't consider space beams is an attempt to discredit "Requests for Corrections" in general (before Jones & co. submit one, I suppose).

(3) Ed Haas should consider himself lucky he didn't get tarred, feathered, and run out of town, for his shameless attempt to borrow the scene of old jews plotting in a graveyard from the pseudonymous Sir John Radcliffe's novel "Biarritz".

[truthseeker john]

Ever since Judy Wood set up a website with her ‘evidence’ which was directed against Steven Jones’s hypothesis, I have had the view that she has no idea what she’s talking about.

Now after seeing the video http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 and hearing her speaking, I’m even more convinced that to put it frankly, she is as thick as two short planks. How she got a PHD is anyone’s guess and the sad thing is that people will be measuring what we say by her example.

Now don’t get me wrong, it is possible that direct energy weapons were involved but these would be of the ‘scalar’ sort rather than Lasers from space (or anywhere else). Which, as Jenkins tries to point out, it would take an enormous amount of energy for a Laser in space to do enough damage to the WTC to bring it down. But Judy poor girl, well, she didn’t have anything convincing to say and plainly hasn’t a clue about which sorts of energy weapons might have be used and when she goes on to make a further fool of herself, it becomes obvious that despite her (supposed) education and titles, she has a lower than average IQ. As I said it is possible that some sort of energy technology was involved but I think she’s here to confuse and muddy the water.

“The towers were brought down by explosives!” “No, the towers were brought down by Thermate which acted like explosives!” “No, the towers were brought down by Thermate and explosives but that direct energy stuff you’ve got to be kidding” “Hey, mini nukes used!” “No, all of you are wrong, because the towers were brought down by energy weapons!”

So we can have people arguing in endless circles with this against that, when truth be known, it’s quite possible that this and that (and perhaps something else as well) was used.

John

[Rowan Berkeley]

these only exist in the fantasies of this man Bearden, but he has been doing it for so long it has become an institution - and this is why Rosalee 'Webfairy' Grable keeps falling back into the "cold war, russia did it" scenario - it comes from Bearden:
http://www.cheniere.org/
there is an instant debunk kit for beardenitis here:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm

[truthseeker john]

[Rowan Berkeley]

The 'documentary' (or 'ficumentary') that people always refer to regarding the Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion scandal is this one:

Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion
Part 1 at YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hixy4cSW0yo
Part 2 at YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rtNORz4BDY
Part 3 at YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5sn5BoVx0
Part 4 at YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obPx5DonyaM
Part 5 at YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wttJUVzAqN8
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Jed Rothwell and Scott JT Frank
Liberty International Entertainment and Epiphany Pictures 2001 (46 minutes)

up there courtesy of Coffinman. I find this unconvincing, especially after having googled Liberty International Entertainment, but an entire school of truthling science following the WebFairy starts from the idea that Steven Jones sabotaged Pons & Fleischmann.

[Andrew Johnson]

[John White]

[gareth]

[andyb]

Andrew,

The fact Jenkins has worked on project part funded by the NSA does not make Judy Woods right. You are using the logic of Paul Stott and Larry O'Hara to reach that conclusion. If you believe that he was underhand then will you arrange me to interview Judy woods and we can release the unedited footage? She can pick any time and be fully prepared.

As i've repeatedly said on this thread. We shouldn't throw all our eggs in any baskets and stick to the fact the NIST report is a joke and easily debunked.

[Rowan Berkeley]

[Bongo]

Truthseeker John wrote: