Dr Judy Wood files Qui Tam against NIST

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_071011_9_2f11_scholar _files__22.htm

October 11, 2007

9/11 Scholar files "Qui Tam" lawsuit against NIST

By Jim Fetzer

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) October 11, 2007 – According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, on September 12, 2007, the day after the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), Federal Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York signed a court order "unsealing" a 9/11 complaint filed by Dr. Judy Wood against the National Institute of Standards and Technology on April 25, 2007. “This may prove to be a crucial turning points in exposing the official cover-up of actually happened on that tragic day,” observed Fetzer.

The complaint alleges that contractors hired by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, violated the so-called False Claims Act in their work originally intended to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.” Dr. Wood is suing on behalf of the United States of America because the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which represents "the government," declined to intervene in the case, a so-called “Qui Tam” lawsuit, Fetzer said.

With the case unsealed, steps in the litigation now can be reported to the public in the same matter as any lawsuit pending in a federal court, according to Jerry V. Leaphart, Attorney at Law, who is representing Dr. Wood in these proceedings. Leaphart, who has been admitted to the bar in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, recognized that the situation was ripe for a Qui tam suit in light of Dr. Wood’s research, which contradicts the official NIST report.

According to Leaphart, Qui Tam is a legal provision under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. #3729 et seq.) that allows private persons, including those who are known as “whistleblowers,” who possess knowledge of frauds committed against the United States to bring suits on its behalf. “When the nation won’t act on its own behalf,” he added, “Qui Tam provides the means for citizens to compel the government to fulfill its own duties and obligations under the law.”

“NIST was hanging out with the wrong crowd,” according to Dr. Wood. “Apparently the people hired to do the work of figuring out how the Twin Towers disappeared convinced NIST to focus on something else. NIST admitted to me in writing that it deliberately did not investigate the actual unraveling of the WTC.” In its letter of July 27, 2007, to Wood NIST acknowledged, “NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.”

Dr. Wood holds degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Fetzer added, “She is a former assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University and is arguably the best qualified 9/11 researcher in the world. I know of no one else whose qualifications come close to matching hers.”

Dr. Wood is well known in the 9/11 truth movement for alleging fraud and requesting correction of the official report prepared by NIST. In her recent Appeal of her Request for Correction (RFC), Wood presented compelling evidence that the Twin Towers were destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

She has also discovered that companies heavily invested in developing and manufacturing such black technology were also hired to work on the NIST project. They appear to have ignored evidence of DEW all around them, instead using their expertise to cover up the kind of weaponry employed.

Although NIST declined to correct NCSTAR 1 as demanded by Dr. Wood, NIST did respond in part by providing a specific definition of what it meant by the word "collapse" in its original report, NCSTAR 1, namely:

“a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure.”

This definition, however, turns out to be at odds with the basic premise of NCSTAR 1, insofar as the NIST never actually studied the events that fall within the scope of this novel definition. “That is fraud,” declared Dr. Wood. [http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070727_PROD01_003222.pdf]

“Indeed,” said Fetzer, who recently retired as a professor of philosophy after 35 years of college teaching, “that definition would even be consistent with the destruction of the building by means of a nuclear explosion, which flattened it and turned it to rubble. NIST did not explain how it happened.”

Dr. Wood’s federal Qui tam case asserts that the corporate and individual defendants committed actionable fraud under the False Claims Act. Her lawsuit seeks reimbursement of monies paid, penalties and interest.

“The most shocking claim,” Attorney Leaphart has observed, “may be that some of the defendants include those actually involved in development and manufacture of directed energy weapons and the development of covert psychological operations, which Wood claims were key ingredients in the events of 9/11.” Her complaint states, in part:

"[The] defendants…committed fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing that WTC1, 2 could not reasonably or possibly have been destroyed in the manner seen absent the use of DEW. Some of the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did not, they should have known. To the extent they did not know, such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False Claims Act."

Leaphart’s office has already served the defendants with notice of the complaint that has been filed against them. Defendants named include Applied Research Associates (ARA), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Underwriters Laboratories, among others. “This should be very interesting,” said Fetzer. “I predict you’ll be hearing more about it. We are burrowing deeper and deeper into the reality of 9/11.”



Authors Website: 911scholars.org

Authors Bio: Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

More details here: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

[mediadisbeliever]

Andrew, it'll very interesting to see how this case develops. Good luck to Dr Judy Wood in her efforts.

Regards

Ian

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks Pegasus. It remains to be seen how all this will unfold. It would seem to be true that this whole case is against the most powerful forces and we can only guess what they might do in response to this.

Whatever that may be, I think it is only right and proper than when enough evidence has been assembled, the criminals should be charged using the due process of the law.

Audio discussion here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Judy%20Wood%20Jerry%20L eaphart%20-%20NIST%20Qui%20Tam%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2011%20Oct%2020 07.mp3

or top link on here:

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

[John White]

To petition NIST on the basis of Judy Wood's "theories" can only charitably be described as folly

I reckon it's true that alot of people agree with that view but chose not to post on this thread becuase they don't want to give this action any endorsement: and as evidence I call 176 views and only 2 posts: in comparison most threads have a 10 to 1 ratio for views to posts, which should see this thread on something like 18 posts by now

The ONLY positive about this is if it forces information into the open that can actually be used by the focused activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement

How much better it would be if it was based on challenges that had substance and were real?

[paul wright]

[John White]

[paul wright]

You wont draw me in John. There's a lot of credible evidence and I'm not about to make lists.
Wonder why this whole topic engenders hostility.
Suggests some root point.
Anyway love to you John, as has always been

[John White]

[mediadisbeliever]

[John White]

[mediadisbeliever]

"Bamboozled": I think not. If you can take the time to listen and digest exactly what Dr Woods is saying in her 35min presentation : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8344867178250739868 you may be able to comprehend how she has come to this conclusion. Also vist www.drjudywood.com to cross-examine more of her work.

If the thought of DEW's use frightens folk, then that is a very understandable emotion. But, let us not reject the very reality of its existence and experimentation because its overwhelming power is hard to conceive.

Sherlock Holmes declared: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Judy Wood used this fitting quote at the end of her presentation.

Regards

Ian

[John White]

No its not frightening, its simply farcical

How is "beam weapons" any more "scary" than 9/11 inside job in the first place?

How is "beam weapons" more scary than nukes? Or bio weapons?

ITS NOT

Link up Judy Wood's site as much as you like: it only proves the point that the woman is a sad joke, played on anyone who can't see the obvious deficiencies in the conclusion she draws from the poverty of evidence she has gathered, which amounts to nothing more than her own self-delusion, assuming she is not deliberately trying to associate 9/11 Truth with the worst form of quackery

So kindly take your crude aspercion on my courage, or suggesting that anyone not taken in by fraudsters is somehow "weaker" than you or Andrew, elsewhere, and get over your own fear to start to comprehend that you've been done up a kipper and had again

Becuase to fail to confront that most certainly IS scary

[mediadisbeliever]

[John White]

Its quite quite simple: its the evidence makes me reject it

Wood has been discussed debated and disected in great detail in truth controversies: I don't need to rehash that debate here. I will say my criticism of Wood is based on obvious false assertions and claims made about images that have other competant and credible explanations well within the grounds of high credibility. Ultimately, she is just plain wrong, often farcically, and it only appears to be people giving credance to some letters after her name that leads to her having any credibility whatsoever. Whatever she is doing, it is clearly an act of fantasy, NOT science

Andrew is breaking the site code of conduct just by posting this here, and he knows it. He ignores that becuase he thinks he has a truth that the rest of us are too "asleep" or "ignorant" to see with out his "help". I don't respect that, becuase it is the work of a preacher: and the hypocrasy of Andrews signature when he runs from the evidence, coupled with his disdain for the community he is part of by ignoring the balance put in place whilst simultaneously claiming opression becuase he cannot debate, entirely compromises his credibility in my eyes whatever else he may have in terms of past "track record": it reveals fundametalist thinking and a fundamentally flawed level of reasoning

[Me]

I think that the no planes, particle beam weapon stuff is all part of an orchestrated diversion by agent provocateurs to point truthers in the wrong direction as credible demolition evidence continues to mount. Some who have since latched on to those theories may have the best of intentions but the original intent I believe was and still is a very negative one. These well poisoning theories have become the debunker favorites of Popular Mechanics as if by design. I’ve also noticed that some leaders of these absurd theories have actually petioned NIST ‘NOT’ to investigate the controlled demolition hypothesis. It really pisses me off actually.

[John White]

[911Eyewitness]

[chek]

[paul wright]

[John White]

[paul wright]

Of course, John
No legal measures however deft will expose the mo. Worth a try nevertheless

[John White]

[paul wright]

nonsense, nonsense, nonsense John. Why do you seek to draw me into this
I've told what I perceive and I will not argue in any way
That is the diversion and diversiveness
Believe what you believe and me with mine
I'll certainly put the simple version out for those who believe the promoted 'science' while fervently assured of the 'back science' that's actually operative

[John White]

[paul wright]

[John White]

[Indubitably]

Having looked at a number of videos and read a number of blogs I realised that Dr Woods has amassed a great deal of scientific evidence that the Twin Towers did NOT collapse but were destroyed by being pulverised to dust. The film from 9/11 DOES suggest this. She presents all sorts of evidence to support it. There is no structural collapse in the conventional sense of that term. I think Dr. Wood will have her day in court and I wish her well.

[truthseeker john]

"Dr" Judy Wood and her theories are an embarrassment.

[Indubitably]

And your main argument against the thesis of Dr Wood is precisely what ?? Do you have one ?

[chek]