Press Release: NIST Accused of Fraud and Deception

[Andrew Johnson]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/070322_PR.html

REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF NIST REPORT ON DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FILED

FRAUD AND DECEPTION CITED AS REASONS FOR CORRECTION REQUEST

March 22, 2007

CONTACT: Dr. Judy Wood or Attorney Jerry Leaphart 203-825-6265

For Immediate Release:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Basic Facts:

A Request for Correction (RFC) submitted under the Data Quality Act (DQA) was filed with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 16, 2007

NIST acknowledged receipt of RFC in writing on March 19, 2007, via its Acting Chief of Management and Organization Division, Stephen Willett.

RFC challenges the integrity of NIST document NCSTAR 1 (National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee), Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, issued in September 2005

See www.wtc.nist.gov

A full copy of the RFC filed by DR. Wood can be viewed at

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


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

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.

Leaphart 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.

NCSTAR 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; ..."

E.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.

Thus, to 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.

That 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?

Added 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.

[bigyin]

Fantastic is all I can say !

Has anything like this happened before ?

[andyb]

Andrew, surely this should be in Controversial.

[Thermate]

[Andrew Johnson]

Apart from Bigyin, predictable responses here.

Looks like we have some campaigners actually doing something. Jerry Leaphart has actually found a law and started a challenge.

Why didn't Floum and Jones do this with their work? (They still can, of course.) I wonder if the reason they haven't is that they aren't confident, unlike Prof Wood, that they can prove what they say is correct?

No, this is news - not controversial. It's a press release - what's controversial about that?

You can ignore it if you want.

[andyb]

I'm sorry but anything with Judy Wood's in the name is going to be controversial, no matter how much you've laised with her Andrew. I am of the belief that this is going to be as useful as CB_Brooklyns 16000 emails.

I don't see why they are fighting about the how when surely just proving that is scientifically impossible for the towers to collapse as per NIST/FEMA etc??

[Andrew Johnson]

[andyb]

Irrespective, this should be in the 9/11 controversies section. If moderators don't comply then what chance have we got.

Also, why do we have to supply alternative hypothesis? all this makes us do is speculate and argue. There is already enough there for us to demand a new investigation.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Bongo]

I have to agree fully with AndyB, Judy Wood's challenge to NIST on the mandate of 'laser beam weapons' will be thrown out purely on the basis of it's rediculous speculation. This will also have the effect of permenantly sealing this avenue of attack to the majority of us within the truth movement who might have used this legal avenue to achieve more reasonable outcomes.

It would appear that Judy Wood is effectively pre-empting failure. I would bet the Neo-Cons are rubbing their hands with glee while looking forward to this 'Dis-information' spectacle. When it fails, they will be provided with more ammunition to acclaim "Look at the stupid conspiracy loons... See, told you we were right about them."

Personally (Only my opinion btw), Laser beams, NPT and all these other gems of disinformation are, as Alex Jones quite regularly points out, invented and intended to distract and discredit the truth movement. It is vitally important that the movement dis-associates itself with the perpetrators of this lies.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Thermate]

if steven jones thermate/thermite ideas are classed as "controversial", as they are according to ian neal (at a johnson's suggestion i'll wager ), then i'm damn sure 40+ pages of orbital bean weapon guesswork does too.

what is this guy still doing moderating this site, its a disgrace.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Thermate]

oh i need evidence do i? just like with shill allegations? if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, but i have no evidence it's a duck i must keep my mouth shut right?

[andyb]

Bongo is correct AJ, Stephen Jone's theories are also confined to the controversies section. As a mod you are abusing your priveleges. Tony G did the same with his Holocaust post last night. It is very clear on each section what goes where.

[Skeptic]

Is there any way we could produce our own challenge, which isn't based on speculative theory?

Or would we have to be US citizens?

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Thermate]

[Bongo]

I have to agree with Thermate... Beam weapons and NPT etc are 'Dis-info' stories put out with a view to damaging the '9/11 Truth movement'.

It is a standard propaganda tactic used by the guilty to muddy the waters and distract from the truth.

The same cannot be said for Steven E Jones, who has provided a hypothesis with a detailed scientific study, culminating in a paper which he offers up to be tested. That is good and professional scientific practice.

[Andrew Johnson]

[jomper]

I'd just like to add my voice to those that would like to see material relating to the idea that invisible beam weapons were used on 9/11, be they press releases or any other kind of material, moved to the controversies section. Thanks.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[brian]

From the Woods letter -

"Leaphart 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."


What a ridiculous statement - what beliefs are we supposed to believe are are cherished? That their Govt would only blow the towers up but never use space beams?

WE KNOW AND CAN PROVE USING THE WORK OF JONES ET AL THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION IS A LIE -

For those that still believe otherwise that proof alone should shatter any cherished in that respect. No need to also stretch their credulity to breaking point at the same time.

This is a joke and if Judy Woods did not appear to an out and out headbanger I would have no doubt this was deliberately destructive.

Whatever destructive is what it is. Read the rest of it -

".. a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects.."

Yes, and we have a hundred plus witnesses telling us of explosions.

"..incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes ."

Out on a limb.

"...Added 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."

"..whatever the energy and heat source was.."

Now its whatever.

Is there not a bin - let alone contraversies section?

[Craig W]

[paul wright]

The only reason this becomes 'controversial' is because a certain section start jumping up and down and shouting in response to the concept. I can't possibly comment on the mathematical equations that Dr Wood presents, but the rest of the evidence is excellent and I'm quite happy she should be making this submission,as I think others should be that she's doing this.
I find it quite extraordinary that someone should use the term 'conspiraloon' against Wood, when that is precisely the term of abuse used by those against the movement as a whole, ie those who just don't or won't get it. Perhaps this is just another level down.
Thanks Andrew, - full support and trust.

[andrewwatson]

Whther or not her theories turn out to be true ( I happen to find the evidence very compelling) this legal challenge is a milestone in the history of the 911 Truth movement and is of greater significance than the issue of DEWs alone , which is admittedly controversial,

As indeed was controlled demolition until quite recently.

[Skeptic]